A legal battle over a music copyright has reached its conclusion as the Supreme Court declined to hear a case involving Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” and Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It On.”
This refusal from the highest court upholds earlier decisions that ruled in favor of Sheeran and deemed the similarities between the songs too general for an infringement claim, as Fox News reports.
The lawsuit against Sheeran was initially filed by Structured Asset Sales (SAS), a company holding some rights to Gaye’s 1973 hit. SAS accused Sheeran of illegally relying on the melody, harmony, and rhythm of “Let’s Get It On” for his 2014 chart-topping track. These allegations, however, have been repeatedly dismissed through various stages of the court system.
Lower court rulings set stage
In 2023, U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton first ruled against SAS, stating that the elements in question were too common and could not be protected under copyright laws. Judge Stanton’s decision marked a critical moment in this ongoing legal dispute.
After Stanton’s ruling, SAS sought an appeal. Yet, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York affirmed the dismissal, aligning with Stanton’s conclusions and reasoning. This series of judicial decisions played a key role in shaping the eventual refusal by the Supreme Court to engage with the case further.
The rejected appeal marked a significant win for Sheeran, occurring amidst a period of complex legal challenges for the musician. He faced similar accusations from the family of Ed Townsend, the co-writer of “Let’s Get It On,” in a separate lawsuit that also concluded with a favorable outcome for Sheeran.
Investment banker’s efforts fall short
The entrepreneur behind SAS, investment banker David Pullman, has seen his efforts to secure a ruling against Sheeran thwarted at every turn. Despite persistent pursuit through the courts, Pullman’s arguments were ultimately insufficient to persuade the judiciary. This legal endeavor reflects broader issues in music copyright law, where common musical patterns create legal gray areas.
The Supreme Court’s decision came down on Monday, leaving no room for further argument or reconsideration. By not hearing the appeal, the Court effectively let the prior rulings stand, providing closure to an ongoing legal drama.
For Sheeran, this decision represents the end of a difficult chapter marked by serious allegations and the potential implications for his creative work. His legal victories offer some reassurance to artists regularly navigating the complex landscape of music production and copyright.
Sheehan weighs in
Sheeran addressed the media outside the courthouse after winning the unrelated lawsuit with Townsend’s family. He expressed the emotional impact of facing accusations like these, underscoring the weight of maintaining artistic integrity amidst such claims.
“It’s devastating to be accused of stealing someone else’s song when we’ve put so much work into our livelihoods,” said Sheeran. These words convey the broader context and personal toll such accusations can take on creative professionals.
The music industry remains fraught with similar disputes, as artists regularly produce new work against a backdrop of extensive existing music catalogs. This recent legal decision adds another chapter to the ongoing conversation about the limits and scope of intellectual property in creative fields.
Implications of case yet to fully emerge
The culmination of this case without a Supreme Court hearing sets a significant precedent within the music industry. It illustrates both the challenges of substantiating copyright claims and the judiciary’s stance on protecting original creation against common compositional elements.
The outcome will likely be scrutinized and referenced in legal considerations of music copyright for years to come. For both musicians and legal experts, dissecting the implications of this decision will remain a priority.
Sheeran’s victory, in this case, underscores the complexities of differentiating between inspiration and infringement in music creation. As the legal dust settles, his attention and that of the music world turn toward what this means for future artistic endeavors and legal battles alike.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Mae Slater
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.conservativejournalreview.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
