Summary
of the Case
In the summer of 2016, the famous British pop-singer Ed
Sheeran faced a second copyright infringement suit of the year, the latter
being over his hit song “Thinking Out Loud”.
This suit was one in a series of several copyright and plagiarism suits that
have been circulating in the media during 2015 and 2016.
The plaintiffs, the heirs of the composer Ed Townsend, who was
the composer behind Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It On”, claim how Sheeran’s “hit
song "Thinking Out Loud" copies core elements of the late soul
singer's 1973 track”.
This case has often been compared to the lawsuit that Marvin
Gaye’s family filed against Robin Thicke and Pharrell, stating how Thicke’s “Blurred
Lines” copies Gaye’s famous song “Got to Give It Up”. The said suit was
resolved in $7.4 million in damages for the Gaye family. Hence, many critics
cannot shy away from drawing lines in between the two cases. Nonetheless, in Ed
Sheeran’s case, Gaye family has held their distance from being involved,
letting Ed Townsend’s heirs to tackle the case.
In the details of the lawsuit, it is stated that Ed Sheeran “copied
the major aspects of the melody, harmony and composition of ‘Let’s Get it On’ for
his hit “Thinking Out Loud’ ”. As the comparison of two songs was given in the
article, the gist of the songs’ melodies and harmonies truly resemble each
other.
This suit, however, seems to find its roots in social media
comments that were motivated by the Spin’s article, in which the author of the
article explains in detail how much resemblance do the two hits, “Thinking Out
Loud” and “Let’s Get It On”, actually have. So, after publishing its critique
to the Sheeran’s no.1 hit, many social media users took their time to point out
the flaws in the Sheeran’s famous song. Otherwise, it is questionable whether
this suit would even find its way to court if it weren’t for the power of mass
and social media.
Legal Questions
Considering the fact that the precedent of the Sheeran’s
copyright case is set in Robin Thicke’s and Pharrells copyright infringement
suit, it will be interesting to see how many details are going to be considered
for Sheeran’s case. According to the article, “the precedent set in their case
looms over all new copyright infringement claims. Notably, the court took into
account not just sheet music, but studio arrangement too, and ruled that
"Blurred Lines" significantly aped the vibe of "Got to Give It
Up," something that had previously been beyond copyright protection”.
So as it can be seen, new aspects of copyright protection have
been added to the law, which might guide the direction of Ed Sheeran’s case as
well.
Relevant Doctrine
The category of law in this case is intellectual property,
more specifically infringement of copyright (plaintiff’s case) that was brought
about by Ed Townsend heirs. For the sake of the understanding, infringement is
defined as an unauthorized distribution, use or sale of a product protected by
copyright, trademark or patent law.
In order to be eligible for a lawsuit of infringement, the
plaintiff’s work must have been previously protected by the copyright, which it
was. The lawsuit was filed in 2016, whereas the song in the question, “Let’s
Get it On”, in under copyright protection since 1973. Even though the song came
out prior to January 1, 1978, it is still protected by the copyright law, as it
hasn’t yet been 95 years since the song’s release.
The plaintiff must be able to prove the following four points
in order to successfully win the infringement lawsuit in court: whether the
work is protected by a valid copyright/ patent law, it also must prove the
ownership of the patent that was registered in the official institution for
that. Finally, the plaintiff must be able to prove one of the following two
aspects – whether there is evidence the defendant directly copied the work, or did the infringer have access to
the work, and the two works are substantially similar.
Is the work
protected by a valid patent law?
Yes. According to the article, the song was released
mid-1970s, where the song had to be officially and legally registered to gain
copyright protection, as soon as it was put in some kind of tangible medium
(presumably vinyl record at the time). Hence, rational conclusion is that the
lawsuit against Sheeran wouldn’t be possible if the plaintiff didn’t disclose a
document proving its legal copyright protection.
Does the
plaintiff own the copyright?
Yes. With the lawful copyright protection that had to be
registered and couldn’t be automatically assigned to the published work, it can
be assumed that the plaintiff has the ownership over the copyright.
Was the
patent registered in the Copyright Office?
Although this information is not given in the article, it may
be acceptable to guess that the copyright protection was issued to the plaintiff
in the relevant institution. As it was stated previously, any work released prior
to January 1, 1978 had to be registered and granted copyright protection. Also,
further looking at the level of fame of the song, and other work by Ed
Townsend, it can be assumed that all of his work must have been lawfully
protected and registered in the Copyright Office.
Is there
evidence the defendant directly copied the work, or did the infringer have
access to the work, and the two works are substantially similar?
Considering the facts given in the article, the plaintiffs
claim that “[t]he melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic compositions of ‘Thinking’
are substantially and/or strikingly similar to the drum composition of ‘Let’s’
”. Hence, in this particular case, the plaintiff chose to answer the latter
question in the attempt to prove the copyright infringement.
Taking into account the given facts in the analysis of the
plaintiff’s case, it can be concluded that, even with the assumed elements of
the case due to the lack of information in the article, the plaintiffs have a
strong case against the defendant (Ed Sheeran). However, since the analysis
hasn’t touched upon the Fair use or Transformative Use defense, it cannot be
claimed that the plaintiff’s case would be actually successful.
Conclusion
Contemporary laws on copyrights are limiting new and emerging artists
and creators in building off of some previous works. Nonetheless, after
listening to both of the songs (‘Thinking Out Loud” and “Let’s Get It On”), the
melody and the harmony seem to be substantially similar. Additionally, through
the analysis of the plaintiff’s case for infringement, it seems as if Ed
Townsend heirs meet all the standards in order to successfully prove the
infringement case against Sheeran in court.
Nonetheless, since the articles covering this story were
fairly vague and didn’t offer a lot of technical details of the case, there are
still many elements that could weigh the case either way.
References
Blistein,J. (August 9, 2016). Ed Sheeran Sued for Allegedly Copying Marvin Gaye's 'Let's Get It On'.
Word Count: 1144 words
No comments:
Post a Comment