• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ed Sheeran Sued Over Allegedly Copying Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On"

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lightskintwin

Banned
https://www.yahoo.com/music/ed-sheeran-sued-over-allegedly-142121267.html

The latest celeb to fall prey to this deja vu litigation is the world’s favorite Grammy Award-winning redhead, Ed Sheeran.

Yup, the 25-year-old English singer-songwriter is currently the target of the co-writer’s family of Marvin Gaye’s iconic boudoir track, “Let’s Get It On.” The co-writer’s relatives are pursuing legal action against Sheeran with the claim that his chart topping tune, “Thinking Out Loud” is too reminiscent of the 1973 hit.

The co-writer of the song himself, Ed Townsend, passed away in 2003, but the family and their lawyers, I suppose, are just now ruffled by the similarities heard on Sheeran’s song that came out two years ago. The court papers claim, “the Defendants copied the heart of ‘Let’s’ and repeated it continuously throughout ‘Thinking,'” adding that, “the melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic compositions of ‘Thinking’ are substantially and/or strikingly similar to the drum composition of ‘Let’s.'”

The Townsend clan is pushing for the case to go to trial and be determined by a jury, which will surely happen if both parties can’t come to an amicable agreement.
Click to expand...

Ironically, or perhaps not so much, the lawyer in this aforementioned case is the same one who emerged victorious in the lawsuit against Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke, in another copyright case stating their already controversial hit, “Blurred Lines” ripped off a song by, you guessed it, Marvin Gaye.
Click to expand...
In that case, The jury awarded nearly $7.4 million to Gaye's family.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/...ing-off-marvin-gayes-lets-get-it-on/88526740/
Townsend's family noted that he continued to perform the song after they notified him of the copyright infringement claim last year. They want a jury trial and monetary damages.

Also named in the suit are Sheeran's co-writer Amy Wadge, producer Jake Gosling, Sony/ATV Music Publishing, Atlantic Records, Warner Bros. and others.
Click to expand...

Links to both songs for comparison.
Ed Sheeran "Thinking Out Loud"
https://youtu.be/lp-EO5I60KA

Marvin Gaye "Let's Get It On'
https://youtu.be/cqkwykA4iFw

I'm surprised this suit didn't come sooner, but I suspect they purposely waited until the song made as much profit as possible before suing him. IMO Ed Sheeran is going to lose this suit bad, and him along with his label, and publishing company are going to pay a huge figure. Probably have to include Townsend's name in the writing credits and have to forever pay his estate a percentage of the publishing and record sales.
 
C

Cipherr

Member
Thats weird, they didn't look to get a clearance for that? Its super obvious when you hear the track. I would have immediately assumed they sampled Gaye. Wonder why they would just try and get away with it, Im pretty sure that song has been legally sampled a bunch of times before.
 
H

hodayathink

Member
I didn't agree with the Blurred Lines decision, and I don't really agree with this either. But I'm not a lawyer so my opinion doesn't really mean anything.
 
L

lightskintwin

Banned
hodayathink said:
I didn't agree with the Blurred Lines decision, and I don't really agree with this either. But I'm not a lawyer so my opinion doesn't really mean anything.
Click to expand...

I didn't agree with the Blurred Lines decision either, but knew afterwards Thinking out Loud was going to be in big trouble because that song was a much bigger rip off.
 
D

DiipuSurotu

Banned
Any chance that the Gaye estate lose the case, on the ground that it took them over two years to notice this 1-billion-view hit?
 
L

lightskintwin

Banned
DiipuSurotu said:
Any chance that the Gaye estate lose the case, on the ground that it took them over two years to notice this 1-billion-view hit?
Click to expand...

Did you read the OP? It's not the Gaye estate suing, it's the composer and co writer Townsend estate that is and they issued a copyright claim last year to him, and Sheeran still kept performing the song.
 
K

kmax

Member
The tempo of drums sound very similar. Otherwise, the songs are different.

Tough call.

It's not just the drums either. Still unsure how this will play out in court, but perhaps they have a case here.
 
T

TheOohChild

Member
First time I heard the song, I thought it was a sample. But that is only because I couldn't hear it very well. It's just uses the same chord progression, but the arrangements and melodies are completely different. Pretty much the same as the Last Dance with Mary Jane / Dani California thing.
 
T

thcsquad

Member
I said that the first time I heard it (chord progression+tempo+some rhythmic motives are very similar), and everybody told me I was crazy.

