UPDATE: Ed Sheeran vs Marvin Gaye Lawsuit
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 เม.ย. 2023
- In this episode I will update you on the Ed Sheeran vs Marvin Gaye copyright lawsuit. I will again compare the two songs: Ed Sheeran's "Thinking Out Loud" and the Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On".
📚The Beato Ultimate Bundle - $99 FOR ALL OF Rick's Courses. Get it here: ⇢ rickbeato.com
📘- The Beato Book Interactive - $99.00 value
🎸 - Beato Beginner Guitar - $159.00 value
👂- The Beato Ear Training Program - $99.00 value
🎸- The Quick Lessons Pro Guitar Course - $79.00 value
… all for just $99.00
Get it here: rickbeato.com
My Beato Club supporters:
Justin Scott
Terence Mark
Farren Mahjoor
Jason Murray
Lucienne Kilpatrick
Alexander Young
Jason Wagner
Todd Ladner
Rob Kline
Nicholas Long
Tim Benson
Leonardo Martins da Costa Rodrigues
Eddie Perez
David Solomon
MICHAEL JOYCE
Stephen Stubbs
colin stead
Jonathan Wentworth-Linton
Patrick Payne
MATTHEW KARIS
Matthew Barouch
Shaun Samuels
Danny Kurywchak
Gregory Reedy
Sean Coleman
Alexander Verbitskiy
CL Turner
Jason Pappafotis
John Fulford
Margaret Carno
Robert C
David M Combs
Eric Flatt
Reto Spoerli
Herr Moritz Adam
Monte St. Johns
Jon Beezley
Peter DeVault
Eric Nabstedt
Eric Beggs
Rich Germano
Brian Bloom
Peter Pillitteri - เพลง
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.76[2/2] เดินมาสิบกว่าป่า วันนี้รู้แล้วว่าโจโฉกลัวอะไร!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/R7Yor-t2Au0/mqdefault.jpg)
There won't be many more of these law suits, because judging by Rick's top 20 rundown, no one is actually writing pop songs anymore.
By that token, they all sound the same now, especially dance beat stuff.
Unless they start copywriting single notes.
Amazingly, though all those songs are indistinguishable, they don't sue for copyright. I guess it would be bad for their business.
@@xaviconde Makes you wonder if there's some kind of Illuminati type thing going there, where it's the same few people writing (I use the term loosely) all these copycat "not songs" that proliferate the charts.
Unironically theres a lot of "new" songs that literally just take the distinctive beat and melody of 80s songs and put entirely other lyrics on top of it. Its stupid.
I hear a similarity but if we’re going to say songs can’t sound similar at all, we’ll have to stop writing new music.
See that's the issue, where do you draw the line because at some point there's not going to be an ability to make something that doesn't sound like something else
@@BitWrecker Then they're going to have to get creative, now won't they?
@Lucas Garrett there are 12 notes in the Western music scale. Unless you want to start adopting scales from Eastern and Middle Eastern music you're gonna run out of combinations eventually.
@@LucLightWolf121 ignorant perspective
@libtard
I just heard about this lawsuit and Ed Sheeran winning it today even though apparently it's been going on for 8 years already. I am familiar with both songs and I never made the connection of both songs sounding similar. Personally that tells me that the two songs are different enough.
Right?! The idea behind copyright is the stealing of ideas, and I have never listened to 'Perfect' and though "Ah yes, 'Let's get it on'"
Very well said! To me feels like Thinking Out Loud has the same "spirit" as Let's Get It On, the background instrumentation really sounds similar, can't deny, but I only connect both songs in my brain when they're being compared. If Let's Get It On starts playing, I don't think about Ed Sheeran, that song is iconic on itself, because it's the freaking VOCALS that matters the most in both songs.
Btw, paying attention, imho it's the drums' beat that makes the melody sound so similar, but the vocals just throw me off, I believe that knowing Let's Get It On before Ed Sheeran even came around helps... maybe people who hear the song for the first time have a different feeling/opinion.
I forget who said this, but Dave Grohl quoted the famous musician who said this, "The best song aren't made, they are stolen". I agree with that to the extent Dave explains his reasoning behind it.
Lol no, it doesn't indicate that the songs are different, it indicates that you're tone deaf
@@bernardsoul5186 Unless you're a music theory expert, then no, they're not.
Sometimes lawsuits like these make me feel like the suer is a washed up has been desperate for money. It’s like disrespecting someone that admires you, too. 🤷🏾♂️
Wow. There are incredibly bad takes and then there's this. Net level ignorance.
Marvin Gaye isn’t washed up, he is dead and is a legend(my remark is not related to the lawsuit at all, just saying he is a great musician. What’s Going On album is wonderful)
The person suing is not the artist
@@vhufeosqaphis family are actually racist who are suing him
@@vhufeosqap You’re right about that but the very lucky people who have inherited his royalties are pushing their luck with this lawsuit. Fortunately, Ed is no fool and he went to court with guitar in hand and gave them a valuable lesson in music history. Marvin Gaye must be turning in his grave about the whole debacle.
@@mackcarlo How are they racist?
The sad part is that this lawsuit has nothing to do with the artists themselves. I would imagine that if Marvin Gaye was still alive, it would be settled by having them sing a duet together or something along those lines.
That collaboration would be epic, too.
If Any thing it's helping Marvin's sales. Ones about jungle fever the other is about falling in love again.
He's a thief!!!
Your probably right.
Perhaps little ed could write him a "black power track" popular from that period,or if that failed one about a trans teenager struggling to fit in,Im sure marvin would have been thrilled.
These lawsuits are hardly ever brought by the original artists - we're all being held to ransom by trolls. Copyright law has gotten completely out of control, and now it's nigh on impossible to come up with a melody that doesn't replicate some part of some tune from the last century. This has to stop.
It'd be a little tough for the original artist to sue in this case since Marvin Gaye was murdered by his own dad back in 1984.
While copyfrauders still can false claim rights on other people's work here on TH-cam or any other platform
The goal of copyrights is to create a monopoly and they are not the only monopoly ploy around.. any IP regulation has the same outcome - society protecting a few first comers against competition from all that come after. IP creates a winner takes all environment.
A scottish social philosopher wrote this 250 years ago:
_"The interest of the dealers [referring to stock owners, manufacturers, and merchants.. anyone really], however, in any particular branch of trade or manufacture, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens."_
&
_"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."_ Adam Smith
Well of course as most artists families sue as the original is dead.
Melody isn't part of this lawsuit. It's all about a backing track. I hear the same or very similar backing tracks on so many songs because how can anyone create any backing track nowadays and not stumble on a similar one from the past. Was disappointed that Rick believed any compensation was necessary for a backing track. Unreal.
Justice prevailed! I'm no Sheeran fan, but for the sake of the music industry, then I was happy with the verdict.
Exactly! Same thoughts as with that Katy Perry thing. Not a fan of Perry or Sheeran, but the defence was and is important to musicians.
She got robbed
if you can take a backing track, pitch shift into another key, and vocalize a different melody and have a new song? We are about to have another "Sampling in music" type of legal revolution. I still think Ed She-ran ripped it off. Sure his lyrics and melody are original, but any one who has musical sense could develop the lead on any other instrument, and then train the voice to follow the lead, yes write lyrics, and a skill in its own right, but I still think the owner ship is borrowed.
