Sheeran Gone Done and Won

Bidley · April 2022

Filthy rich peddler of dross beats (comparatively) poor peddler of dross in court. Yawn.

Hopefully we'll hear less about these now.

fretmeister · April 2022

As it's obvious that hardly anyone in this thread has actually read the judgment, here it is:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2022/827.html

darthed1981 · April 2022

fretmeister said:

As it's obvious that hardly anyone in this thread has actually read the judgment, here it is:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2022/827.html

While not a lawyer, the key bit seems to be...

(1) While there are similarities between the OW Hook and the OI Phrase, there are also significant differences;(2) As to the elements that are similar, my analysis of the musical elements of Shape more broadly, of the writing process and the evolution of the OI Phrase is that these provide compelling evidence that the OI Phrase originated from sources other than Oh Why;(3) The totality of the evidence relating to access by Mr Sheeran to Oh Why (whether by it being shared with him by others or by him finding it himself) provides no more than a speculative foundation for Mr Sheeran having heard Oh Why;(4) Taking into account the above matters, I conclude that Mr Sheeran had not heard Oh Why and in any event that he did not deliberately copy the OI Phrase from the OW Hook;

Looks like a pretty big win for Sheeran unless I've read it wrong (genuine question)?

fretmeister · April 2022

Yes. The key bit being the defendant could prove that Sheeran had ever heard the other song. And the wording of the judgment means an appeal is unlikely to be successful either.

Philly_Q · April 2022

fretmeister said:

As it's obvious that hardly anyone in this thread has actually read the judgment, here it is:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2022/827.html

And still haven't read it.

That's a lot of text.

fretmeister · April 2022

That’s really short for an IP judgment!

rsvmark · April 2022

Genuine question: how much of this was a genuine ‘that’s my song’ and how much was an attempt to rinse an extraordinarily wealthy chap?

darthed1981 · April 2022

rsvmark said:

Genuine question: how much of this was a genuine ‘that’s my song’ and how much was an attempt to rinse an extraordinarily wealthy chap?

I think it was 100% a rinsing attempt, the verdict fretmeister linked to above shows in a court of law little or no merit was found in the claim of copying.

The worry was, if the claim had somehow succeeded, it would have been open season. Streaming has concentrated revenues in the hands of a few even more acutely that the old industry, it's now very hard to get to the point of making money from recorded music the "old fashioned way".

Most acts are adapting by pursuing the "1000 true fans" strategy, some are finding different ways...

EricTheWeary · April 2022

There was quite a lot about this in Newsnight last night. Sheeran and his co-writers now film all their songwriting sessions so they have evidence (not sure how that proves they didn’t hear something on the radio on the way into the studio).

Philly_Q · April 2022

EricTheWeary said:

There was quite a lot about this in Newsnight last night. Sheeran and his co-writers now film all their songwriting sessions so they have evidence (not sure how that proves they didn’t hear something on the radio on the way into the studio).

I heard that, and found it completely baffling... what's to stop them from listening to Huey Lewis and the News for two hours, then turning the camera on and writing the theme for Ghostbusters?

darthed1981 · April 2022

Philly_Q said:

EricTheWeary said:

There was quite a lot about this in Newsnight last night. Sheeran and his co-writers now film all their songwriting sessions so they have evidence (not sure how that proves they didn’t hear something on the radio on the way into the studio).

I heard that, and found it completely baffling... what's to stop them from listening to Huey Lewis and the News for two hours, then turning the camera on and writing the theme for Ghostbusters?

The fact they weren't listening to Ray Parker Jr?

Tannin · April 2022

Philly_Q said:

EricTheWeary said:

There was quite a lot about this in Newsnight last night. Sheeran and his co-writers now film all their songwriting sessions so they have evidence (not sure how that proves they didn’t hear something on the radio on the way into the studio).

I heard that, and found it completely baffling... what's to stop them from listening to Huey Lewis and the News for two hours, then turning the camera on and writing the theme for Ghostbusters?

What is to stop them?

Me!

