Jump to content

Ed Sheeran Decision

Johnbee58

By Johnbee58
in The Coffee House

 Share

Recommended Posts

mettelus

mettelus

Posted
Posted

There was a video I saw roughly 10 years ago that I have never been able to find since. It was called basically "the riff" (I cannot remember the exact title), but what it showed was the identical riff (bunch of old video footage daisy chained together) played on various instruments over a span of like 50 years. Definitely interesting to see with all of the suits that get thrown about. If it gets conceived, someone else has probably already done it.

The converse is also true where the same material will be used in successive works by the same person. I was at a pub once where the guitarist used the same solo three songs straight (just changed the key), but movie content catches my attention more often. I will run movies for background noise a lot, and while listening to "Gladiator" I suddenly sat up and thought, "WTF am I hearing the theme from 'Pirates of the Caribbean'???" Those common hits are more frequent than some realize, but if not watching the movie, they tend to stand out more.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Notes_Norton

Notes_Norton

Posted
Posted

I think Robin Thicke's Blurred Lines was a bad decision, and this, a good one.

The purpose of copyright is to protect the income of the original artist. In no way did either of these songs hurt the income of Marvin Gaye's estate.

I knew Marvin a little when I was with Motown, and I don't think he would have sued.

So there is a moral, don't be influenced by anything Marvin's heirs can sue you for.

Chord progressions "No"

Background rhythms "No"

Melody "Yes"

Lyrics "Yes"

It's really simple.

 

Insights and incites by Notes ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Old Joad

Old Joad

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Notes_Norton said:

So there is a moral, don't be influenced by anything Marvin's heirs can sue you for.

As time goes by there is less pie to go around.

I wonder if Ed will sue when AI Ed Sheeran puts out a better song then anything he can come up with💭

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bitflipper

bitflipper

Posted
Posted

It's about time a jury ruled correctly on one of these cases.

Ever notice that none of these cases have ever been brought by the presumed aggrieved party? They are always filed by either freeloading relatives of a deceased artist or by a legal firm retained by Warner or Sony.

Except for The E*****. D** H****** is a litigious jerk. (Redacted so I don't get sued.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RobertWS

RobertWS

Posted
Posted

The only time I heard of a successful suit was when George Harrison got sued for "My Sweet Lord".    Even he agreed he must have heard it and accidentally stole it.

It's different when rap/hip-hop "artists" use samples from other songs.    They pay!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
paulo

paulo

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Bapu said:

In "Yesterday" Ed was the biggest star on earth. He should sue everybody.

I heard that a studio assistant who used to stutter quite badly was trying to tell them that he to leave because his nan had died and that's how they got the chorus for Hey Jude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Notes_Norton

Notes_Norton

Posted
Posted

Think of all the licks that we use as the vocabulary of our music. They evolve through time, the boogie woogie piano part of the swing jazz era became a bass line in the early rock days, and so on. There are thousands more like this.

We all learn from what came before, and we are all influenced by what we hear, so some of it is going to come out.

In both jazz and folk music, there is a tradition of quoting a few bars of another song in a new song. It's homage, not plagiarism.

If you steal the melody, or the lyrics, that's an obvious violation. But the rhythm? Or the chord progression? Come on.

Samples are different. They are using someone else's performance. I'm not sure if the paying for them is right. After all, a visual artist can make a collage of different images to create a new work of art, and he/she doesn't have to pay royalties.

Perhaps the musicians should be paid for the session work? I don't know.

The original intent of copyright law was to protect the income of the original artist by being stolen and used by another. There is no way Sheeran's song is hurting the income of the heirs of Marvin Gaye's estate.

Funny thing about copyright.

If someone creates a cure for cancer, he patents it, and gets fewer than 20 years of protection.

Yet a 25-year-old person can write a song, live to 100, and his/her copyright is good for 75 years after he/she dies.

The cure for cancer gets 20 years of protection, and the theoretical song above gets 150 years.

That just doesn't seem right to me.

But this is all just my opinion.

 

Insights and incites by Notes ♫

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnbee58

Johnbee58

Posted
  • Author
Posted

A ruling against Sheeran would've changed the entire climate of copyright law.  Nobody would be able to write any song without fear of being sued by somebody.

Then, as Rick Beato put it, (paraphrasing) every song that possibly could've been written would already be written.

😀John B

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...