Ed Sheeran sued for copying Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On"

[Ezekiel 23:20–21]

Ed Sheeran sued for copying Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On"

Ed Sheeran is on the receiving end of a monster $100 million lawsuit by a company claiming the singer ripped off a Marvin Gaye classic.

A company called Structured Asset Sales filed the lawsuit, claiming Ed's song, "Thinking Out Loud," is a carbon copy of Gaye's "Let's Get it On."

According to the lawsuit, Sheeran's song has the same melody, rhythms, harmonies, drums, bassline, backing chorus, tempo, syncopation and looping as "Let's Get it On."





www.tmz.com/2018/06/28/ed-sheeran-sued-thinking-out-loud-lets-get-it-on-marvin-gaye/?adid=hero3

and

[Harx]

Key difference is that when you get it on to Marvin Gaye it's hot (although cliche), when you get it on to Thinking Out Loud, it's f**king awkward

[kanfad]

Damn, the Gaye estate is ruthless

[kcdawg13]

Wow fuck Marvin Gaye's family. They have no business doing this a second time.

The courts better not bend over again, this is ridiculous.

[Deleted]

From what I understand, this isn't the Gaye family's lawsuit..

FWIW, I think "Thinking Out Loud" is an even bigger rip-off than "Blurred Lines".

[Ezekiel 23:20–21]

But then "Happier" also sounds like it was done over a backing track that is a combination of Sam Smith's "Stay With Me" and Tom Petty's "I Won't Back Down." :sip2:

[Deleted]

While I don't doubt that artists use other songs to write their songs, it also seems like a given. It's called being influenced and creating your own hybrid of things you've been influenced by.

[SHOOTER]

Jun 22, 2018 19:05:33 GMT -5 @antigonerising said:

F*CK THE MARVIN GAYE ESTATE'S COUCH, N***A!!!!!!!!

[Deleted]

Ed Sheeran i never listen to having heard his song now for the first time, and after listening to Marvin gayes for the thousand time, i rule in favor of this being a COPY pay up a sum bigger than Ed himself. Troll looking ass motherfuker.

[Choco]

Good lord. Basically any huge song now is either sued for being a copy or the artist eventually gives credit to avoid the lawsuit (already happened to Sheeran with "Shape of You").

[Exclusive]

Wow.

[Glove Slap]

Mar 22, 2018 13:57:55 GMT -5 Glove Slap said:

Nona Gaye deserves to be placed in a special circle of hell where headphones playing Crazy Frog on endless loop are sewn onto her ears and her nipples are repeatedly ripped off.

Add a hyena ripping her genitals to shreds for all eternity for good measure. I want it to be a scene that will make Antichrist look G-rated in comparison.

[aerodynamite]

Another of these?

[Gary]

Ed Sheeran's Copyright Battles Are Much Weirder Than Anyone Can Imagine
News
By Eriq Gardner | June 28, 2018 4:36 PM EDT




Investment bankers, Bowie bonds, paternity challenges & alleged adoption concealment -- when it comes to a copyright lawsuit over "Thinking Out Loud," alleged to be a rip-off of Marvin Gaye's classic "Let's Get It On," there are fireworks.
Ed Sheeran is one of the most successful singer-songwriters working in the pop music industry today. He's also been repeatedly sued for copyright infringement. He had to give up part ownership of "Photograph" last year to settle one lawsuit. He's also facing pending litigation over a song he penned for Tim McGraw and Faith Hill. But in terms of sheer oddness, that's nothing compared to what's going on over Sheeran's "Thinking Out Loud," alleged to be a rip-off of the Marvin Gaye classic "Let's Get It On."

"Let's Get It On," released in 1973, was co-written by Ed Townsend Jr., whose "heirs" are now pursuing copyright claims against Sheeran and associated music companies. And yes, there's a reason for the use of quotation marks, as this legal battle has recently introduced paternity and the guy who invented "Bowie bonds," among other things.

We'll start on the latter topic since a new lawsuit filed on Thursday is getting attention without the really interesting context.

Back in May, an entity called Structured Asset Sales wrote a letter to the New York judge seeking permission to become an additional co-plaintiff in the case over "Thinking Out Loud."

Represented by attorney Hillel Parness, who was once the head of litigation at Warner Music, Structured Asset Sales was founded by investment banker David Pullman, who made a splash in the late 1990s by scrutinizing future royalties to musical intellectual property and then selling these asset-backed securities to other investors. David Bowie was just one of many musicians who decided to sell off future income in exchange for money upfront. Other scrutinized works included songs from James Brown and The Isley Brothers.

Structured Asset Sales apparently made a deal with one of Ed Townsend Jr.'s children, Clef Michael Townsend, and alleges owning a piece of "Let's Get It On." As either the part owner of the song's copyright or a beneficial owner of proceeds from the song, Pullman's company asserts a stake in the litigation.