I never thought it would be something that would get sued over. I interpreted it as a nod to a classic.
 
B

bearbomb

Neo Member
Haha. My band shares a jamspace with a few other bands and from the other room we heard what I thought was let's get it on, but as we opened the door we realized it was that ed sheeran song.

It was probably mostly the bass and the rhythm of the song though.
 
L

lightskintwin

Banned
bman94 said:
I thought the Blurred Lines case was a stretch and I think this is an even bigger stretch.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious. The Blurred Lines was a much bigger stretch. I remember when Blurred Lines lost their case, people in the music industry were legit shook. Last year the day after the Blurred Lines guilty verdict, Spin Magazine wrote an article, "Blurred Lines Isn’t Even the Biggest Marvin Gaye Ripoff This Decade"
That’s all troubling enough, though it’s unlikely that this verdict will have such extreme implications for cases long since passed. But what really makes you wonder about the wide-reaching effect of this decision is when you consider that however much of a plagiarism “Blurred Lines” is of Gaye’s, it’s not nearly as egregious a steal as another contemporary pop smash: Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud.”

“Thinking Out Loud” is a very nice ballad, one whose seductive groove, sentimental lyric, and full-hearted vocal has taken it all the way to No. 1 on Billboard’s Pop Songs chart. It is also an incredibly obvious successor to Marvin Gaye’s 1973 superlative slow jam “Let’s Get It On” — the gently loping four-note bass pattern and crisp ’70s soul drums absolutely smack of the Gaye classic, as do the embrace-insistent lyrics and general candlelit-bedroom feel. The similarity has been pointed out by pages and pages’ worth of YouTube mashups and covers, and even by Sheeran himself, who has blended the two songs in live performances. Personally speaking, I didn’t even notice the similarity between “Blurred Lines” and “Got to Give It Up” until it was pointed out to me, but the second I first heard the bass drop in “Thinking,” I was overcome with the urge to buy Levi’s.
Click to expand...
 
O

otapnam

Member
i noticed the blurred lines similarity but didnt noticed this one till i turned it up and listened for the bass line.

Going to need someone to separate the track out for a better listen though.
 
The Faceless Master

The Faceless Master

Member
the Blurred Lines case really blurred the lines for this kind of stuff

this is an easy layup in comparison, but imo neither of these cases should be a win

DiipuSurotu said:
Any chance that the Gaye estate lose the case, on the ground that it took them over two years to notice this 1-billion-view hit?
Click to expand...

nope, that's only for Trademarks.
 
4

4444244

Member
I think if the estate of a dead person wants to file a lawsuit for this kind of bollocks, they should be forced to dig up the corpse and take it into the courtroom in a wheelbarrow.

The idea that you can make money off the IP of a dead person is fucked.

If I remember correctly, some random dude owns the IP for Audrey Hepburn's image rights and he has made cash selling image rights for adverts etc. WTF do you really think that Audrey Hepburn would appreciate some cunt making cash literally over her dead body.

And those other tosspots suing Led Zepplin, latest on that is that the band can't get their costs back, even though they flippin won, because the judge thought that the claimants had a 'good case'. Used to be that if you won, you get your costs back and the losers has to cough up.

Pisses me right off.
 
S

SonofdonCD

Member
Yeah, I also am surprised it took this long. The harmonic structure is too similar, and the rhythmic figure it's being played on is exactly the same. In this way, it's even more similar than Blurred Lines was. It's more similar to how Stay With Me apes Won't Back Down, though that song also apes the melody in the chorus.

The Chords are (if we were to play them both in C Major, just to make it easier):

C - Em or C/E - F - G

This is the chord progression for Verses of Let's Get It On and the verses and choruses of Thinking Out Loud (the only real difference here is that the Em is in the Marvin song, and the C/E is in the Ed Sheeran song. You could play the other in the other's song and it would sound effectively the same, though, as only one note is different between those two chords). They both have a few distinctly different chord progressions in different parts of the songs (The Bridge/B Section for Let's Get It On and the Pre-Chorus and Turnaround/Ending for the Choruses for Thinking Out Loud), but the bulk of both songs use this progression. Let's Get It On is in Eb Major, and Thinking Out Loud is in D Major, just a half-step removed, so almost the same key.

The rhythmic figure they use is the first chord hits on the downbeat of the first measure, the second on the second half of the second beat, and repeat that for the second measure for the third and fourth chord (it's hard to describe this without showing it). Just know they play the chords at the exact same time in each song.

