Ed Sheeran Copyright Trial
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Anonymous
Agreed |
Anonymous
I really hate today’s mainstream music, it’s just simply trash. Just recycled and rearranged music from earlier artists. |
Anonymous
| FFS. NOT/GUILTY are not options in a civil trial. Be smarter. |
Anonymous
He is GUILTY of stealing music from black artists. |
Anonymous
True |
Anonymous
|
It makes sense — as explained in the article, as legal matter, the musical notes are what is subject to copyright. You can’t copyright “style” or production & you don’t want jurors distracted by that sort of thing. The jury found that Sheeran wrote a new song, even if it was in the “style of” Marvin Gaye (which is what the mashup showed). |
Anonymous
I heard that the defense pointed to 80 songs with the same chord progression, and around 33 of these predated Marvin Gaye's song. When I was learning guitar, we learned 3 or 4 chords to start with, then practiced a number of different songs using just these chords. |
Anonymous
|
I can think of three other songs with this issue -
Last Dance with Mary Jane and Dani California (Petty did not sue, said he assumed there was no negative intent and a lot of rock songs sound the same) Blurred Lines and You got to Give it Up (notably also brought by the Estate of Marvin Gaye, but they won) Ice Ice Baby and Under Pressure (Bowie and Queen were credited as part of a settlement) In each of those three you could easily hear the similarities. In this case you could not and I think it was a huge stretch. Not surprised the Estate lost. |
Anonymous
The recent one that was most obvious to me (not a songwriter, but played piano for a dozen years and sang, recorded and arranged music for longer) was Sam Smith’s “Stay With Me” / Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down.” That one I noticed the similarities before the hubbub began. |
Anonymous
No he is not. |