@@chrishansel95 sure his lyrics and melodies are ?????... Why not call Lynda right away
@@chrishansel95 You're dellusional lol
Very interesting! Occasionally I hear a song that reminds me of another song, but I never connected these two and I like and listen to both.
You cannot copyright a chord progression. Imagine of someone in the movie, book, or game industry managed to successfully sue someone else over the use of the Hero's Journey
It's not simply a chord progression
@@topherthe11th23 Im convinced these people saying the melody is a copy don't know music theory or know how to read sheet music.
Indeed you can't, but that's not what we're talking about.
This is less akin to someone copying the hero's journey, and more like someone starting their story with 'Long ago in a a galaxy far far away' and expecting it to be okay because there's only so many words.
@@phpn99 Chord progression, "groove", and rhythm are not subject to copyright.
You can't copyright a chord progression, but you can copyright harmony. Harmony originates from a chord progression, but the sound of the harmony isn't dictated by that chord progression. Big difference. Here's the list of things you can copyright : Lyrics, Melody, Harmony, Rhythm
i think of how many times i've "written" a guitar riff and super excited about it then 3 weeks later i hear an old song on the radio and I'm like oh...guess i can't use that one
Theres really no issue though, just play the song as a cover and problem solved, or change it, but give credit
I completely understand. I heard my son playing a song the other day on the piano when I recognized the melody. I asked him who the artist was, and he said it was a K-pop artist. I told him the verses sounded like “Bed of Roses” by Bon Jovi and sang the Bon Jovi verse on top of his piano. It was very close. Do you think these Korean artists have heard Bon Jovi? I think it’s just the same chord progression so simply coincidence.
@@robertchutonogbanua2564 dude korea and japan are not the isolated cultures they once were, they have been heavily influenced by western pop culture
@@robertchutonogbanua2564 Bed of Roses is very popular on asian countries.
Exactly, strange how every time I play the song thinking aloud I always continue to “ you’re still the one” by Shania Twain, because the two songs flow same way almost same chords progression. It is just crazy they will sue the guy. Marvin Gaye would never had allowed it I am sure he would have smiled and sing along. May He continue to Rest In Peace.
i love the softer lighting in this video to differentiate between your normal content and music news or updates. cool beans
Hey Rick, with the recent passing of Gordon Lightfoot, I'd love to see your anaylisis of Gordon's "If you could read my mind", versus Mike Masser's "The greatest love of all", made famous by Whitney Houstan. As you may know, this resulted in a lawsuit back in the 80s...
Enjoy your posts.. keep up the great work!
Didn’t know that.
Every song I've written was inspired by other music I've heard, in one way or another. Corporatization of music is killing the art.
Spotify and all the greedy streaming channels are killing music.
Exactly.
@@EDOGG62 Yes
@@EDOGG62 the day Spotify crashes will be celebrated by me!
Exactly. Art is all about being influenced. I think the law needs to be changed to show malicious intent for example a big artist stealing something almost note for note from a lesser known artist. But apart from that people should let it slide. It's art, not science
I was chatting to a professional author at a party, and he said it was weird when he first turned professional as he knew he was trying to make a living using the same words that everyone else had access to , just putting them in a different order.
Songwriters are in the same boat.
Yes but so much worse since there are tens of thousands of words to choose from, but only 11 notes. Or 7 if you stick to the standard notes in a diatonic key. Or 5 if use a pentatonic scale common in rock!
Now imagine someone trying to copyright grammar.
Correct. All the same notes but not in the same order!
( with apologies to Andre, Eric & Ernest)
Ed won! Fox News, said to check with Rick Beato to better understand why. Well here it is.
@@BillBaxter Every story has been told before, they transcend language and exist from even before they started to be written down, so an author has a real battle ahead of them. While there may be thousands of words, not that many see frequent use and a book that has you checking your dictionary every few sentences becomes tedious to read. The choice and arrangement of words are all a writer has, the sound of the words in the reader's head doesn't vary, the timing of the words doesn't either, apart from punctuation.
From a friend of mine and lawyer (not mine LOL):
So...Sheeran won the infringement suit and really deserved to win the suit.
As a songwriter, I found out early on that your friends and family love to compare your songs (particularly your early songs) to songs and writers they know. "That sounds like Billy Joel!" Or, "did you take that from Let it Be?"
The thing is--with pop music there are only so many ways to combine chords. And a simple song, like Let it Be, uses a chord structure that has been used in thousands of songs (both before and after it was written). Let it Be is a great song because of what McCartney did with that structure.
I've linked to the recent Rick Beato video (pre-verdict) in which he argues that Sheeran borrowed his verse chord progression and sound from Gaye's Let's Get it On (and that Sheeran should pay part of his profits to the plaintiffs). It's a convincing video. The verses in Thinking Out Loud do have the same tempo, chord structure, and drum and bass rhythm as Gaye's tune.
But Beato didn't quite understand what was at issue in the case. The plaintiffs (heirs of Gaye's co-writer) only had a piece of the "musical composition" copyright. Think of it as the "sheet music." It's the lyrics, melody line, and chord changes. They didn't have the "sound recording" copyright--which is a copyright for the song as performed/produced.
So you're basically comparing sheet music. The songs share a chord progression (which Sheeran has in his verses)--but the melody lines (notes and rhythm) in those verses are completely different. The lyrics are completely different. And Sheeran's song has a completely different chorus and bridge chord structure.
In my view, the case shouldn't have gone to trial. You can't enforce a copyright on a common "chord progression" used in many, many pop songs. The jury got it right.
Beato's analysis would at least be interesting if the "sound recording" copyright was at issue. To borrow his analysis, when you listen to the verses side by side, the musical similarities are substantial--not just the chord progression but the rhythm tracks, arrangement and sound.
I still would side with Sheeran because I don't think the progression and sound combination are that unique AND because I think the overall effect of the two songs are very different. I hear the similarities, when played side by side; but when I first heard Thinking Out Loud, I didn't think of Let's Get it On.
The chord progression plus being almost identical in groove, bass line and tempo is what prompted this lawsuit. I think the mechanical similarities with Etta James "I'd rather go blind" and Chris Stapleton's "Tennessee Whiskey" are much stronger. It is noteworthy that the melodies are different in both examples.
I think what will be argued in court is that Ed benefitted greatly from the collective consciousness of the music listening public being exposed to "Let's get it on" for nearly 40 years beforehand. Between the two songs how do you value the predecessor? It can be argued that "Thinking out Loud doesn't stand solely on it's own merits but on the familiarity of "Let's get it on". Tens of millions of people might have liked the song consciously or subconsciously because of "Let's get it on."
I agree with credit/acknowledgement being given but not total $$ in "damages." Who exactly was damaged and how were they damaged? If anything this song fueled a resurgence for the popularity of "Let's get it on." How then do we calculate the added value to the copyright? It can be argued that a 40 year old song had lost relevance and popularity in the musical landscape and that "thinking out loud" brought it back into our collective conscience. This creates a never ending loop. Both parties benefitted financially.
Bro Martian gav stole it as well
I have played Thinking Out Loud 100 times and Let's Get It On has never come to mind when I've listened to it, and I've played that a lot too.