Is it enough to say he copied the song and should be sued for it? I don't know. But it's close enough that if I was Ed Sheeran I would've either changed the chord progression and/or the rhythm of the chords, so it wasn't so blatantly similar. Or perhaps talk to the Gaye estate into licensing the song so there would be no problems.
 
X

Xanathus

Member
Errrr as an average music listener and non-musician, both songs sound completely different... every time these kind of threads come up I just shake my head at musicians saying so and so rip off the songs when at the end of the day there are only so many chords and tempos that can be used. It's just petty.
 
L

lightskintwin

Banned
SonofdonCD said:
Yeah, I also am surprised it took this long. The harmonic structure is too similar, and the rhythmic figure it's being played on is exactly the same. In this way, it's even more similar than Blurred Lines was. It's more similar to how Stay With Me apes Won't Back Down, though that song also apes the melody in the chorus.

The Chords are (if we were to play them both in C Major, just to make it easier):

C - Em or C/E - F - G

This is the chord progression for Verses of Let's Get It On and the verses and choruses of Thinking Out Loud (the only real difference here is that the Em is in the Marvin song, and the C/E is in the Ed Sheeran song. You could play the other in the other's song and it would sound effectively the same, though, as only one note is different between those two chords). They both have a few distinctly different chord progressions in different parts of the songs (The Bridge/B Section for Let's Get It On and the Pre-Chorus and Turnaround/Ending for the Choruses for Thinking Out Loud), but the bulk of both songs use this progression. Let's Get It On is in Eb Major, and Thinking Out Loud is in D Major, just a half-step removed, so almost the same key.

The rhythmic figure they use is the first chord hits on the downbeat of the first measure, the second on the second half of the second beat, and repeat that for the second measure for the third and fourth chord (it's hard to describe this without showing it). Just know they play the chords at the exact same time in each song.

Is it enough to say he copied the song and should be sued for it? I don't know. But it's close enough that if I was Ed Sheeran I would've either changed the chord progression and/or the rhythm of the chords, so it wasn't so blatantly similar. Or perhaps talk to the Gaye estate into licensing the song so there would be no problems.
Click to expand...

The bolded exactly. I was actually surprised Ed Sheeran didn't clear the usage just to make certain.
 
A

Alpha Centauri

Member
Isn't the provision for the everyday listener to be able to tell? Like asking Joe on the corner if these songs sound the same.

As someone who has studied music theory I can hear the similarities, but the every day person? I dunno.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
Sounding "similar" shouldn't be grounds for suing. Specific riffs, hooks, obvious melodies being copied should. That isn't happening here.

Setting precedent where this is grounds to sue, it's going to be near impossible to write a song anymore.
 
P

Puppet Shadow

Member
lightskintwin said:
The bolded exactly. I was actually surprised Ed Sheeran didn't clear the usage just to make certain.
Click to expand...
It's a chord pattern. Most songs only use variations of maybe a dozen chord progressions. The rhythm of the song is a pretty standard one as well. What gets most song writers into trouble as far as plagiarism is concerned is when a singing melody is copied, which in this case it's not. There's also no 'hook' that's similar in these two songs.

I can't see them winning this case.
 
P

PillarEN

Member
I wouldn't even weep a single tear if Ed was banned from music and exiled to a remote island. But I'll defend him and any other artist from these kinds of lawsuits. Hope he wins out of principle.
 
W

Wafflecakes

Member
Don't hear it.


Thinking Out Loud is the better song. Though I am sure most will disagree with me due to GAF's hard-on for hating all modern music that is popular.
 
L

lightskintwin

Banned
Puppet Shadow said:
It's a chord pattern. Most songs only use variations of maybe a dozen chord progressions. The rhythm of the song is a pretty standard one as well. What gets most song writers into trouble as far as plagiarism is concerned is when a singing melody is copied, which in this case it's not. There's also no 'hook' that's similar in these two songs.

I can't see them winning this case.
Click to expand...

Have you looked at the "Blurred Lines" case and listened to those songs? Before that case, I might've agreed with you.

Marvin Gaye "Got to Give It Up"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4r0-LJZBDM

Robin Thicke - Blurred Lines
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDUC1LUXSU

Wafflecakes said:
Don't hear it.


Thinking Out Loud is the better song. Though I am sure most will disagree with me due to GAF's hard-on for hating all modern music that is popular.
Click to expand...

