|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 28, 2018 8:55:21 GMT -6
The top line melody is completely different. The music is pretty damn similar. I still think it’s horrific precedent for this to be considered infringement. There are only so many common progressions in modern western music. m.tmz.com/?viewer_country=US#!article/2018/06/28/ed-sheeran-sued-thinking-out-loud-lets-get-it-on-marvin-gaye/ |
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jun 28, 2018 9:11:55 GMT -6
What exactly is being "considered" mean? I'm not sure, but I think it means you can sue anybody for anything if you have the money to ..and there's money to be made. Hopefully, it will go to court and the lawyers will win this one. I.e., they will be the only ones will make any money. Unfortunately, my understanding is that this is not the case in the vast majority of these suits. They are usually settled out of court ..which in this case means Sheeran will take the hit (pun intended).
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 28, 2018 9:27:23 GMT -6
Basically, they're suing for "style"....if that's the case, we're all screwed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2018 10:49:48 GMT -6
Just horrible. Poor Ed, and not the first time that jealous, greedy fuckers have tried to illegitimately stake a claim to his (well deserved) wealth by suing for supposed copyright infringement. Poor guy always settles out of court.  |
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Jun 28, 2018 17:13:22 GMT -6
every time I do a wedding gig, whenever we play this tune, it is part of a medley where the 2nd tune is "Let's Get It On" by Marvin Gaye. They're the same damn song, regardless of the difference in melody and lyric. Ed's not fooling anyone. I've seen gospel producers do the same thing with other vintage pop tunes, and their safety net is that they CREDIT the original artist and original songwriter as co-writers of the tune. You can't sue for ownership of something you already own! I'm pretty sure there are other pop tunes released in the last 5 years where the artist credited the original artists as co-writers to prevent this EXACT SAME SITUATION.
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jun 28, 2018 21:20:59 GMT -6
every time I do a wedding gig, whenever we play this tune, it is part of a medley where the 2nd tune is "Let's Get It On" by Marvin Gaye. They're the same damn song, regardless of the difference in melody and lyric. Ed's not fooling anyone. I've seen gospel producers do the same thing with other vintage pop tunes, and their safety net is that they CREDIT the original artist and original songwriter as co-writers of the tune. You can't sue for ownership of something you already own! I'm pretty sure there are other pop tunes released in the last 5 years where the artist credited the original artists as co-writers to prevent this EXACT SAME SITUATION. It's the same four chords as Gaye's. What's wrong with that? There are 100's of songs that use the same four chord progression (not necessarily this one, but that shouldn't matter). The groove is the same. What's wrong with that? Thousands of rock and roll songs have the same damn beat. The melodies are NOT the same (as you noted). So what's the problem? Shouldn't Gaye have credited Bach or Tchaikovsky, or some composer of the past who most certainly used those four chords in that order somewhere in the canon of their work (ok - maybe with inversions). So what does giving partial credit to someone else do anyway? Do they get some percentage of the royalties? ..50%? ..25%? Who decides? Does it have to be negotiated through Harry Fox or some similar entity? BTW, The first time I listened to Sheeran's song, I remember thinking that that it sounded like he was just riffing over Gaye's (changes and groove). But the thought that it was a copyright infringement didn't enter my mind. As far as I'm concerned, a song is defined by it's melody. If Ed sang his song a cappella you wouldn't for a moment make any connections. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 28, 2018 22:04:07 GMT -6
I didn't listen to either song to compare, but its my understanding (from talking to a music biz laywer years ago) that chord progressions are not copyright-able (I think I just made up a word). Neither are drums beats. Its the main melody, and lyrics, and perhaps overall "structure" of the song that determine infringement. As others that already noted, how many songs use a 1-4-5 progression? How many 12 bar blues songs are there? etc etc.