How old are you???😂😂😂😂
Marvin who? 😂
I grew up in the Marvin Gaye era, loved his music! Like you, I do NOT think of Let's Get It On when I hear Thinking Out Loud.
@@thebabyeateryuki They said the "and" -- that Let's Get It On doesn't comes to mind...meaning the lawsuit is unwarranted because the songs are not that similar.
Let's Get It On didn't just come to mind, I fully expected Marvin to start singing instead of Ed.
I think all lawyers should be sued for suing in the same sue style that other suers have sued in.
Edit: For people saying I copied the comment, yes I did and so to let you know that I'm not taking any credit for it just letting out some old comment to some people and making their day and plus the situation is such that its still the same so why not? And why won't I,if it makes people smile to these mind blowing copyright of song. It just cuz of ridiculous common chords and the tempo. I don't know why people are so triggered or sensitive about me copying a comment which does even benifits me. Talk about which should be a copyright and which not to be lol.
Agreed 😂
Sue sue studio?
Say that 3 times fast....
The supreme court is currently reviewing your comment for copyright infringement.
By a boy named Sue!
Good work from you!!!! RESPECT.... THANKYOU FOR THAT.. By the way I love both songs...... Everybody has enough money.... So what are they fighting for.... There is enough for everybody of them.... Ed is a genius song writer.... It's not his attitude to copy an old song.... He is much to genius for that.... May he win with the defending to this case.... Much Love from Danmark 🇩🇰
This is hilarious. Whatever the relative merits of this case, I can assure you that Ed Sheehan is most definitely NOT a genius.
I’m curious. Are there any songs pre-“Let’s Get It On” that also flow similarly?
Also, how much of the feel and tempo of the backing track is controlled by the artist? Do artists have to consider the influences of their backing musicians?
Apparently Sheeran played many songs that had similiar progressions in court with his own guitar. From Gayes to many songs from 50s and 60s that are really well known.
Sheeran's legal team found examples of that same chord progression dating back to the 1700s, never mind just the examples from the 1950s-1960s.
You cannot copyright a chord progression. This case is nonsense
Totally agree. I was literally just thinking that when I saw your comment.
@@andybradshaw5971 were you thinking out loud
In a sense. But the chords can become part of the larger pattern. Melodies on the other hand are more of a strike. If you copy the chord prog. AND the melody AND this and that. Then you ripped the song off and it's a copywriter claim.
It's more than just the chord progression. It's the entire sound of the verse. I don't think it's a accident. Having said that, it's Marvin Gaye's ESTATE which is advancing the lawsuit. The artist was killed by his bigotted father. I'm not entirely comfortable with musical lawsuits, let alone ones that don't even involve the original composer.
Unless its a word for word type of deal, this is nonsense. I hope Ed wins the case. You guys realize that, given the chance, record labels WILL sue and copyright EVERYTHING that makes music enjoyable.
Never get between a hungry Lawyer and a bucket of money
Or the PIG & his trough!
I totally agree. Lawyers are parasites and our legal system is not about truth, justice, right and/or wrong. It's about lining the pockets of lawyers.
Sweet verse
This is it right here.
Even though this is close, songs that sound like other songs is nothing new. These changes and feel have been used in a number of songs. The 50s had so many songs with changes and feel. I vi ii V are all part of many of the 50s songs. I’ve written several songs where parts could be construed to be stolen. They weren’t as what I heard at the time is what I wrote.
Legally, if I’m not mistaken, for a song to to be held as violating a copy, 2 of 3 terms have to be copied by a new work:
Lyrics
Melody
Cadence
Sheeran’s song can be argued uses the same chord progression, which isn’t illegal. But it doesn’t use any of the 3 aforementioned terms.
Ed won,now you all can shut up and listen to his songs peacefully!!
I wouldn't be surprised if there are more than one tune out there written prior to Let's get it on with the very same progression, especially for how simple and basic it is! It's Marvin's take on the progression, his singing, and lyrics that really make the tune. You can take or move a comma in a sentence and completely change it's meaning! Also: Anyone ever notice that artists rarely sue each other over this kind of thing, but rather record companies, publishers and estates... that had jack all to do with writing the tunes? Just imagine if everyone with a 12 bar blues tune sued each other over the chord progression! YIKES!
Everyone owes money to Robert Johnson! 😬
marvin gaye's singing is what makes the song. listening to sheeran singing next to marvin makes the former sound like a karaoke pop star.
What a goofy take. Whatever these imaginary songs are aren't the ones that sheeran took from
Apparantly My Girl fits nicely as well and that was 9 years prior to Let's Get it On.
The progression is not the point, it's the combination of tempo, groove and chords all played a semitone up... virtually impossible this wouldn't have been done intentionally. Nothing easier to create a certain vibe than to simply imitate it exactly
In the 80's EMI tried to sue John Fogerty for Old Man Down thr Road because it sounded like Green River, even though he wrote both songs.
Actually it was Run Through the Jungle
@@XCodeHelpHub I think you're right, I knew it was one of them 👍
Good Lord, It NEVER ENDS!
He won the case
Green River was a Roy Orbison song!
That's the first time I've heard both songs played like that and your right the verses are very similar as is the feel, but then the chorus changes things. We all listen to music and we all get ideas from great artists, not sure if ED would deliberately steal from another artist as his catalogue is so big. Enjoyed your views.
It is the family of Ed Townsend (co-writer for Let's Get It On) that is suing Ed Sheeran. NOT the Marvin Gaye Estate.
A musician friend of mine many years ago said all chord sequences and rhythms have now been used. There needs to be a recognition of the originators, but copyright used to be limited to 20 years. Suggest we revert to that. We've lost the purpose of copyright which is the cause of the problems
Neither rhythm nor harmony are supposed to be subject to copyright, only melody and lyrics.
@@MalikEmmanuel yet we have mansanto seeds so wtt.
I dont think so cause your limited only by reach.
@@MalikEmmanuel except Gaye's estate won the Blurred Lines case that had only to do with groove and nothing to do with melody? Absolute travesty they won that one. Disaster for music.
Sorry, but he's completely wrong on that. There's 4017 chords in total (not including voicing). So, to give you some context, if you have 6 numbers, they can be arranged in 720 different ways. So 4017 chords will have billions of different ways in which they can be arranged.
You point out the most critical aspect. Derivative. Being influenced by an aspect of a song is not the same as "stealing" or "borrowing". Marvin's song is an all-time classic. Ed's is similar as many other songs are, but it stands alone and a casual observer would probably not put the two together.
Perfectly said.. I agree
Yes, and I believe that the more popular/influential your song is, the less right you really have to defend it against "copycats." I mean, you defined the genre, dude!
Anyone who loves and still listens to Marvin Gaye music would recognise the truth rhythm from let’s get it on
Could still be plaguerism there in places and makes it easier for some to steal and use we hat you say. However, I agree.😮
I agree but in this works you have to give credit. He could’ve avoided a costly lawsuit
It is amazing how you explainthe two songs, it is sad that it has to go to court, you can't make music without borrowing parts of songs lyrics or melodies this days. In the case of the Sheeran's song Photograph and Cardle's Amazing there you can clearly see that they are the same song for the most part, would be nice if you do a video about those two songs.
If u know Dream Theater's The Spirit Carries On also employs the same progression. U can literally change lyrics to that progression easily on many songs that use them.
