Ed Sheeran Just Can’t Get Away From Ridiculous Copyright Lawsuits
from the copyright-is-a-scam dept
We’ve written a bunch about how Ed Sheeran recognizes how batshit crazy current copyright law is. One of the most successful recording artists today, you’d think that maybe he’d be a copyright maximalist, and yet copyright just seems to keep getting in the way of his creativity. Sheeran has admitted that piracy made him successful. When he started out as an independent artist, he says it was people sharing his music through pirate sites that built up his fan base, eventually leading to his record deals. He’s also been supportive of fans who got hit with copyright claims for covering his songs.
But, at the same time, he keeps getting sued with questionable claims of copyright infringement. Earlier this year, he won one of the key lawsuits against him, including having the plaintiff have to pay his legal fees. However, he admitted to what a strain it’s been putting on his ability to create music, releasing a video statement saying:
I feel like claims like this are way too common now, and have become a culture where a claim is made with the idea that a settlement will be cheaper than taking it to court, even if there is no basis for the claim. It’s really damaging to the songwriting industry.
There’s only so many notes and very few chords used in pop music. Coincidence is bound to happen if 60,000 songs are being released every day on Spotify—that’s 22 million songs a year—and there’s only 12 notes that are available.
I don’t want to take anything away from the pain and hurt suffered from both sides of this case, but I just want to say, I’m not an entity. I’m not a corporation. I’m a human being. I’m a father, I’m a husband, I’m a son. Lawsuits are not a pleasant experience. And I hope that with this ruling, in the future baseless claims like this can be avoided. This really does have to end.
Me, Johnny, and Steve, are very grateful for all the support sent to us by fellow songwriters over the last few weeks. Hopefully, we can all get back to writing songs, rather than having to prove that we can write them.
Except, he can’t just get back to writing songs, because a court has said he has to go to trial over yet another one of these silly lawsuits. And, as Glyn Moody highlights, while this lawsuit is over a Marvin Gaye song, it’s not even the Gaye estate that brought the lawsuit. An investment banker bought the rights and is suing Sheeran to get free cash.
The claim over Thinking Out Loud was originally lodged in 2018, not by Gaye’s family but by investment banker David Pullman and a company called Structured Asset Sales, which has acquired a portion of the estate of Let’s Get It On co-writer Ed Townsend.
Sheeran has talked about now he has to record all of his songwriting sessions knowing that he might end up in court, and that’s just depressing and awful. None of this is helping creativity. None of this is “promoting the progress.” This is all just pure greed and exploitation of someone who is an actual creator.
For what it’s worth, you may recall that the lawsuit that kicked off this wave of lawsuits for songs that have a similar groove was also about a Marvin Gaye song, “Got to Give it Up” which was deemed too similar to Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines.” What you might not remember, though, is while that case was brought by the Gaye estate, this same company, Structured Asset Sales, tried to insert itself into the case as an extra plaintiff.
So, now we have an investment banker just trying to cash in on songs that have a similar groove and get free cash while making it depressingly difficult for artists to write new songs. This isn’t copyright trolling, exactly, it’s trying to lock up entire genres through financial shenanigans.
Filed Under: blurred lines, copyright, david pullman, ed sheeran, ed townsend, marvin gaye, songwriting
Companies: structured asset sales


Comments on “Ed Sheeran Just Can’t Get Away From Ridiculous Copyright Lawsuits”
© trolling? Worse.
Worse. It’s an evil mutant hybrid combination of what the Marvin Gaye Estate did with what Prenda Law and Malibu Media did: It’s genre-trolling, and it’s an absolutely pernicious and ugly beast. If we had a sound judiciary, I wouldn’t be worried, but the fifth circus and the current makeup of the SCOTUS leads me to believe the Federal judiciary are politicians in robes.
Re:
Politicians tend to pander to their fan base. They are more often than not turncoats. Judges are picked by politicians to cement some ideology. Of course, in order to be noticeably representative of some ideology, they need to be noticeably deviant from a mainstream interpretation.
