On May 4, Ed Sheeran emerged victorious in the copyright lawsuit surrounding his hit song “Thinking Out Loud.” The lawsuit, filed in August 2016 by the family of Ed Townsend, a co-songwriter of Marvin Gaye’s soul classic “Let’s Get it On,” alleged that Sheeran's “Thinking Out Loud” had stolen key elements from “Let’s Get it On.” However, in the trial held in New York, the jury concluded that Ed Sheeran and co-songwriter Amy Wadge created “Thinking Out Loud” independently. The lawsuit has become one of the most prominent copyright cases in recent years, involving a Grammy-winning “Song of the Year” by one of the most popular singer-songwriters of our time and a chart-topping hit by a legendary artist. However, such notoriety isn’t the sole reason why this verdict is seen as a significant milestone in copyright cases. 

In a public statement shortly after the ruling, Ed Sheeran said: “I’m very happy with the outcome of the case… At the same time, I’m unbelievably frustrated that baseless claims like this are allowed to go to court at all… We spent the last eight years talking about two songs with dramatically different lyrics and melodies, and four chords which are also different and used by songwriters every day, all over the world… These chords are … in a songwriter’s alphabet, our toolkit, and should be there for all of us to use… I want to thank the jury for making the decision that will help protect the creative process of songwriters.”

Ed Sheeran’s statement effectively summarizes the key issues of the lawsuit. And here, there is a bit of contemporary pop music history that needs to be addressed. In 2013, there was a copyright infringement lawsuit involving Robin Thicke’s hit song “Blurred Lines.” Marvin Gaye’s family alleged that Robin Thicke and Pharell Williams had copied “Got to Give it Up.” While it is undeniable that “Blurred Lines” was influenced by “Got to Give it Up,” capturing some of its distinctive vibe and groove, the similarities primarily stemmed from the arrangement, which is what made the two songs sound alike. However, all of the building blocks of the song including the melodies, chord progressions, verse-chorus structure, and lyrics were significantly different. Nonetheless, in the final ruling of 2018, “Blurred Lines” was deemed to have infringed on the copyright, resulting in USD 5 million awarded to Mr. Gaye’s family, along with half of future royalties.

Copyright law, in principle, protects expression rather than ideas. However, there are instances where there is no alternative expression as the expression cannot easily be separated from the underlying idea, or when it is an inevitable expression for a common theme. In such cases, the expression itself may not be eligible for protection. This serves as a line between drawing inspiration and engaging in plagiarism. 

One might argue that it would have been better for “Blurred Lines” to not have used the party noise and cowbell arrangements. The song faced criticism for being perceived as a cultural appropriation of Black music heritage by a white artist. Distasteful issues emerged surrounding the song and the production process, particularly in relation to the music video. Consequently, there is a valid belief that the particular song “Blurred Lines” should face repercussions. 

However, many music experts and artists expressed concerns that the ruling would significantly narrow the scope of inspiration and allow people to claim ownership over common musical elements. This was also the reason why Judge Nguyen, in her dissenting opinion, wrote, “the majority allows the Gayes to accomplish what no one has before: copyright a musical style.” 

Fortunately, other famous hits including Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven,” and Katy Perry’s “Dark Horse” achieved more favorable outcomes in similar lawsuits. The court concluded that musical elements alleged to have been copied from Spirit’s “Taurus,” and Flame’s “Joyful Noise” were generic and not particularly unique or rare. This signaled a shift in the court’s judgment, moving away from the precedent set by the “Blurred Lines” case.

In the lawsuit surrounding Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud,” the key issues and outcomes were more clearly defined. Townsend’s family claimed that the two songs were essentially built on the same chord progression, arguing that the chord progression was a completely original creation that had never existed prior to “Let’s Get it On.” A video of Ed Sheeran’s seamless mashup performance of “Thinking Out Loud” and “Let’s Get it On” was presented as the smoking gun. As a counterpoint, Ed Sheeran’s team provided evidence of over ten instances before “Let’s Get It On” where the same chord progressions had been used. They further argued that given the range of chord choices in contemporary pop music, it is natural for many songs to organically connect with one another.

Let’s take a quick look at the chords in question. The progression for “Let’s Get it On” is I - iii - IV - V over eight beats, two beats per chord. Here, the second and fourth chords are slightly pulled forward to create a groovy syncopated rhythm. In “Thinking Out Loud,” the chord progresses in a I - I - IV - V, where I and iii share two out of three notes that make up the chord. Similarly, the second and fourth chords are syncopated to create the groove. The two songs have a similar tempo, so it becomes easier to compare the two. In other words, the songs share similar chord progressions and rhythms. However, these are common elements of music, and their use is fair game for everyone. Therefore, the two songs are completely different in every aspect that makes each song unique and special.

When Ed Sheeran delivered his statement, he appeared genuinely happy. The day after the verdict, he surprised everyone by performing on the rooftop of his car in the streets of New York. He actively engaged in the trial, passionately advocating for himself. He even played the guitar in the courtroom, demonstrating firsthand the creative process behind “Thinking Out Loud.” At times, he fearlessly and assertively responded to the opposing music experts from the Townsend camp. While some may speculate that all of his efforts were solely motivated by avoiding potentially multimillion-dollar damages or as a strategic move in the trial, his self-defense was ultimately for the benefit of the entire songwriting community. Most songwriters lack the resources to endure lengthy trials like Ed Sheeran did. Sheeran knows it, the songwriting community knows it, and everyone who has followed this case knows it. Ed Sheeran fought for everyone, and he emerged victorious.