Yeah but it sounded like something there 😊 and they continue so much better.
Hey Rick - IMO, it’s always been about melody and lyrics. Chord progressions and groove can’t be copyrighted; if a chord progression can be copyrighted, then, there are no new songs, and everything is stolen.
Love your content! 👊🏼
Yep, I believe for over a century only lyrics and melodies were ever contested in copyright lawsuits. Until "Blurred Lines" when they claimed the feel of the song was also protected and got a jury to agree with them.
It's not just the chord progression though. The tempo, the way the chords are sustained are all very similar.
Absolutely correct!
This is a bit of a myth. It's not about just the chord progression, it's about the overall "feel", about the "heart of the work"(Yes, a subjective evaluation, but that's how weird copyright law actually is). ... and the Ed Sheeran instrumental track is an almost exact copy of the Marvin Gaye track for most of the song, the groove, the chords, the bass, the feel. The plaintiffs here have a much stronger case than in the Blurred Lines case.
@@HiteshCeon If chord progression and overall "feel" could be copyrighted and therefore was sueable, we´d be looking at a total of 50 Rock and Roll songs to the max. ^^ Regarding the upcoming trial I´d definitely predict an acquittal.
I would have never thought the two songs sound similar until they are being played one by one with each other.
Same here, I don’t hear it. It’s an often used progression
IDK. Every time I hear the Sheeran song, my mind goes immediately to "Let's get it on." I always hear the Marvin song. Always. It's like an immediate echo in my head. I cannot hear the Sheeran song without hearing Marvin. That said, I 100% agree with Rick that the previous lawsuit regarding "Blurred Lines" was terrible. The songs were totally different, only sharing a vague vibe.
Instantly knew that was Marvin Gaye the first time I heard it.
Its ok to be tonedeaf
Well done Ed! You can't copyright the building blocks of music. It belongs to everyone.
The most noticeable is probably the drums. There shouldn’t be copyright laws on drum samples NO MATTER WHAT. I could accidentally layer kicks and snares to get that same vibe
As I began writing music, I was always told you can't copyright a chord change or a style, since the first are in limited supply and the second are a question of taste. You can copyright a melody and words, because they are more empirically verifiable: compare the two songs and if they're extremely similar, it's a violation of copyright. I think that rule makes sense.
HOW DOES THAT MAKES SENSE. One man wrote his many years and now a young man very talented young man happens to in a similar vein, why should he punished for writing his own work???
@@toucan221 What I wrote agrees with you. The undeniable similarities of style don't matter. Only the melody and words matter, and those are quite different.
LOL, let's copyright the circle of fifths and see how that goes down 🙂
Yes. There have been attempts to give the copy write infringement rules some ... uh, Blurred Lines, in recent years. Some legal idiots making some bad decisions, from a musical standpoint. There's a need for competent legal council to show the courts what's what, musically.
The thing you're dismissing as a "chord change" has more complexity than you're giving it credit. It's not just I-iii-IV-V. There's rhythm. There's instrumentation. If Ed Sheeran had produced a song that went I-iii-IV-V using a big-band horn section in a boogie-woogie rhythm, no one would have said anything. Marvin Gaye's estate doesn't think that they own I-iii-IV-V. But they do think they have some rights to it played with those instruments in that tempo, with that rhythm, with the same drum beat. That's not unreasonable.
You can disagree. That's also reasonable, and it's worth debate. But you can't decide to be precise in one set of aspects and then handwave over other, potentially equally important aspects.
I hate copyright law when it comes to music. The last thing a songwriter needs is to be afraid to write a song because it just so happens to sound like a song from 50 years ago. There's bound to be some form of overlap when you have a finite number of different notes and chords.
I've had some ideas for songs I wanted to write. I'd just better pray that none of them end up sounding anything like Marvin Gaye...
Why are people acting like this is a coincidence? It isn't: He's used one song as a foundation to make another.
If that's your method of making music then you SHOULD be worried.
It isn't coincidence. It was inspired by the song. He should have given a writing credit but didn't.
if a so called "songwriter" is afraid of being sued for stealing from other songs. good! you are not creative and shouldn't consider yourself as a songwriter.
Correct, Ed Townsend the writer of Let's Get it On should have been listed as a co writer of this song. This is not Marvin Gayes estate bringing the lawsuit.
Stealing..... coincidence... inspired...pretty much all music will have similarities with other pieces, might be pure coincidence or even if an artist has specifically written something with a similar vibe to another track then that's ok.. always has and always will happen..
as long as your different enough and bringing something new to the table then people don't have a problem. However an industry has grown in hunting down and making money of these similarities, at the very least for the lawyers.
At some point someone will attempt to define a framework for such cases as the current one is clearly not fit for purpose. The blurred lines case was without doubt a joke and as ric implies.. wouldn't be surprising if this went a similar way.
In the live performance video from 2014 that I saw, Sheeran exactly sings the phrase "let's get it on" twice (at about 4:30 and again at 4:35) with exactly the same notes as Gaye's original. So that, without knowing about the lawsuit or any of the back story, I thought he did it purposely and almost as a little nod to Gaye's song. He smiled as he sang the line and the audience cheered - as if everyone recognized it as a nod to Gaye. I actually thought it was just a spontaneous moment of enthusiasm and appreciation to Marvin Gaye that he adlibbed in the moment; I did not perceive it at all as "copying" or "borrowing" with the intent of implying it was his own line. And, to this day, I have no idea whether those little lyrical bits were actually written in to Sheeran's song or ever sung by him in another performance of "Thinking Out Loud" - I certainly never noticed or heard them before....
You might look up the "Axis of Awesome" video where the guys mash up dozens (?) of songs using the same chord progression. It doesn't, in itself, prove that anything was stolen or, shall we say, unethically borrowed. Clearly, Sheeran listened to the Marvin Gaye song a lot and his song was highly inspired by it. What's interesting to me is that the arrangement itself, as far as I know, is up to the producer and studio musicians, not the songwriter. So it's an odd thing, to me, to base the case at least as much on the arrangement as the melody and chords, which aren't close enough imo to say they were copied.
I think that’s evidence that he was was influenced by the MG hit when he created his song.
@@migueldemaria3830Sheeran isn’t just a song writer though.
Adam Neely has a video with a clip of that performance.
You can mash up millions of songs.
Minha conclusão é que são dois gênios da música, que produziram uma obra de arte, cada um com sua pincelada genial. Mas nesse mundo estranho em que estamos vivendo daqui a pouco, ninguém mais vai poder plantar uma árvore, pois terá alguém reivindicando o direito pra si. Lamentável.
ed sheeran meteu uma tracejada no quadro do marvin gayle e mudou as cores pra dizer que era dele. kiakia. como não tem como provar mesmo, a gente finge que acredita que foi inspiração divina.
Rick I can't say it enough...... I dig ya dude. You are spot on with most things. I wish you a happy 61 and many many healthy, happy, prosperous, and successful years to come.
