Languish.org

https://www.insider.com/ed-sheeran-strums-guitar-sings-lets-get-it-on-trial-2023-4

This lawsuit is fucking stupid. "Thinking out loud" does not sound like "Let's get it on"

EDIT: Damn it! I fucked up a poll again. Locked the poll until  I can get it fixed by the mods.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 29, 2023, 04:17:48 AMhttps://www.insider.com/ed-sheeran-strums-guitar-sings-lets-get-it-on-trial-2023-4

This thread is fucking stupid. "Thinking out loud" does not sound like "Let's get it on"

EDIT: Damn it! I fucked up a poll again. Locked the poll until  I can get it fixed by the mods.

...snip...

FYP.

Thread needs to be mongerised. :D

Interesting. Been loads of these cases lately and I had heard of sheeran having one at the moment but usually they involve some obscure crap nobody has ever heard of.
In this case though it's very unlikely sheeran wouldn't have heard let's get it on. It's the more famous of the two.

I'm not so up on my music theory but it does sound like both use the same super simple beat. But I suspect a million other songs do too.
I wonder if this case will be one to mark a big legal precedent that you can't copyright fundamentals.

Poll fixed and unlocked.

Quote from: Jacob on April 29, 2023, 03:36:30 PMPoll fixed and unlocked.

Thank you

Quote from: Josquius on April 29, 2023, 01:40:17 PMInteresting. Been loads of these cases lately and I had heard of sheeran having one at the moment but usually they involve some obscure crap nobody has ever heard of.
In this case though it's very unlikely sheeran wouldn't have heard let's get it on. It's the more famous of the two.

I'm not so up on my music theory but it does sound like both use the same super simple beat. But I suspect a million other songs do too.
I wonder if this case will be one to mark a big legal precedent that you can't copyright fundamentals.

It's also the kind of song you hear so often you can't exactly place it right.  "oh it's that song from X".

So, while he did hear it, he probably had parts of it in his mind when writing his own song, like he had many other songs.

The Gaye estate brought the famous (infamous?) Blurred Lines case and ultimately received a $5 million payout on what was a pretty dubious theory.

Then about a year later, they tried to reopen the settlement by claiming Pharrell committed perjury.  That effort failed.

I think it's fair to hazard a guess that the Gaye estate is on the aggressively litigious side.  It certainly seems that the $5 million in reinforcement received for the earlier lawsuit hasn't discouraged them from suing again.

Quote from: Josquius on April 29, 2023, 01:40:17 PMI'm not so up on my music theory but it does sound like both use the same super simple beat. But I suspect a million other songs do too.
I wonder if this case will be one to mark a big legal precedent that you can't copyright fundamentals.

If that's the way things are going, then the profits of the entire popular music industry should be assessed to pay out royalties to the descendants of Robert Johnson, John Lee Hooker, and Bo Diddley.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2023, 10:45:16 AMThe Gaye estate brought the famous (infamous?) Blurred Lines case and ultimately received a $5 million payout on what was a pretty dubious theory.

Then about a year later, they tried to reopen the settlement by claiming Pharrell committed perjury.  That effort failed.

I think it's fair to hazard a guess that the Gaye estate is on the aggressively litigious side.  It certainly seems that the $5 million in reinforcement received for the earlier lawsuit hasn't discouraged them from suing again.

It's actually the co-author's (Ed Townshend) estate that is suing, not the Gaye estate.

I see, it seems the Gaye case has encouraged others.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2023, 09:20:05 AMI see, it seems the Gaye case has encouraged others.

Yes, definitely, my understanding is that these sorts of lawsuits have become common since the Blurred Lines suit.  Ed Sheeran is unusual in that he fights them rather than settling out of court.

Jury finds in favour of Sheeran - no copying.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/ed-sheeran-s-hit-song-thinking-out-loud-didn-t-copy-let-s-get-it-on-finds-jury-1.6832267

:w00t:

Can he counter sue for damages/legal fees?

Quote from: HVC on May 04, 2023, 02:49:47 PMCan he counter sue for damages/legal fees?

Not a counter suit.  The successful party in a litigation gets their costs - however that is defined in the particular jurisdiction.

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 04, 2023, 03:34:17 PM

Quote from: HVC on May 04, 2023, 02:49:47 PMCan he counter sue for damages/legal fees?

Not a counter suit.  The successful party in a litigation gets their costs - however that is defined in the particular jurisdiction.

Thanks. I was just thinking that making it a bit more costly to go after song rights would make people think harder about it.

Quote from: HVC on May 04, 2023, 03:47:57 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 04, 2023, 03:34:17 PM

Quote from: HVC on May 04, 2023, 02:49:47 PMCan he counter sue for damages/legal fees?

Not a counter suit.  The successful party in a litigation gets their costs - however that is defined in the particular jurisdiction.

Thanks. I was just thinking that making it a bit more costly to go after song rights would make people think harder about it.

The costs will likely be substantial - there was likely a fair amount of expert evidence and that does not come cheap.

Do the costs cover the cost of hiring Ed Sheeran for however many hours? He can't be cheap.