I wrote that tune in 1972. Ray Parker stole it from me twenty years later.

crunchman · June 2022

The other guys have been ordered to pay £900k in legal costs. That might deter others from bringing this kind of case in the future.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/jun/21/ed-sheeran-and-co-writers-awarded-900000-in-costs-over-copyright-case

Hattigol · June 2022

I thought Sheeran would lose, I have to say. I think it's a massive rip-off.

Plus he's got form for it. Every time I hear one particular song of his, I think it's a karaoke version of Let's Get It On.

MentalSharps · June 2022

Playing devil's advocate, but would it really be that awful if you could indeed copyright a chord progression in combination with thematic lyrics?

Would it not return music back to the actual musicians who are capable of more interesting compositions and/or lyrics, as labels would eventually have to pay royalties to continue their current regurgitative model where pop stars are just as likely to be simply a product for the label to sell, barely a musician, more of a vehicle for the generic songwriting and composition of hired in ghostwriters/producers, or, take more risks to champion originality and creativity and put effort into promoting it to the public.

fretmeister · June 2022

crunchman said:

The other guys have been ordered to pay £900k in legal costs. That might deter others from bringing this kind of case in the future.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/jun/21/ed-sheeran-and-co-writers-awarded-900000-in-costs-over-copyright-case

That’s only an interim payment.

Usual interim payment order is usually about half of the costs that can be challenged and all that cannot.

There will be a “Detailed Assessment” hearing at the specialist costs court to decide the final amount.

It gets more painful than that too. Interest on the outstanding sum (above the 900k) will be at 8%

Costs entitlement hearing judgment is here

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2022/1528.html

The lengths the loser went to argue that he shouldn’t pay Sheeran’s costs is extreme and unusual.

fretmeister · June 2022

Hattigol said:

I thought Sheeran would lose, I have to say. I think it's a massive rip-off.

Plus he's got form for it. Every time I hear one particular song of his, I think it's a karaoke version of Let's Get It On.

It’s only a rip off if he actually heard it before.

Hattigol · June 2022

fretmeister said:

Hattigol said:

I thought Sheeran would lose, I have to say. I think it's a massive rip-off.

Plus he's got form for it. Every time I hear one particular song of his, I think it's a karaoke version of Let's Get It On.

It’s only a rip off if he actually heard it before.

Agreed. But it's so similar - the progression, phrasing and the melody - I find it hard to imagine he hadn't.

And as I said, he has form.

Danny1969 · June 2022

Sheeran does it all the time. I couldn't believe how he ripped off the chorus of Amazing - Matt Cardle and used it on Photograph with different lyrics.
I'm basically allergic to him, if he comes on the radio I have to turn if off - guy does my head in.

darthed1981 · June 2022

MentalSharps said:

Playing devil's advocate, but would it really be that awful if you could indeed copyright a chord progression in combination with thematic lyrics?

Would it not return music back to the actual musicians who are capable of more interesting compositions and/or lyrics, as labels would eventually have to pay royalties to continue their current regurgitative model where pop stars are just as likely to be simply a product for the label to sell, barely a musician, more of a vehicle for the generic songwriting and composition of hired in ghostwriters/producers, or, take more risks to champion originality and creativity and put effort into promoting it to the public.

Yes it would be terrible. Accepting you are playing DA of course I think you have the following highly dubious points in there...

1. If you write a song, mathematically, that chord progression has been done. The vocal melody has been done. If you were to let someone copyright either, they would already be forced to share it with thousands of others.

2. Ed Sheeran is a pretty decent musician whether one likes him or not. Many fantastic songs have been produced by people who aren't the noodly fretwankers or blues bores beloved of the Fretboard.

3. There is no shortage of creativity or imagination in music, anywhere. Your supposition that if you only provided the more credible option people would flock to it is incorrect. It's like cancelling Ant and Dec and putting Shakespeare on instead, people would just turn off the telly!

4. Practically, there is nothing wrong with 1645, or a blues shuffle, or a drop d riff... they are starting points, it's like criticising star bakers for using eggs and flour.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

Sheeran Gone Done and Won

Comments