Nevertheless, U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan on June 11 rejected the motion for intervention because he said it was "clearly untimely." In his decision, Sullivan pointed out how the case over "Thinking Out Loud" was a "widely publicized action," with great press attention, and yet Structured Asset Sales had waited about two years until discovery was closed in a bid to become involved.

Pullman's company is now appealing up to the 2nd Circuit, but in the meantime, Structured Asset Sales filed a new lawsuit today that basically repeats the claim that "Thinking Out Loud" is a copyright infringement of "Let's Get It On."
The alleged infringement will of course be tested on summary judgment in the first case (or technically, the second case, as Townsend's heirs had to sue twice after initially failing to serve papers on defendants).

Typically, what's most important at this stage is the musicologists weighing in on similarities between the respective songs as well as depositions from those involved in creating the music. And while this case has plenty of that — plaintiffs point out that Sheeran segued "Let's Get It On" with "Thinking Out Loud" in performances, nod to correspondence between Sheeran and his manager about the similarities and fight defendants' contentions about unprotectable elements like common song structures and percussive rhythms — Judge Sullivan will have even more to think about this time.

One of Townsend's children and a co-plaintiff in this lawsuit is Kathy Griffin (not the comedian). Sheeran's camp is challenging her standing because they say she "was adopted by others at birth and under California law of intestate succession, she has no right to succeed to Mr. Townsend's interest in the song."

A letter to the judge on Wednesday by Pryor Cashman attorney Donald Zakarin, representing the defendants and outlining coming summary judgment papers, goes even further in explaining the challenge.

"Kathryn's lack of standing due to her adoption was first confirmed at her deposition dated April 24, 2017," writes Zakarin. "Based largely on hearsay, Kathryn testified as follows: (a) while she believes Townsend is her biological father, no DNA or paternity testing was performed (and Plaintiffs have failed and refused to produce Kathryn's birth certificate), (b) Townsend supposedly conceived Kathryn with an unknown woman of the Catholic faith who refused to raise her, (c) the physician who delivered Kathryn supposedly cared for Kathryn during the first few months of her life (which sounds improbable at best) until Shirley and Earnest Griffin adopted Kathryn and moved with her to Mississippi, where they raised her until she reached the age of majority, and (d) Kathryn was approximately 26 years old when she first learned that she had been adopted and that Townsend allegedly was her biological father."

The attorney for the plaintiffs argues that Griffin was determined to be a lawful heir a decade ago by a probate court and was awarded an interest in Townsend's music catalogue. The plaintiffs add that Sony/ATV — one of the co-defendants — has been paying Griffin royalties on "Let's Get It On" through that time without any objection.

Zakarin responds that defendants examined California probate court records to investigate and came to the conclusion that heirs withheld information a decade ago and thus "tainted" the determination.
"In particular, plaintiff Helen McDonald, who initially served as the 'Personal Representative' of Townsend's estate in the probate proceedings, concealed Kathryn's adoption from the Court," he writes. "In fact, she specifically represented to the Court that Kathryn had not been adopted."

Zakarin adds that Jobete Music — not Sony — administers rights to "Let's Get It On" and has been paying royalties based on information provided by McDonald and Griffin and represented as accurate.
In sum, the dispute over whether Marvin Gaye's most iconic songs has been infringed and has become something extraordinary. An investment banker with alleged beneficial ownership is coming forward with his own claims while the supposed "Let's Get It On" inheritance by one of the songwriter's biological children is being doubted — all this emanating from a celebration of lovemaking.
This article was originally published by The Hollywood Reporter.

[Ezekiel 23:20–21]

The simplest thing that Ed Sheeran (and any other artist) can do is *gasp* come up with an original song. Or if one must draw inspiration from a song from the past, give proper credit and get the proper permissions. Chances are that once a song is recorded and played for others, someone is bound to notice similarities between it and some other song if such similarities exist, specially in a case where the song it's resembling is so well-known.

[House Lannister]

Funny how Marvin Gaye didn't get that kind of support from his family when he was alive...

If Thinking Out Loud is a rip off of Let's Get It On, then so is Die a Happy Man (particularly the first half minute).

I think the suit is petty, but will agree with Pastor Daddy that it's better to just credit the artists of any songs that influence your music.

If Austin Mahone can do it, what's his excuse?

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Jun 28, 2018 16:57:25 GMT -5 Ezekiel 23:20–21 said:

The simplest thing that Ed Sheeran (and any other artist) can do is *gasp* come up with an original song. Or if one must draw inspiration from a song from the past, give proper credit and get the proper permissions. Chances are that once a song is recorded and played for others, someone is bound to notice similarities between it and some other song if such similarities exist, specially in a case where the song it's resembling is so well-known.