Rick, I enjoy watching your videos. Chord progressions have been similar for maybe 500 years. Compare them to colors. Claude Monet could never accuse Dali of using yellow, green and blue in a painting. The work of art arises from the feeling of seeing or hearing something new. In terms of music, the Beatles' "Let It Be" is surely the best example of hundreds of songs written before and after the FAB4. If a carpenter came today who found a wooden board 6000 years ago and screwed 4 legs underneath, he could not accuse all table manufacturers of having copied it. That's the way it works in all areas. Ed Sheeran doesn't steal anything, he just paints new pictures. Best, Klaus from Hannover, Germany
The cry of "chord progresson commonality" deceitfully avoids the obvious: These are no mere similar chord progressions--Thinking Out Loud's was clearly lifted from Let's Get It On as if literally clipped; same instruments, same sounds, same everything.
I was thinking something pretty similar. Harmonically there are only a finite amount of chords that work together. eventually there will be duplicates and similarities just by sheer volume of songs over the centuries. I like your analogies to other art forms.
No. Ed's does a Ctrl-C Ctrl-V on multitrack instrumental and sing a long.
" Compare them to colors. Claude Monet could never accuse Dali of using yellow, green and blue in a painting."
Only because they aren't alive today. Notorious art prick Anish Kapoor has exclusive rights to a commercially produced product considered to be the world's blackest black.
Perfect comment
Sheeran was quoted in 2014 as being inspired by Van Morrison’s Crazy Love. As a listener, to me all three songs are different- people respond to a song’s totality rather than dissected individual notes.
I'm not even a Robin Thicke fan, but as a lover of music, the outcome of that case still infuriates me. A total scandal.
Some of the lawsuits remind me of an episode of Malcom in the middle. In the episode, Malcom got a guitar and wrote a song about that was supposed to be deep and emotional, but unintentionally it sounded just like the meow mix commercial jingle.
😂👏🎶❤
I agree with everything you said, except I would say the part that you played is actually the pre-chorus and the chorus is the one that starts with the same chord progression as the verses, of course it has a different melody and a different ending, so the chorus would be:
"Honey now
Take me into your loving arms
Kiss me under the light of a thousand stars
Place your head on my beating heart
I'm thinking out loud
(then the ending with different chord progression)
Maybe we found love right where we are"
I would say the part he played was actually the bridge, I always thought the bridge connects the verse with the chorus, just my humble opinion
@@benramos7386 i think thats more of an old school way to describe it. Bridge is usually what was called "middle 8" earlier, atleast in the English speaking world as far as i know. Now it gets more complicated because some non-english speaking countries use the word bridge (in their own language ofc) as the pre-chorus, and would call the Bridge/middle 8 a C-section or contrast section.
But from what i can tell the most common form is Vers - Pre-chorus - Chorus - Bridge
I would agree that the part with different chords is a pre-chorus. The bridge, if you want to call it that, would be the guitar solo before the final chorus. Songwriters and producers don't always use the same words for stuff even though they all end up with almost the same structure.
I wanted to hear this song and thus clicked on Ed's song. I've heard Marvin's song many times. But then I went back and boom, your page shows up. Excellent analysis! It's not until you superimposed the songs at the outset of this video that I get it what the claim is all about. I'm no Ed Sheeran fan and at first would never have compared the two. You mention blurred lines at the end and that how you were surprised that that case was successfully won by Marvin Gaye. To me, that song s music was exactly like Marvin's original! The lyrics not so much. I'm a layman. I know what I hear and like. Blurred lines was a great song maybe because the beat was lifted from the original song. While I'm no Ed Sheeran fan, I just don't hear it in this case. Clearly you don't have an influence over the public or a jury's decision and were surprised in the Blurred Lines decision. I'm going to say that based solely on the first part of this video, they might win something, maybe. If it weren't for technology I would never know the differences in this song. I agree that at some point in human evolution songs will sound alike because I don't think song writing is infinite. Thank you
Here's one...Keith Jarrett "Long As You Know Your Living Yours' 1974 and Steely Dan "Gaucho" 1980. It's pretty obscure, but hard not to notice similarities.
'wild side of life' originallly by hank williams and covered by Status Quo sounds almost exactly like johnny cash/roy acuff 'grey speckled bird'
It really is a case of blurred lines, indeed.
I had the pleasure of working with Brad Whitford in the early 90's and I remember him telling me that Aerosmith had preemptively reached out and paid some usage/royalty rights for the chorus of "The Other Side" from the Pump album when they realized the chorus, "Loving you has got to be..." sounded similar to The Four Tops, "Standing in the shadow of love..."
There's a Red Hot Chilli Peppers song that sounds like Bennie And The Jets Elton John so they got him to play piano on their song.
Good work Dan.
I met BW in Nashville. Nice guy
@@jaggass Are you referring to the song "Sick Love"? I knew Elton John appeared on that track, but I didn't know why until now.
@@efficiencygaming3494 Yes. They gave Elton and Bernie songwriting credits and asked Elton to play on the song
I remember back in the 70s when you could walk into a major song publisher on Hollywood or Sunset Bl with a cassette and someone would invite you into his office to listen to your songs. Of course, it had to be a sure top-40 hit to go beyond that stage, but it got heard. Today? They're all so afraid of lawsuits. It's a new world. And not a brave new one.
Well there's way more music now and lazier producers steal alot so that's why
See what you did there 😁, u Huckster.
I thought you can’t copyright chord changes and drum grooves… ? Imagine how many Jazz songs would be in trouble if you could copyright blues and rhythm changes and swing rhythms 😂
maybe that is why Sheeran won the case, hopefully. I don't like Sheeran, but neither I like these type of silly lawsuits. I wish copyright would be completely restructured or abolished in favor of a better system to avoid having these ridiculous amounts of money tied to things that.
@@davidmueller9342 A lot of things from thrakattak to rydeen through sekoilu seestyy, but sheeran is not one of then
@@davidmueller9342 in some
@@koraamis5568 you like the Beatles?
@@davidmueller9342 what is the point of all those questions?
Be careful someone can actually sue you for words like “Love you forever “ and other phrases and probably any letter of the alphabet.
If Ed Sheeran loses this case then it opens the door for thousands of similar cases.
Hell, Status Quo would be in big trouble!!!
Yep. Probably ALL driven by attorneys coaxing the estate to sue -- money doesn't talk, it shouts!
Erm, this is established copyright law. This wouldn't be the first time an identical song has been ripped verbatim.
and soon, enough, the legal system would realize that it's not workable and those cases would stop being filed once the correction was made
Only so many chord progressions exist. It’s impossible to write a song that doesn’t have the same chord progression as previous songs. It’s insane. Things like this makes you scared to write anything.
Tempo, groove, mood, percussions, bass line, melody, etc… chord progression is one thing but there are many things to consider, I think.
Na. You need to learn about permutations. Near endless possibilities.
IDK I feel like this particular case is about as damning as they get. This is far more similar than the previous landmark lawsuit between the Gaye estate and Pharrell & Robin Thicke, regarding "Blurred Lines." I believe the Gaye estate won at least a settlement in that case, even though the songs were much more dissimilar.
Came here to say this. You’re right. And also it’s a really great song. Why can’t we leave him alone? It’s not even a mediocre song. It’s amazing.
Agreed. Furthermore, I don't think songwriters using AI will be infallible either! In fact, there could be even more cases like this over the coming years. Just saying.
I think Rick's reasoning and conclusions are exactly correct. Music copyright lawsuits have gotten out of control, and Rick rightly points out the bizarre verdict of the Blurred Lines case, but my god do these two songs at hand sound the same! I'm surprised the jury found in Sheeran's favor; the decision is a testament to how strong of a case the defense has been able to build in the years since the Blurred Lines verdict.
