So, Ed Sheeran's day in court has arrived....

[ElmerJFudd]

OK, so the pop machine that is Ed Sheeran, like most popular song writers - uses chord progressions, grooves and vibes from years past to inspire new material. 

And he finds himself in court after a long wait to explain how his tune differs from Let's Get it On.  His frustrations include the limitations in chord changes that build pop songs, how easily a case can be brought against any number of songs.  He found a tune older than Let's Get it On that has the same progression.  Beato points out how the melody and the lyric are entirely new even as the progression and the groove are similar or even the same.  Ed's tune also has an additional section.  

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/ed-sheeran-on-copyright-lawsuits-you-are-going-to-get-this-with-every-single-pop-song-from-now-on/ar-AA1aKrTJ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=06bf6e1182e244be873d3f62869891fc&ei=166

 

 

 

[Docbop]

 

Going back four years......  

 

 

 

[Leroy C]

Once they decide you can own chords, I have dibs on Ebm7!

 

[Anderton]

 

[mate stubb]

Ed won.

[Bill H.]

While the Beato video gets it right that Thinking Out Loud has a chorus, what he actually plays is part of the bridge. The chorus starts with "Oh honey now take me into your loving arms" - the main hook. I've played this song as a DJ many times, and it's the part everyone sings along to the loudest. And the melody is completely different than anything in "Let's Get It On". Lawsuit went the way it should have. 

[Docbop]

The main thing all these lawsuit show is the old copyright laws don't work in the digital age how music is made is too different now.   Basically copy needs to switch to the mechanical copyright for a complete recorded work has to be what's protected and royalties paid on.   That would cover people sampling and how song today have a laundry list of writer because this person wrote two bars and these people wrote four bars another created the beat and so on and on.  Greg Phillinganes posted about the lawsuit on his IG and I posted basically the same thing and he agrees with me.   

 

[K K]

Decades ago, I bought the rights for the Skriabin chord, the James Bond chord and Stravinsky's Sacre du Printemps chord. So you're warned. Anyone trying to use them is gonna be in trouble.

[apple]

I'm pretty sure Jimi Hendrix owns the E7#9 chord. 

[SamuelBLupowitz]

2 hours ago, apple said:

I'm pretty sure Jimi Hendrix owns the E7#9 chord. 

You know what, that one he can have. He earned it and I owe him every time I use it.

[JamPro]

3 hours ago, apple said:

I'm pretty sure Jimi Hendrix owns the E7#9 chord. 

Nuun-un.  Allman Bros. own the E7#9 - it is even conversationally called "the E. Reed Chord".

 

I am wondering however what the "James Bond" chord is: the Em/Em#5/Em6 combo that makes up the bulk of the melody, or that Em/Maj7-9 that ends it. 

[K K]

1 hour ago, JamPro said:

I am wondering however what the "James Bond" chord is: the Em/Em#5/Em6 combo that makes up the bulk of the melody, or that Em/Maj7-9 that ends it. 

Yep.

[TommyRude]

I recently purchased and now own A Major.  I accept Venmo, Zelle, Paypal, Remitly, and of course, cash.  No coins please.

[ElmerJFudd]

Concise wrap up,

 

https://www.nytimes.com/article/ed-sheeran-marvin-gaye-copyright-trial.html

[Thethirdapple]

Last line of the article sums it up for me:

“There’s only so many notes and very few chords used in pop music,” Mr. Sheeran said, in a video posted to Instagram. “Coincidence is bound to happen if 60,000 are being released every day on Spotify.”

 

Beato put out his thoughts regarding AI, so on point. All of this will seem like childplays with endless lawsuits to come… things change and we learn to surmount that change.

 

 

[Old No7]

But who owns the infamous "Layla" chord?  (In the piano-driven outtro...)

 

Old No7

[JohnH]

on a similar topic Blurred Lines was not anymore of a rip off than Emotional Rescue was of the Marvin Gaye song. Lawsuit was ridiculous.

[El Lobo]

I guess the Beatles own the opening chord of Hard Day's Night. Or would that just be Paul now? I wonder how much it would cost to buy it.

 

[ElmerJFudd]

18 minutes ago, El Lobo said:

I guess the Beatles own the opening chord of Hard Day's Night. Or would that just be Paul now? I wonder how much it would cost to buy it.