Everyone draws inspiration from the past. There's no way to not. Most people (if not all) become musicians because they love music. If there was such a similarity with this song, one would think someone involved in its creation or the label itself would have noticed it and put a stop to it. Blurred Lines had more similiarities than these.

[Kris]

Next they'll sue Ed Sheeran for having the same amount of syllables as Marvin Gaye. What a ridiculous concept.

[Dylan :)]

I mean, I can hear how they're similar, but it doesn't sound like a "carbon copy". Songs sound like songs. Listen to Bad Liar by Selena Gomez and then Blurred Lines by Robin Thicke and probably countless other examples. This is just a cash grab. I heard an old song the other day (which I now forget the name of) and it sounded exactly like Love On The Brain by Rihanna. It doesn't automatically mean Rihanna copied them and they can try to sue her

[Fat Ass Kelly Price]

Meh. I’d need to take a real listen to the songs and look at the sheet music, but from the moment it was released I always heard “Let’s Get It On”.

His live mashup does of the two does him no favors either.

[Relaxing Cup]

I mean...they do sound very similar. The mashup evidences that.

[garrettlen]

People need to read the article, this isn't Marvin Gaye's family suing, it's the heirs of one of the other co-writers of the song "Let's Get It On."

And that adoption thing is just a huge mess.

[shrk314]

The J.S. Bach estate should sue the Let's Get It On writers for using the I-IV-V progression lol! Seriously though, this is getting ridiculous, there are hundreds of millions of songs in existence, some of them are going to be similar. And when we start talking about 4-chord romantic slow-jams, a lot of them are going to be similar. I hope this doesnt go through. I wont pretend the songs arent similar, but IMO you should be able to "copyright" chord progressions and rhythms

[Deleted]

Jun 28, 2018 13:45:05 GMT -5 SHOOTER said:

Jun 22, 2018 19:05:33 GMT -5 @antigonerising said:

F*CK THE MARVIN GAYE ESTATE'S COUCH, N***A!!!!!!!!

Lord, this is really finna be the most relevant post I ever make on this board isn't it?

Ed has had repeated problems with alleged copyright infringement so I feel a little bad for him b/c at this point he's an easy mark. It's clear that he uses other songs as a starting point for his own works and then spins it into his own direction, but he doesn't 'erase' his influence trail enough and he gets dinged for it. But I feel this particular instance is definitely not lawsuit-worthy. The melodies and vocal harmonies of TOL and LGIO are obviously different (TOL doesn't even use any vocal bgvs), which only leaves the instrumental to quibble over. And the only thing Ed borrows from LGIO there - if he even got it from LGIO at all - are the underlying chord progressions (which even a Rolling Stone critic in 2008 described as "classically simple chord changes").

Progressions are literally the second thing that you are taught when playing piano, right after being taught what the notes are. TOL doesn't use the funky bass line or swingy electric guitar rhythms or fluttery sax riffs at all, and it's those parts that make LGIO so distinctive. But because that basic chord progression is the underpinning that LGIO built the bass line and guitar and and sax parts on, and TOL was so barebones that the chord progression is literally the entire focus of the instrumental, it will sound like a copy of LGIO to a layman. And that's what pisses me off most of all, knowing the voir dire process. Attorneys purposely select average joes and janes with no knowledge of whatever the trial's main subject matter is for the jury so they can 'guide' them into making uninformed decisions that will be passed off as a judgment by one's "peers." It's a fucked up system and leads to awful precedents.

[shayonce]

well. welcome to 2018, you gotta credit just anyone out there and old songs to make sure.

[#LisaRinna]

Get him Nona!

#justiceforBlurredLines

ETA: Yes, I'm aware this isn't the estate suing.

[weaver]

Ehh...well, yes, Ed's vocals work over the instrumental and vice versa, but I'm not hearing very much similarity in the melody. The tempo is the same, and the chord progression is the same. Chord progressions are finite, and thus do not fall under copyright. I feel like there was another suit that ended in "you can't copyright a chord progression" but I can't remember what it is right now.

Anyway, I don't feel like Ed sat down and consciously copied Let's Get it On, nor do I think any of these artists involved in these things copied intentionally. It's like the Seinfeld episode when Elaine thinks she can draw a cartoon for The New Yorker, but she accidentally copied a "Ziggy."

"Puddy has Ziggy bedsheets...it must have seeped into my subconscious!"

[stunnedout]

It’s about time.

[newpower]

does this mean that the Blurred Lines people can sue Ed Sheeran too?

[#LisaRinna]

Jun 29, 2018 7:05:29 GMT -5 newpower said:

does this mean that the Blurred Lines people can sue Ed Sheeran too?

Why would they? Different songs, different influences.