Jurors Prohibited From Dancing To Ed Sheeran’s Funky Music (Or Is It Marvin Gaye’s)

// When it comes to music, the line between homage and copyright infringement can be blurred. Just ask Pharrell and Robin Thicke — they lost a suit alleging that their hit single “Blurred Lines” infringed on Marvin Gaye’s “Got To Give It Up.”

And when you’ve got a catalogue as powerful as Gaye’s, it’s expected for similar suits to pop up periodically. For example, did you ever hear a similarity between Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It On” and Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud“?

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-top-300x250" ); });

Well, his co-writer’s estate did.

Sponsored You, Too, Can ‘Recession Proof’ Your Firm. Here’s How. With today’s practice management tech, it’s easier than you think. Download our free Practice Management Buyer’s Guide here. From Above the Law  

Earlier this week, the judge had to prohibit the jurors from “giving it up” as they listened to the evidence:

With Ed Sheeran on the witness stand in Manhattan federal court on Tuesday during a copyright trial, jurors were warned to keep their composure while watching a video of the British pop star performing a medley of his hit song “Thinking Out Loud” and the classic Marvin Gaye tune “Let’s Get it On.”

“We don’t allow dancing,” U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton instructed the seven-member jury.

Lawyers for heirs of songwriter Ed Townsend, Gaye’s co-writer on the 1973 hit, showed the video to bolster their allegation that Sheeran, his label Warner Music Group and music publisher Sony Music Publishing owe them a share of the profits for allegedly copying the song.

Ben Crump, a lawyer for the heirs, said in his opening statement that the performance amounted to a “confession” by Sheeran.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-middle-300x250" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-storycontent-440x100" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-in-story-youtube-1x1" ); });

I think the judge made the right call. It’s one thing to see an episode of The Boondocks. To live in one? I wouldn’t want that either. Imagine if this was your court room:

Sponsored Sponsored Introducing Filevine’s 2023 Customer Benchmark Report Explore new data on how modern law firms are managing their work. From Filevine and Above The Law   Sponsored You, Too, Can ‘Recession Proof’ Your Firm. Here’s How. With today’s practice management tech, it’s easier than you think. Download our free Practice Management Buyer’s Guide here. From Above the Law   Sponsored Making History With Shepard’s Citations From Ethan Beberness   Sponsored Making History With Shepard’s Citations From Ethan Beberness  

Back to the substantive aspect of the case, a verdict against Sheeran could have wide reaching consequences for the music industry:

Under questioning from Keisha Rice, another lawyer for the plaintiffs, Sheeran said many pop songs use the same three or four chords, and that he performs “mash-ups” of many songs at his concerts.

“You could go from ‘Let it Be’ to ‘No Woman, No Cry’ and switch back,” Sheeran testified, referring to the Beatles and Bob Marley classics. “If I had done what you’re accusing me of doing, I’d be a quite an idiot to stand on a stage in front of 20,000 people and do that.”

…

In her opening statement, Sheeran’s lawyer Ilene Farkas, said the two songs are distinct and told jurors that the plaintiffs should not be allowed to “monopolize” a chord progression used in countless songs.

Sheeran at one point grew frustrated when Rice cut off his response about the medley.

“I feel like you don’t want me to answer because you know that what I’m going to say is actually going to make quite a lot of sense,” he said.

The sense he’d make aside, let’s not lose the trees for the forest here. Even if it is the case that a ruling against Sheeran could have massive consequences for the music industry, the specific question of if he merely used a chord progression or actually infringed on Gaye’s copyright needs to be answered. And that nuanced issue may be difficult to determine — the two songs go very well together:

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-bottom-300x250" ); });

And while the jurors can’t dance to their favorite Ed Sheeran tunes, nothing prevents us from doing so. Including any of the remixes:

Sponsored Sponsored The Ultimate Guide To eDiscovery With Google Workspace And Google Vault An effective team must be well-equipped to handle the unique challenges these tools present. From Onna and Above The Law   Sponsored Navigating Economic Uncertainty: 6 Tips To Keep Your Investments On Track How you can get through current challenges while advancing long-term goals. From Trion Properties  

 

P.S.: Is there a case that Ben Crump isn’t on? I feel like I’ve seen his name pop up at least 57 times since January. If you’ve also wondered why his name pops up so often, you can probably find an answer in the documentary Civil hosted by Netflix. It really is a small world.

No Dancing, Judge Tells Jury At Ed Sheeran Copyright Trial [Reuters]

Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s.  He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim, a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at [email protected] and by tweet at @WritesForRent.

Topics

Copyright Infringement, Ed Sheeran, Let's Get It On, Marvin Gaye, Thinking Out Loud