So they aren’t generally turncoats but fossilized ideologists.
The processes just are not converging to sanity. Something like a “split along ideological lines” really is pointing to a problem rather than a working judiciary, and by far the largest individual blame for the system failing justice is not Justice Thomas but Senator Mitch McConnell who has sabotaged the intent of the process most perniciously and steadfastly (it’s not like others didn’t try so as well).
Re: Re:
I can’t help but agree with this over 9000%
A victim of their own hubris
Congress originally set the copyright term at 14 years, allowing our shared culture to be remixed, repurposes, preserved and enjoyed in the public commons.
Perhaps it is time to dial back the madness to something reasonable, this will cause the copyright trolls to go extinct, and few–if any–will mourn their passing.
What has to break in someone’s brain to just buy someone else’s creativity and then sue people about it? You can’t produce anything of value so you just scam everyone else? And you just know that asshole probably has the nerve to feel smug about all his money too.
Re:
To those in the grip of the degenerative cordyceps-like brain fungus known as IP maximalism, the intellectual “property” is all that has value.
Re: Re:
Bayside Advisory simp in 3, 2, 1…
Maybe Ed Sheeran is just too good for this world.
When a production
can have more then 1 Copyright.
Movies have MAny different CR.
Classical Music, even tho the Music is FREE, the Playing is Augmented as well as the Location played.
How many ways can a CR be held for 1 product.
Games can really Suck, as the Sound affects, the voices, the game itself, let alone an Original creation having Multiple versions.
Won't someone think of the... investment banker?
Oh what wonders of creativity copyright has enabled when copyrights can be bought by people who had nothing to do with the original work, just so the new owner can turn around and extort people for money, truly the creative fields would be barren and empty were copyright not a thing…
Re:
I agree. If we restrict copyright, how will investment bankers be encouraged to buy up more copyrights and hoard the rights for themselves?
On a serious note, if we don’t have copyright reform, how will artists be encouraged to make new content if they’re worried about getting sued by other copyright owners?
Seen it
Parasite kills host. But first, sports.
let me introduce you to the Four Chords Song
Term limits...
One of the smallest changes to current copyright law that could have the most impact is to reinstate reasonable term limits for copyright. One of the reasons copyright catalogs have become investment vehicles is because of the 90+ year term that a copyright is valid. A tentative proposal to change this:
1) A term limit for un-registered works of 5-10 years.
2) A term limit for registered works of something between 40-60 years.
In addition to reducing the investment value of copyrights (and the lawsuits such investments generate), these limits requirements would also reduce the prevalence of orphaned works where the current rightsholder can’t be identified. Or at least the length of time such works remain orphaned.
Re: Speaking as a multimedia creator...
…14 years is long enough protection for any copyright.
I once attended a talk by one of the expert witnesses in the blurred lines case. she showed us her musical analysis and how the songs were similar, how each section started the same number of bars in, how both songs modulated at the same spot, etc etc, pointing out stuff that she said was “unusual” and therefore strong evidence of copying
but the entire time I was thinking… but they still sound different. maybe they have the same bones, but the effect is not the same. and why should that mean the creator of the older song gets a judgment against the creator of the new one? why does the law have to get involved here?
I think that was the moment I started to doubt this whole system. you can always find a musicologist who says the songs are too similar. the end result is artists like sheeren have to live in fear of litigation every time they make new music.
maybe a just copyright system is possible for music. but we don’t have that.
Creativity cannot exist without freedom
I express my solidarity with Ed. Of course, the law is harsh and no one has canceled the rules. But everything should have a reasonable limit. Creativity cannot exist without freedom
Ed Sheeran law suits
Funny how a dead artists family keeps bringing up law suits. Get real you no more care about the music the man made famous you are just sucking up money. Everyone knows that a true musician would be honored if another artist emulated his song. Also if he was alive Ed would have asked Marvin for permission . You vultures just sully Marvin’s reputation. I hope you get Zero monies.