Marvin Gaye v. Ed Sheeran

[Carborendum]

For those who haven't heard, Marvin Gaye's estate (or whoever holds the copyright to his music today) is suing Ed Sheeran for the similarities between the songs:

Let's Get it On
Thinking Out Loud

While the background music is very similar, the melody line is pretty distinct.  And the overall feel is just plain different.

The problem with pointing out the background music is that it is just a common chord progression that we hear in about a million songs.  When I was a teen (when there was no internet) I listened to tapes and CDs of songs I wanted to play on the guitar.  I never got really good at fingerstyle or even tabs. But I could do chord progressions pretty easily.

I wrote down all the lyrics as I heard them on the recordings.  I then had to figure out the chords.  This part was actually pretty easy because almost all the songs from the 50s to the 80 used the same progressions over and over again.  You just had to figure out the key.  Then the patterns were all remarkably similar.  Once in a while I'd get a surprise which would slow me down a bit.  But I'd get over that hiccup and keep going with the same pattern in a dozen other songs.

It is this very common chord progression that is being fought in court now.

I am on the side of wanting original music.  But to have suits over this is just plain crap.  There are simply too many highly common tunes that are so basic that copyrighting them would be like patenting the wheel or a staff.  That's ridiculous.  No one can own these.  It's akin to patent trolling.

I wonder, though, if there is an analog in the software industry that could be applied.  As I understand it, the industry has agreed (as an industry and with political intervention) to certain levels of overlap to be "necessary and proper" to the development of new products.

Basics of computer operation on the programming level have only a few options.  So, the industry has agreed that these fundamentals have a sort of shared patent.  I haven't seen the specifics of the agreement.  This is what my software engineer BIL tells me.

As far as software with similar functions (such as word processing software from different developers) must maintain a certain percentage of unique programming.  So, some overlap is allowed.  But it must be kept to a minimum.  Again, I haven't read the legal documents.  This is my understanding.

So, why can't the music industry agree to similar levels of overlap?  Can't we all agree that there are going to be certain things that are so fundamental to music that anyone could really come up with the exact same thing on their own?  Independent development? 

Well, we could say that about every patent.  Yes, but the likelihood with very basic things is much higher than with more complex things.  And when we're talking about a basic chord progression, that's just SO common that it is ridiculous to believe anyone "owns" that chord progression.

[The Folk Prophet]

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

For those who haven't heard, Marvin Gaye's estate (or whoever holds the copyright to his music today) is suing Ed Sheeran for the similarities between the songs:

Let's Get it On
Thinking Out Loud

While the background music is very similar, the melody line is pretty distinct.  And the overall feel is just plain different.

You can't hear the similarity between the melody lines?

[pam]

It's not the first time Ed has been sued for the exact same thing.  I think he had to pay something like $22M for one of his other cases.  

[Vort]

The older I get, the less I like IP laws. (Disclosure: My lawyer son will be neck-deep in IP by the end of this year. For the record, he tends to agree with me on this topic. But he's still going to take a lot of Houston's money litigating in IP.) I understand the basis of "intellectual property" and I agree with the idea of a copyright. But having a patent, copyright, or other protection on things like music progression, rhythms, storylines, programming code flow, genetic sequences, and other such constructs seems to me not to fill any public need or forward our civilization—the supposed raison d'être of such laws. I was an early and rather vocal predictor of the futility and ultimate failure of the doomed-to-be-short-lived open source fad. I consider myself to have been clearly proven wrong and have since changed my tune (and I hope no one sues me for duplicating theirs).

We all stand on the shoulders of those who came before. Fundamentally, patent and copyright exist not to "protect the intellectual rights" of the inventor or author, but to provide maximal societal benefit by encouraging invention. This is largely no longer the way things function; patents these days are more often used to stake out territory and wait to tap a real inventor on the shoulder and extort some money, thusly: "We noticed that your invention uses our patent-protected technology, which obviously we must protect with legal action. However, we will be happy to sell you a license to our technology package starting at $50,000 and $1 per item manufactured. Yours truly, Av, Aris and Gread, Attorneys at Law, representing Joe's Patent Trolling LLC." The US stands in desperate need of IP reform. I personally have no clear idea what shape that reform ought to take.

[Carborendum]

13 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You can't hear the similarity between the melody lines?

I've also noticed that the comparisons I've heard are not about the melody. They are about the background and beat.  You can't copyright a time signature & tempo for Pete's sake!