Anyone who thinks there's even a case to answer is absolutely insane.
I feel like writing music nowadays is mostly about rearranging existing melodies and sounds. I don't think I've heard of a new song where some parts of it doesn't remind me of something else in the past.
I’m reminded of Prince reaching out to Journey/J. Cain about Purple Rain. Amazing artist and a stand up guy.
I'd have way more respect for these lawsuits if they were brought by living artists. The Land Down Under lawsuit was brought by a company that inherited the Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree song. Marvin Gaye's estates seems to sue anyone influenced by Marvin. Randy California died ages before the lawsuit against Jimmy Page by whoever owned the rights to Spirit. If a living artist feels ripped off that's one thing but most of these suits seem to be from greedy non-musicians trying to make a buck from the legacy of artists who have long been passed away. But by far the most insane lawsuit was when some publishing company sued John Fogerty for (I kid you not) plagiarizing HIS OWN SONG
the other most batshit lawsuit is when a band absolutely nobody had ever heard of sued Coldplay. the audacity
@@GizzyDillespee Yep and it's sad. I think the only solution is having to prove actual malice in these cases. So basically in order to win a copyright case you should have to present evidence that the writers of the newer song actually intended to plagiarize. In most cases that will be hard to prove as it should be
Fogerty went solo and his evil record company president sued that his solo material was too much like the band.
@@thebasedgodmax1163 You mean Joe Satriani over Viva La Vida? I've heard of Joe.
@@forevertoremain no, the band The Creaky Boards who tried to sue for the same song.
Just listened your thoughts, one day after Ed won the case.
I think that it's difficult to run away from the influence of the greats.
Marvin will live on, and I'm not sure about Ed.
Maybe he will be mentioned on one of these TV programs about most records sold, or , who is the richest pop artist, or something
Funny - I just found your site today due to this video appearing on my feed and the verdict literally just came in saying that Ed Sheeran's "Thinking Out Loud" didn't copy Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get it On"
I would be hysterical if Sheeran's lawyers blocked this video on a copyright claim!
It's funny, I was thinking the same thing.
And then Rick countering with "I'm analysing Let's Get it On".
haaaa HILARIOUS! their report would start with 'what's goin on" here?
They will. I doubt this video will be monetized
If Sheeran's lawyers don't, Gaye's estate's lawyers will!
The worst thing about this is it is the worthless family members doing it, people who have done nothing with their lives except sue other people over songs they had nothing to do with.
yeah, greedy people getting money from a talented relative, and now they want more. They don't know anything else besides being spongers.
So it's ok to steal or copy a song? You would do the same.
The fact that historically MOTOWN's tracks have been robbed for forever...Let us have our music please.
Worthless family members being lead by some opportunistic lawyers.
Ed Sheeran ain’t a family member he’s white bruv.
Excellent analysis on all parts of a song.
I just listened to the Ed Sheeran song ( for the first time believe it or not ) and if someone didn’t point out the “ similarities “ I would have never heard them , with “ maybe “ the exception of the rhythm . This was an attempted money grab from Marvin Gaye’s estate as far as I’m concerned. Nice post Mr B thank you 🙏
It is an obvious rip-off.
@@stevenc6969 No
You'd have to be completely deaf not to hear the similarities.... You're stretching here.... Seriously!?
@@andrekb37 it is a baffling level of denial.
@@stevenc6969 extremely.
This is by far the best summary and most simple breakdown to follow 👍
I agree with you ,the chord progression is a part of a composition s inmportant as the melody and the rythm beat.I you have the same beat ,the same harmony the only things is left the lyrics and the melody. Now let ' s how many songs have the same harmony - beat progression.....
@rickbeato, was Marvin Gaye the original writer of that chord progression or did he get it from someone who came up with it previously?
Of course he did get it, impossible it did not exist before. consciously or unconsciously.
With all the songs possibly millions of songs out there I’ve always wondered how it’s not possible that some songs sound very similar, it would be impossible to know when writing a song I would imagine.
i think of a moment like this as well:
ed & team are writing something, and they’re starting to be like ‘ok yeah i’m like this, we’re onto something here!’ and then 20 minutes later go ‘ah, sh*t. did we just write lets get it on?’
then as an artist you have to have a frank talk with yourself about whether you should abandon something that’s really good, just because it turns out to be a lot like something else
hard to know how to handle that. i don’t think musicians as accomplished as ed & his team could possibly not notice that they were getting really into lets get it on territory eventually.
but is that enough of a reason to change the song you’re writing to make it worse?
While these songs sound VERY similar, Ed does have a point. There are only so many chord sequences you can use, and since so many songs use the same sequences from other songs, how can one make music without it "plagiarizing" someone else. I personally think if you maintain the same chord structure but make the composition unique, there shouldn't be a problem.
They don't sound similar - they sound consonant. They sound like they fit together. But even that's only when one of them is transposed down a half-step.
A lot of music has identical chord progressions without sounding the same at all. Music is way more than chord progressions and melodies.
The backing tracks are similar more than just in chord progression. Rhythmically similar too
@@cisium1184 I don't think relatively changing the pitch matters much especially when it's only half-step
@@Pijanoo Of course music is more than chord progressions and melodies, but that doesn't mean it should all be copyrightable.
What songs plz so I can listen ?
I love ‘Let's get it on’ but have never once thought of any similarity between the two songs. Studied music for a number of year's and family are musicians.
To most people, the songs are similar in vibe as Rick says. But they are completely different. I'm sure there are hundreds of songs out there that sound like Marvin's songs, but they don't get sued. It's all about the money.
the bassline is copied from the song; this is why he is being sued
@@copperysinger5985 I see, So it's not the melody obviously.
@@copperysinger5985 A bass line generally isn't protected by copyright.
@@karlrovey yes bass line are protected. steal Michael jackson's beat it bass line and see how quick you will get sued. even producer samples are protected. you can't protect chord and drum progression.
@@copperysinger5985 I don't know if I included "generally" on the part about bass lines being unprotected. The exception is if there's something unique and noteworthy about them. A walking bass line wouldn't be protected. Neither would simple chord roots. An example of a protected bass line is the "Under Pressure" riff.
I should note that I'm more fluent in jazz and rock styles than more recent pop (even though it should be the opposite based on my age).
I remember watching a David Bennett video a while back about a Dua Lipa court case. In that case, the melodies and rhythm were almost identical and yet, he suggested that it was highly unlikely that her song had borrowed or was influenced by the band that took action against her. As he pointed out, the same melody, etc. had been used in many songs and the band taking the action were little known and she had probably never heard their song.
In this case (Marvin/Ed) the melodies, timing, etc. are different, yet Rick is suggested that there likely was influence.
It seems like the courts would have to read minds, because there is no way they can know exactly how an artist has composed a song or what may have contributed, especially as we are all influeced by music that we hear to some extent. Given that court cases need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt (UK law, at least), I don't see how any of these cases win.
There are so many songs that remind me of other songs, many of them seem almost identical, but there was never a court case. Letting artists win cases like these just seems to be encouraging the litigious world we live in.
"Letting artists win cases like these" What annoys me is that it's not even the artist bringing the case. I tend to think Marvin Gaye wouldn't have had a problem with Sheeran's song. It's the no-talented estate.