 

The analogue tape?  A fortune.  A digital audio NFT?  $90. 

[MathOfInsects]

This one was so clearly bound to fail from the beginning, I couldn't foresee any path to victory for those doing the suing.

Also, it makes me VERY OCD that everyone keeps saying the progression is the same. The second chord is obviously different. This is making keyboardists across the world cringe and everyone else shrug. #ourstruggle

[RABid]

I assume Motown will continue to take anyone and everyone to court whenever they see an opportunity. That "we own half of any song we publish" clause they pressured writers into is still paying off big.

[MathOfInsects]

Just now, RABid said:

I assume Motown will continue to take anyone and everyone to court whenever they see an opportunity. That "we own half of any song we publish" clause they pressured writers into is still paying off big.

For sure, but I don't see how this paid off for them. Eight years of legal fees for a case they never had in the first place. That can't be profitable for them. 

 

[AnotherScott]

2 minutes ago, MathOfInsects said:

This one was so clearly bound to fail from the beginning, I couldn't foresee any path to victory for those doing the suing.

That's what I thought about the Blurred Lines suit. 

 

1 minute ago, RABid said:

I assume Motown will continue to take anyone and everyone to court whenever they see an opportunity. That "we own half of any song we publish" clause they pressured writers into is still paying off big.

Maybe I missed something, but I don't think Motown was a party to this suit.

[Floyd Tatum]

8 minutes ago, AnotherScott said:

That's what I thought about the Blurred Lines suit. 

Maybe I missed something, but I don't think Motown was a party to this suit.

 

I also immediately thought of the Blurred Lines suit when I read this.   I think the Gaye family is behind these lawsuits - they were behind the Blurred Lines case, IIRC.   I couldn't believe it when they won that one.   I think if there were any actual musicians on the jury they would have lost.

[MathOfInsects]

10 minutes ago, AnotherScott said:

That's what I thought about the Blurred Lines suit. 

To me, while I personally thought that case bent some rules (see how I didn't say "blurred some lines"?), I could at least see the argument in favor of infringement. I didn't expect the suit to succeed but could picture a path that would lead there, particularly once given how the case unfolded. 

This one? No path, obviously and forever. If anything, Van Morrison came closer to ripping the song off than Sheeran did, and Van Morrison didn't rip it off either. You might as well sue someone for practicing the same scales as you.

[MathOfInsects]

5 minutes ago, Floyd Tatum said:

 

I also immediately thought of the Blurred Lines suit when I read this.   I think the Gaye family is behind these lawsuits - they were behind the Blurred Lines case, IIRC.   I couldn't believe it when they won that one.   I think if there were any actual musicians on the jury they would have lost.

No, his family wasn't involved in this one. It was only the family of his co-writer. I believe his family has said they did not believe any copyright infringement had occurred here. 

[o0Ampy0o]

Jimmy Hendrix was doing Classical music on heroin. I believe the statute of limitation expired but I wouldn't mind something shutting down every non-Hendrix Little Wing present and surely to keep coming.

[apple]

Be careful from now writing a song  going from G to C. It could sound like Jump.

[ProfD]

The estate of Bobby Hebb would be very rich if they had sued for every song built on the "Sunny" progression.😁😎

[EVC]

Sorry if this is somewhat off-topic, but...

 

I always thought of plagiarism as copying the tune/melody, it surprised me when I heard of the trial and both melodies played apart and I thought WTH? I watched some videos on the matter out of curiosity and come to understand the hmmmmm subtleties, but as many pointed out above, especially with the video of Axis of Awsome, you may have different melodies that look a lot alike when mashed up but that are different as far as notes are concerned. IMO the harmony in these is not exactly outstanding; there are some music with more elaborated harmony where it would be difficult to take the harmony and not look a flagrant copy even if the melody notes were different.

 

OTOH, and here is the OT of the post, there are some tunes that are very look alike, because of not very sophisticated harmony or cadence but there is one that I think is a extreme example. I know the original (at least I think it is the original), See You in September, and heard a few times an almost verbating copy of most of the measures. Unfortunately I do not know the name of the singer, he has the same singing style of Michael Boublé  (I don't think it is Michael, from memory the voice is different). Does somebody know the song I am talking about?