That being said, Marvin Gayes estate love to sue people, and Ed Sheeran loves to bit other peoples songs...I say stage a cage match and let them fight it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Jun 29, 2018 4:19:19 GMT -6
So what does giving partial credit to someone else do anyway? Do they get some percentage of the royalties? ..50%? ..25%? Who decides? When you credit them as co-writer, it's just like when you write a tune with 2 other people: each person gets 33% of the writer's credit. ASCAP or BMI split up the payments according to that split. 5 writers? it's split 5 ways. |
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jun 29, 2018 5:22:36 GMT -6
It makes sense that a progression can't be copyrightable. E.g., let's say four chords can't be copyrightable. Where do you draw the line? five? six? Pachelbel's cannon is eight and that's been used in a couple of pop tunes. Melody is the only thing that makes any sense. Otherwise, you could just re-harmonize a song here and there and call it an original.
The monetization of sound is a relatively new paradigm. Honestly, I'm not sure where I stand on the subject. Clearly these days the way music is monetized suggests that the song is simply not worth much ..if anything. It's the 'artist' and live performance that make money. A part of me feels that a lot of (not all) modern day song-writers are getting what they deserve. After all, it's only four damn chords - over and over. No doubt, Bach is rolling over in his grave. Pachelbel ..not so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 29, 2018 8:22:13 GMT -6
Unfortunately, the newest generation of attorneys seem to be incompetent at proving public domain.
|
|
|
|
Post by explorer on Jun 29, 2018 9:24:58 GMT -6
We're all doomed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 29, 2018 9:52:28 GMT -6
They're the same damn song, regardless of the difference in melody and lyric. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 29, 2018 9:54:46 GMT -6
every time I do a wedding gig, whenever we play this tune, it is part of a medley where the 2nd tune is "Let's Get It On" by Marvin Gaye. They're the same damn song, regardless of the difference in melody and lyric. Ed's not fooling anyone. I've seen gospel producers do the same thing with other vintage pop tunes, and their safety net is that they CREDIT the original artist and original songwriter as co-writers of the tune. You can't sue for ownership of something you already own! I'm pretty sure there are other pop tunes released in the last 5 years where the artist credited the original artists as co-writers to prevent this EXACT SAME SITUATION. It's the same four chords as Gaye's. What's wrong with that? There are 100's of songs that use the same four chord progression (not necessarily this one, but that shouldn't matter). The groove is the same. What's wrong with that? Thousands of rock and roll songs have the same damn beat. The melodies are NOT the same (as you noted). So what's the problem? Shouldn't Gaye have credited Bach or Tchaikovsky, or some composer of the past who most certainly used those four chords in that order somewhere in the canon of their work (ok - maybe with inversions). So what does giving partial credit to someone else do anyway? Do they get some percentage of the royalties? ..50%? ..25%? Who decides? Does it have to be negotiated through Harry Fox or some similar entity? BTW, The first time I listened to Sheeran's song, I remember thinking that that it sounded like he was just riffing over Gaye's (changes and groove). But the thought that it was a copyright infringement didn't enter my mind. As far as I'm concerned, a song is defined by it's melody. If Ed sang his song a cappella you wouldn't for a moment make any connections. If they add them as co-writers, they make a percentage of all the mechanical and performance royalties. Equal amounts as Sheeran or whomever. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 29, 2018 9:57:46 GMT -6
I didn't listen to either song to compare, but its my understanding (from talking to a music biz laywer years ago) that chord progressions are not copyright-able (I think I just made up a word). Neither are drums beats. Its the main melody, and lyrics, and perhaps overall "structure" of the song that determine infringement. As others that already noted, how many songs use a 1-4-5 progression? How many 12 bar blues songs are there? etc etc. That being said, Marvin Gayes estate love to sue people, and Ed Sheeran loves to bit other peoples songs...I say stage a cage match and let them fight it out. SUPPOSEDLY, only top line melody - for more than 4 bars - I think...are the judgement. But, proving intent and access can win the case too. For instance, there was a country song that was a huge crossover hit 15 years or so ago. The dumbo writer said in an interview that they were inspired to write it by sitting around listening to "XXXX"...the other artist sued and took all their money lol. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 29, 2018 10:10:48 GMT -6
We got sued all the time at Motown. I was told you can prove almost anything to be PD using the music archives at several universities.