In a US civil case, it is the preponderance of evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt, that is the standard. You're thinking like it's a criminal case...
UK civil law is on the balance of probabilities, so they only have to think it's more likely than not. That's a much lower bar then criminal law, where English and Welsh jurors used to be told they needed to be beyond reasonable doubt, but are now advised they must be satisfied that they are sure.
I think they would need to determine first what’s most characteristic or recognizable in the original song. It’s not always the melody, and I really don’t think it is in this case. However, Ed might be lucky because it seems that judges focus a lot more on what they can objectively evaluate, such as melody or chord progressions, not vibe or production. I remember hearing many TV commercials’ music for ages that pathetically imitated the arrangements of certain very popular songs and nobody could accuse them of copying. Is that plagiarism or just following a trend? When we say that commercial music all sounds the same, should there be any legal consequences of those similarities (even if not in the melody or chords). They do sound the same and it’s no coincidence. Where’s the barrier between being a follower and being a plagiarist?
It is difficult to come up with complete unique melodies. How would one know that what you are writing is similar to another existing song?
If one listens to thousands of songs surely your subconscious will use experience when you are composing.
I get the chord progession argument. But its clearly usage of an entire arrangement. Not just the chords
The groove is the same to thousand bluesy songs....
Right!
I think it's safe to say that Marvin sung his heart out better than Ed
Thats enough to plagrise a song. Just be like rappers and pay for clearance
The chords and progressions in Let's Get It On are not unique. They are used in many, many songs. Listen to My Girl by the Temptations, and Easy by the Commodores. Same exact chord progression -- Update: I heard it as Do, Mi, Fa, and Sol without attempting to recreate it, and read later that Sheeran testified it's Re, Fa#, Sol, La, a slightly transposed but very similar progression. It's not the foundation of the entire melody in the aforementioned songs, but it's there. Even synthesizers that come with canned samples (including arpegio sequences), use the same chord progression -- and they are royalty-free. The rhythm (downbeat/upbeat), may vary from one song to another, but generally, the basic melody is the same. When comparing the "feel" of the songs, which is a non-quantifiable, and thus, subjective mechanism of interpretation, they vary sufficiently, to the point that one cannot immediately or confidently say that one song is based on another. That is a hugely important point in the context of this litigation and most likely the gist of the Townsend vs. Sheeran lawsuit. Just because the songs share the same chord progression and time signature it doesn't mean they are identical. Even the fact that one can superimpose one over the other without making changes to the rhythmic signature doesn't mean much. They simply share the same music building blocks. To say that Gaye & Townsend invented those building blocks is a stretch and does a disservice to the myriad of composers that came before them.
Sheeran's solemnization is a canard. It's the same progression, not a "similar" one, just transposed. In all such popular music styles, the chord progression whatever it is, IS the foundation for melody. The time signature is not an issue, rather it's the arrangement -- the rhythm and orchestration of the accompaniment -- plus the chord progression that is at issue.
@@corc1130 just to be clear, you are saying that the chord progression, which has been substantiated as not unique, and therefore, cannot be part of one's intellectual property, when coupled with the rhythm and orchestration, creates a unique piece of music that can be copyrighted. If that is an accurate assessment of your argument, let's consider the example of public domain software, where there are plenty of examples for precedent. One can use public domain code to build a unique program, which then becomes their IP, i.e., what they built is their copyright. They obviously cannot lay claim to the public domain code used as the foundation of their program. Another person comes along at a later time and uses the same public domain code as the foundation of another program, which is meant to accomplish the same exact task as the program written by the first programmer. However, they make slight changes to the code, therefore, they also created a unique, copyrighted software program. See where this is going? The first person cannot lay claim to the program created by the second person, because even though they share the same public domain code and both programs were created to accomplish the same task, they are not copies of each other. The second person did not steal anything from the first person, they put time and effort into creating their own unique program. Algorithms cannot be copyrighted. In the case of music composition, the chord progression, which is the equivalent of public domain code, facilitates the rhythm and orchestration. Even if the latter two are identical between songs, there couldn't be copyright infringement when the overall composition is sufficiently different to constitute a distinct piece, as in this particular case with LGIO and TOL. This would be a good segue to discuss groove and feel, but these are subjective properties, hence, non-quantifiable, so they also can't be considered one's IP. The bottom line is, the chord progression similarity shouldn't even be part of the argument. And when you consider the software programming example above in relation to the rest of the elements of the respective compositions, it becomes evident to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of music theory that this lawsuit is a stretch.
It's not just the chords. Its the chords, the drum pattern, the rhythym, the bass line, the vocal melody, the tempo, the vocal inflections, the production....its QUITE the coincidence if its not a total rip-off.
I could I written a song to that exact same beat with a total different melody that didn’t resemble Marvin Gaye’s I get it on, that chord progression doesn’t automatically bind you to creating a very similar almost identical record. that was just a bunch of filler buster you wrote.
@@32BitMikeTyson
Listen sweetheart, I’m not saying Sheeran did or did not rip off Marvin Gaye. I wasn’t in the room when he wrote it and quite frankly I don’t actually care but the fact is, if you have working ear and a basic understanding of music structure you’ll notice that the two songs are strikingly similar.
Do I want Ed Sheeran sued simply because I think he’s terrible…yes indeed. That’ll do nicely for me.
Rick, when did music copyright laws go from protecting melody strings/lyrics, & grow to encompass chord progressions & grooves? If we uphold those as copyright-able, then literally 90% of all modern songs are rip-offs. There's maybe 24 popularly used cadences that you could shoehorn practically every song ever written into.
I composed music by listening older famous musics , taking some ideas on how the music goes, beat and melodies... then later I do my own version changing and improve all those what L've heard.. do I get copyrighted? I think not, because I did not took any single note from it, I just only listen to have idea on how they made it....
for Ed, I heard there is a similarities on the beat backgound, drums and base almost similar but not on melodies..
so let see how the jury finds and decide for it.
Thank Sir Rick on this content.
These lawsuits will mean at some point in the future, songs will stop getting created because every avenue will have been done and copyrighted
You can't sue an A.I. In 5-10 years this all all be a moot point.
@@petewest3122 You sue whoever prompted it instead.
Clearly you do not understand the plethora of possibilities a musician has. There is a difference between ripping off a song and using a part of it and then playing variations on that theme.
Yes and no! Olivia Rodrigo's song Good-For-U is a legal remake of a Paramore song! Distro-kid has really made licensing very easy!
People could try writing new music idk maybe they can give that a chance
One of my favorite stories concerning music copyright is about John Lennon using Chuck Berry's line "Here come a flat-top, he was moving up with me" from You Can't Catch Me with slight modification in Come Together. Apparently Paul said to John something like "man that's straight out of a Chuck Berry song" and John replied with something along the lines of "it's a tribute". My understanding John settled this with the Chuck Berry music publishing company by doing the album Rock 'N' Roll with whole bunch of songs from that publishing company so they got healthy royalties on all the copies of that album sold.
It's like owning orange juice.