You mean a real Soul artist from Motown with one of the greatest voices of all time singing the quintessential sex song versus Ed Sheeran's sweet delicate version. C'mon son, and it's not like I think Ed Sheeran's song is bad or anything.
 
Tarkus

Tarkus

Member
When I first heard this song last year I thought for sure Sheeran would be sued. It sounds just like it to me.
 
L

lightskintwin

Banned
ryutaro's mama said:
Who is the guy that ripped off Tom Petty's "Won't Back Down"?

Was that this guy too?
Click to expand...

You're talking about Sam Smith's "Stay with me". There wasn't a lawsuit because when Petty's publisher contacted Smith's team about the similarities they reached a settlement that added Petty and Jeff Lynne as co-writers, and that they would receive a 12.5% songwriting credit.
 
R

ryutaro's mama

Member
lightskintwin said:
You're talking about Sam Smith's "Stay with me", but when Petty's publisher contacted Smith's team about the similarities they reached a settlement that added Petty and Jeff Lynne as co-writers, and that they would receive a 12.5% songwriting credit.
Click to expand...

Thank you!

I knew it was one of those guys.
 
S

SonofdonCD

Member
VendettaRed07 said:
Sounding "similar" shouldn't be grounds for suing. Specific riffs, hooks, obvious melodies being copied should. That isn't happening here.

Setting precedent where this is grounds to sue, it's going to be near impossible to write a song anymore.
Click to expand...

I don't view it that way.

I'm a musician (if you couldn't tell by my earlier post). I write songs. I'm always aware that sub-consciously I could be copying another song, either melodically, harmonically, rhythmically or lyrically. But so long as I'm not aware of it, I just go about my business and finish writing.

Most songwriters, I'd imagine, do just this. But songs like Blurred Lines and Thinking Out Loud, the writers should know those Marvin Gaye songs. Those songs are ICONIC. They should've realized while writing them that they sounded very, very similar, if not exact. And it doesn't matter what the masses think: they don't have the ears nor the knowledge to make this determination. So what you should do at that point is what I said earlier: Change it so it doesn't sound similar (cause why would you want others to think you copied another artist? and why would you invite being sued by said artist willingly?) or get the rights from the artist to use their song how you see fit.

I was on a road trip to Austin, Texas with my bandmates last year for SXSW, and we listened to Taylor Swift. The album used the same damned I - V - VI - IV chord progression (and one or two variations on it) for the vast majority of the album. It all sounded "samey", but I could tell they weren't trying to copy each other. Most current Pop music uses the same basic chord progressions, especially on the choruses. And they all sound samey for it. But these two songs don't just sound "samey"; they go beyond samey and sound like homages. They sound like they are purposely trying to ape the feel and sound of a certain song, not just a general genre. They sound like they are purposeful imitations. Hell, my band does a mash-up of both songs (and I know we're not alone in doing this), and even Ed Sheeran himself does a mash-up of both songs when he performs! That's proof enough for me that he knows how similar they are.

Look, there are many, many ways to differentiate your songs from others, even if there are similarities. Yeah, you might inadvertently copy an obscure song from before you were born, but you can't be afraid of that happening. So long as you don't do it consciously, you'll be fine.
Wafflecakes said:
Don't hear it.


Thinking Out Loud is the better song. Though I am sure most will disagree with me due to GAF's hard-on for hating all modern music that is popular.
Click to expand...

I don't like to get into wars about what media is better than other media, but this one statement I feel compelled to comment on.

Lyrically, melodically and the performance of the lead vocal, depends on your tastes, I guess. But musically? No, absolutely not. That instrumental track on Let's Get It On is so much more intricate and beautiful and detailed and full and fully realized. I could come up with many, many adjectives to lavish on the Marvin track.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Roblox facing $200 million lawsuit for allegedly using music without authorisation
Drama Business
2
665
Knightime_X replied
The man who owes Nintendo $14m: Gary Bowser and gaming’s most infamous piracy case
2
85
5K
SHA replied
Phil Spencer interview - Says that their intent is for all Xbox games, including Call of Duty, to be available on Xbox Game Pass Day One
2 3
102
6K
Kenneth Haight replied
PUBG Mobile maker Krafton sues Apple, Google and rival game developer Garena over ‘clones’
Business Game Dev
14
2K
Negotiator101 replied
Missouri police officer told to 'tone down your gayness' reaches $10 million settlement, gets promotion
2
65
3K
H4ze replied
Top Bottom