|
|
kcatthedog
Temp
Super Helpful Dude
Posts: 16,076 
Member is Online
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jun 30, 2018 10:37:06 GMT -6
That video indicates that copyright infringement cases based on chord progression are laughably pointless.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jul 4, 2018 13:24:25 GMT -6
What about Uptown Funk vs Oops upside your head? That was literally just a simple rhythm used by every middle school cheer squad.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 5, 2018 11:59:55 GMT -6
Like it or not, Thicke and Pharrell changed life for songwriters forever. What can be defined as copyright infringement now was not copyright infringement 15, 10 or even 5 years ago. The Gaye lawsuit(s) have changed case law, which sets precidents, which have essentially screwed producers / writers. www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/robin-thicke-pharrell-lose-multi-million-dollar-blurred-lines-lawsuit-35975/Forget melody, forget number of notes, forget lyrical intent. It's all about VIBE intent now, and the industry is freaking terrified. Did you INTEND to jack the VIBE of "XYZ"?? If yes, then you are liable. I'd guess that Sheeran wouldn't be getting sued if it wasn't for the Gaye camp's victory in the previously mentioned suit. At this point, you can point to arrangement, drum fills, sonic texture as copyrightable elements. Publishers are quaking in their boots over this one. It will be interesting how it shakes out over the next couple of decades. Maybe it will be overturned and the tide will head the other way, but right now, publishers are literally getting sued by rock stars families over things as stupid as an iconic drum fill. Crazy times. How these suits shake out will form copyright infringement in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by happychap on Jul 11, 2018 10:14:04 GMT -6
Just listened to Sheeran then Gaye and they are pretty darn similar.
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jul 11, 2018 11:13:00 GMT -6
Just listened to Sheeran then Gaye and they are pretty darn similar. So assuming you were previously familiar with the Gaye, did the thought of similarity cross your mind when you first heard the Sheeran? (I did, but I'm still not willing to call it worth a lawsuit) Can you describe what you found to be "similar?" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2018 11:20:57 GMT -6
Saw Ed at the Stade de France last Saturday with 79,999 other people, it was amazing! He did that song too.
|
|
|
|
Post by happychap on Jul 11, 2018 13:13:09 GMT -6
Just listened to Sheeran then Gaye and they are pretty darn similar. So assuming you were previously familiar with the Gaye, did the thought of similarity cross your mind when you first heard the Sheeran? (I did, but I'm still not willing to call it worth a lawsuit) Can you describe what you found to be "similar?" Well, I have an iTunes subscription, so I listened to Ed's song (and tried not to think about Let's Get it On), then without pause, I put on Marvin and could hear the connection right away. Is it actionable? I don't know. But it's an interesting listening exercise. |
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Jul 12, 2018 15:03:51 GMT -6
yeah, I think all the people here who are like "It's not the same song waaaahhhhhh" need to perform that same experiment ^
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jul 12, 2018 15:30:01 GMT -6
yeah, I think all the people here who are like "It's not the same song waaaahhhhhh" need to perform that same experiment ^ Part I is the smell test - yeah, it 'reminded' me.. ..but part II is a bit trickier - Describe what is similar. |
|
|
|
Post by happychap on Jul 13, 2018 8:00:02 GMT -6
yeah, I think all the people here who are like "It's not the same song waaaahhhhhh" need to perform that same experiment ^ Part I is the smell test - yeah, it 'reminded' me.. ..but part II is a bit trickier - Describe what is similar. Honestly, you just have to listen: Sheeran then Gaye. And I don't think anyone here is going to be litigating this case, so it's more a matter of experiencing what's going on. |
|
