Comment: What Ed Sheeran’s copyright court case win means Published on: 11 May 2023 Writing for The Conversation, Dr Adam Behr discusses the background, context and implications of the recent Ed Sheeran copyright case. , Ed Sheeran came out swinging in his statement after a New York court found in his favour last week over a claim that his 2014 song infringed copyright in Marvin Gaye’s hit . He called suits like the one brought by the estate of Gaye’s co-writer Ed Townshend “baseless” and pointed to the : I am not and will never allow myself to be a piggy bank for anyone to shake … I want to thank the jury for making a decision that will help to protect the creative process of songwriters here in the United States and around the world … These claims need to be stopped so that the creative process can carry on, and we can all just go back to making music. It wasn’t his first time facing , copyright suits being a common professional hazard. As the old industry maxim states, . So why did Sheeran allude to benefits for songwriters at large from this verdict? A multifaceted legal mechanism Copyright is complex, with numerous points of potential dispute across different aspects of the musical work in question. First, it is not a single, indivisible legal mechanism. There is copyright in the underlying work – the composition – and copyright in the recording of that work. Where a song has been sampled without permission, for example, the recording copyright has been infringed. When Sean Coombs failed to secure clearance for a sample from The Police’s Every Breath You Take in I’ll Be Missing You, he ceded royalties to Sting. The relationship between composition and its realisation in recording has also been contentious, especially for songs put together in the studio by bands, where verbal agreements between the members come into play. Members of Spandau Ballet like vocal delivery and saxophone solos merited a portion of songwriter Gary Kemp’s royalties. They were unsuccessful, although Mike Joyce and Andy Rourke, former drummer and bassist in The Smiths, from Morrissey and guitarist Johnny Marr. Intra-band disputes, however, don’t speak to the purpose of copyright in the same way as plagiarism suits. At issue for Sheeran was what counts as protectible under copyright. Lyrics and melody have traditionally been the core musical features that enjoyed copyright protection. So when session singer Clare Torry won an out-of-court settlement from Pink Floyd over her vocal improvisation on , her claim pertained to the “top-line melody” being her creation. Likewise, George Harrison’s was found in 1976 to have infringed The Chiffons’ , because there was a substantive passage in both songs where the melody was the same, and Harrison could viably be claimed to have been aware of the prior song. It wasn’t even deemed necessary for the copying to have been deliberate – the court acknowledged that plagiarism took place “”. Protecting past originality and future creativity The purpose of identifying copyrightable features of compositions is to incentivise creators, allowing them to profit from their originality. Simultaneously, though, copyright was designed to benefit society by facilitating a common creative culture through a body of work in the public domain that others can draw on. This is why it is in both time (how long a work remains under copyright) and scope (the specific elements that are protected). The in the Sheeran case, according to the plaintiff’s legal team, was a and demonstrating a shared a . Sheeran’s defence claimed that such chord sequences are not protectible but, rather, the common currency of songwriting. As he showed in court, and as widely illustrated by musical and comedy performances, innumerable songs share such chord sequences. Given this shared musical language and the constraints of popular music, like genre conventions or song length, a degree of similarity doesn’t automatically imply plagiarism. What’s more, musicians from the huge body of work that precedes them. The legal question, then, isn’t whether two songs are similar, but whether the resemblance can be shown to reside in protectible elements of the prior work, and to constitute a substantial enough part of both songs to fall outside of being common currency. Is it a protracted rather than just a fragmentary stretch of melody, for instance? Copyright suits in US circuit courts can set precedent. Indeed, it was findings against hip-hop artists’ early use of samples in the 1980s and 1990s that defined the . There are also debates about whether using is the best way to decide complex copyright disputes, especially where the protected status of musical elements is unclear or counter-intuitive. This was the case with , where the song’s general feel and production were found to have in another Marvin Gaye song, , despite a between them. The risk is that lawsuits expand copyright’s remit, curtailing future creativity, especially for artists without deep pockets to sustain legal battles. This is why what was at stake in the Sheeran case was more than his artistic integrity or the musical distinctiveness of Let’s Get It On. Past originality is valuable and warrants protection, but so does the future, and the public domain. , Senior Lecturer in Popular and Contemporary Music, This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the . Share: Latest News Scientists unlock hidden driver of inflammatory bowel disease Scientists have linked a key genetic signal in inflammatory bowel disease to an immune response that shuts down inflammation control, enabling faster diagnosis and targeted treatments. published on: 15 June 2026 Funding system risks limiting genuine community collaboration A new policy paper written by researchers at Â鶹´«Ă˝ warns that the way UK research is funded may be undermining efforts to create genuinely collaborative partnerships with communities. published on: 15 June 2026 Volunteers help turn Whitley Bay beach into maths experiment Members of the public joined mathematicians from Â鶹´«Ă˝ to create what organisers believe is the largest aperiodic tiling ever attempted on Whitley Bay beach. published on: 15 June 2026 Facts and figures
![Â鶹´«Ă˝ logo](/gomobileassets/img/logo.svg" "Â鶹´«Ă˝"){kind=logo}