@@davidmueller9342 with all due respect, it’s clearly not. There are hundreds of orange juice manufacturers and there are no lawsuits about derivative Contant. Creative work is worth something. A book is worth something to the author, a circuit is worth something to the engineer who created it, a movie is worth something to a people who made it, heuristic improvements are worth something to the designer who innovated them, and the song is worth something to the person who wrote it. To validate your comment, in the orange juice example, whoever “created it“ has probably been dead for centuries and that creative work would now be public domain.
This would be an awesome way to settle all copyright cases! 😜 You cop a melody, you have to do a tribute record of that artists works!
@@zogjones lost me there, orange juice comes from oranges unless its flavored orange. At over 5 billion views its probably not flavored orange juice(this is where it gets bitter). Not all oranges are the same.
After the video : different melody, rhythm, notes and chorus. Not sure why their suing? Even the story is different. Ones falling back in love and the other is about jungle fever.
Rick, they should have called you as an expert witness. That would have been interesting.
I saw another thing where a songwriter's opinion was that it was stolen, he used the same kind of process I've seen you do to arrive at that. I got thinking about some similar things that have happened in the past, like George Harrison. So with only so many notes & chords, one area of the fretboard most worn on most guitars it really makes me think that while I hear a lot of similarities maybe it is not purposeful. Still Mr. Harrison had to pay so maybe it just comes down to the judge &/or jury in each instance. That same songwriter mentioned some of the big stars that have 50 writers credited on a song and that maybe that is what everyone may have to do to avoid these cases. I read an article that was about all the songs that have been put on things like Spotify that have not got any plays it is an outrageous number of songs every day so duplication almost has to happen and surely it's not all malicious. Interesting how often it is not the actual writer of the first song bringing these suits but someone who gained the rights later it often seems. I've heard songwriters say no they wouldn't sue when someone asks them about similar situations.
You are amazing at what you do
Thank for all the hard work
John Mayer’s “Waiting on the World to Change” is also similar, but faster tempo. And “Midnight Train to Georgia” also has a similar sound and groove.
I feel like these are just in a similar or same genre. I don't think you can transition with as much precision between these and the Sheeran and Gaye songs. But I do agree that Ed Sheeran and John Mayer have a similar sound/style.
The same happened when Adele yanked that Brazillian song "Mulheres". Her sonh "Million Years Ago" is the same song...but with some different lyrics in English. It is not exactly the same either, but sufficiently close. She lost.
Fox just gave you a shout out for your analysis of the Sheeran controversy 1:15 pm today!
This is the issue with the music industry. Literally, EVERY artist has ripped or borrowed from another artist. This is why we as musicians have to take the industry back.
how do we do that though?
I can think of one way. Stop giving them our money. Don't Subscribe. Don't Go to shows..... :(
“Take the industry back.”
We never had it. It was always a business first.
The industry isn't suing.
Ripped or borrowed implies intent.
so, as a musician, you want the right to steal ideas from other musicians, as way of "taking the industry back?" This suit isn't driven by the industry, its driven by the estate of a musician who has a massive personal legacy worth protecting.
I guarantee if they had recordings from 200 years ago, those artists would have solid lawsuits against all these 'original' writers that are suing others today.
That's why we have public domain!
The second I hear it I couldn't not think it was 'borrowed' with a few slight changes to fool the lawyers maybe, . and i think sometimes the popularity of a song that is borrowed comes with a price.
The verse chord progression is one of the most common used in pop music so you could find 100 or more songs that have the same chords but, if your gonna sue, go for one of the biggest money-making pop songs written by one of the highest profile songwriters in recent times. The chorus is completely different anyway so that’s where the legal case falls, for me. As far as the rhythm goes, it’s been widely used in pop music. I can think of other Ed Sheehan songs where I’ve thought “Not those chords again” but this isn’t one of them.
@@orenelbaum1487 If you have the time to look, and probably give up your day job but yes, they’re out there.
The songs share a basic chord progression, which the bass follows, and appropriate, simple percussion for the pace.
I'd like to see how many other songs share these same elements?
A ton of songs share the same elements, mostly because pop music is a bunch of copied and pasted garbage nowadays.
Far more than I had any idea about. The first one I saw referenced one that made me immediately realise was the Commodores/ Lionel Richie's Easy. No one pursues him to court because he used a frequently adopted progression. I think musicians understand that, such a shame that folk chasing money don't want to.
When I was a young guy (relatively speaking!), I wrote freelance for Hallmark before eventually entering the American Song Festival (and winning). As part of the result of that, I met Hal David who very succinctly explained to me that a songwriter writes the melody and lyric or part of either or both. In other words, if you write the melody and a collaborator writes the lyric, you generally split that song 50/50. The point is, if you wrote the melody and lyric, then you wrote the song. You don't have to come up with an arrangement or vocal or any of that stuff. Cool if you do but not necessary for "ownership". I can assign my song to any artist who wants to cover it and it's up to them to build their "arrangement". They can orchestrate it however they'd like and that's just the way it is. They can use an oboe instead of a guitar or a kazoo if they want to perform it at the circus. It doesn't matter to me. (Well, not much!) Point is, whoever wrote that arrangement for Sheeran seems to have lifted it from Marvin Gaye's tune. Maybe Sheeran wrote the arrangement. I don't know. It sure sounds like Gaye's groove though.
Thank you for your logic.👍🏾
@@chrisper7527 You're welcome Chris. Good luck to you.
So many songs are being imitated, remixed, sampled, we're getting to the point where everyone is running out of ideas, just like movies
In case anyone is wondering, the Legal Eagle has a much more explanatory video on copyright. It was a ridiculous that Marvin's Estate won the Blurred Lines case and it's possible had they better lawyers, like Ed's they might not have won. I hope this sends a message to the estate of MG. They don't own back beats, scales, or chord progressions.
At this stage we should be referencing the 'Axis of Awesome: Four Chord Song' in these legal cases.
VERY many songs share the same chords (of their relevant key), rhythm and structure without directly copying.
That said - bands I've been in have ditched songs we wrote for being even slightly reminiscent of another - when pointed out to us! :)
'Axis of Awesome: Four Chord Song is merely a funny way to play with music.. wuth or without you and under the bridge have same chord progression in the verses but sound nothing alike and you would not even notice
slightly reminiscent is a good thing, isn't it? at least for me because i always try to look for styles, songs and sounds to imitate (not copy/steal, just trying to get something similar on my own)
@@milanforever7014 Precisely! :) \m/
@@salty_3k506 I think so!
@@Dreamspade1 but why did you ditch the songs then? :(
This cord progression has been used for hundreds of top hits.
name 50
Probably why I found eds song boring. Was hoping he would lose and quit music.
@@just2comment2 Its why theirs so many choices
True, but only Ed Sheeran sound just like Marvin Gaye.
@@darrelldunn4618it literally doesn't
Thankfully the jury saw otherwise ..
Aren't there lots of songs that sound similar in some respects,how do you judge and when and how do you decide copyright?
I knew RB would weigh on on this case. Academically and legally excellent review. Ed's legal team should follow Ricks lead on the massive amount of similarity of lalteral or compared harmonic structures and melodies in pop songs and. Good stuff professor.
@@aimlessdrive8723 what is your take on this?
Just have a computer programmer create an algorithm to find similarities in songs and have it compare a thousand songs and see how many of them are similar. Next these greedy lawyers will be trying to copyright time signatures.
@@jimmyparris9892 i want to copyright 4/4 .. then buy some billionaires....