Are there some similarities?  Not near enough IMO.  While we have similar rises and falls, the rhythm is clearly different, the steps between peaks and valleys are different.  And there are differences in dynamics and pauses.  The differences become much more clear when you see the sheet music.  It isn't just a change in tempo or key (like some real copies I've heard).  These are substantive differences.  It is a lot clearer when you see the actual sheet music.

If you can isolate the melodies and point out the similarities, I'd be happy to listen.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

all music is 'stolen' from music that came before. Also, Ed testified that he borrowed elements of a Van Morison song.

[Carborendum]

3 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

all music is 'stolen' from music that came before. Also, Ed testified that he borrowed elements of a Van Morison song.

Not quite.  He wrote the song and he and his producer both thought that it had a "Van Morrison" feel to it.  When they heard the music played back they said,"Hey, we just wrote a Van Morrison song."  This was not meant to say that they wrote a copy.  But that the overall "feel" was very similar to Van Morrison's style.

I'm going to tell a Billy Joel anecdote.  He was writing the song that would eventually become "Moving Out."  While one of his greatest hits, it is a lesser known piece to people who don't collect his work.

When he finished the composition, his producer said,"You idiot!  That's *(another song which I don't remember and had never heard)*"

Billy tried to point out the differences.  But his producer would have none of it.  In the end, he had to admit that while he thought it was different, it was similar enough that his own producer believed it was a copy.  He was very disappointed because he spent a lot of time on that piece.

In the end, he was happy because the new composition seemed to have a better fit for the lyrics he wrote.

If a trained musician/composer/songwriter like Billy Joel believes it is different, but the common aficionado is going to think it is the same, sometimes the lesser trained judgment will win out anyway.

[The Folk Prophet]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

If you can isolate the melodies and point out the similarities, 

Nah.  I'm just glad to hear you realize there are some. I think the lawsuit is beyond stupid. But there are also clear similarities. I mean the first line (four or five notes) of both songs is like one note (interval) difference, (keyed differently though), if I recall. Still not enough to justify the suit. 

[Guest Godless]

I haven't been following this story, but based on this post that just popped up in one of my FB groups, it looks like Sheeran won.

 

[pam]

Voted in favor of Ed.  

 

Ed Sheeran wins

 

 

[The Folk Prophet]

I hope he counter sues.

[LDSGator]

@The Folk Prophet as someone who makes music professionally, how do you make sure you aren’t copying famous songs? Not out of malice, just subconsciously. 

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

The Folk Prophet as someone who makes music professionally, how do you make sure you aren’t copying famous songs?

You don't. 

You do make sure you aren't purposefully copying. But there's no mitigation for unknowingly being similar. You can't know what you don't know. 

[LDSGator]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You don't. 

You do make sure you aren't purposefully copying. But there's no mitigation for unknowingly being similar. You can't know what you don't know. 

Great answer. Truth. 

Edited May 5 by LDSGator

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Great answer. Truth. 

Another thought to add to this... everyone copies. Everyone. You build on what you understand and like, and then change it up. That's kind of the way it works. Sometimes you're just using general knowledge that's gleaned from the history of it all...and sometimes you're taking a specific idea or song and using it as a base, changing it up to not actually be plagiarism. 

Accordingly, I think it would be very strange for a composer to copy something and be dumb enough to not change it up where it wasn't plagiarism. That's partly why I don't think Ed Sheeran stole anything. He doesn't seem that dumb. If he was using Let's Get It On as the basis of his song he would have likely made it different enough to be safer. When a song sounds "the same" as another there's always the possibility that the composer straight up copied it and thought no one would notice...but I think that's probably typically less common (though I'm sure it happens). It's more likely coincidence. But who's to say?

Law suits against stealing music should be based on one thing and one thing alone....loss. That's it. The idea that Ed Sheeran's song made less people buy Marvin Gaye's song is RIDICULOUS. What loss were they suing against? It's so dumb. If your write something and someone else does something similar and thereby steals your thunder, and thereby you lose sales potential, then there's harm, and then a suit can be meaningful. Otherwise it's just someone taking an opportunity to try and take advantage of another and it's scummy. Which is most lawsuit's

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Another thought to add to this... everyone copies. Everyone

“Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.”-T.S. Eliot

[LDSGator]

And given that there are only seven basic plots, I totally agree with @The Folk Prophet that everyone steals, copies or imitates.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, LDSGator said:

And given that there are only seven basic plots, I totally agree with @The Folk Prophet that everyone steals, copies or imitates.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots

Well, there might "only" be seven "basic" plots, but there are unlimited plots.

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Well, there might "only" be seven "basic" plots, but there are unlimited plots.

Agree.