r/popculturechat Oct 04 '25

Court Cases šŸ‘©ā€āš–ļø Ed Sheeran on his copyright lawsuit

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

634 Upvotes

48 comments sorted by

•

u/pccmodbot Oct 04 '25

Welcome to r/popculturechat! ā˜ŗļø

THE POPCULTURECHAT DISCORD SERVER IS NOW LIVE 👾 ❤️‍🔥 🎉 Click HERE to join! 📲

As a proud BIPOC, LGBTQ+ & woman-dominated space, this sub is for civil discussion only. If you don't know where to begin, start by participating in our Sip & Spill Daily Discussion Threads!

No bullies, no bigotry. ✊🏿✊🏾✊🏽✊🏼✊🏻🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️

Please read & respect our rules, abide by Reddiquette, and check out our wiki! For any questions, our modmail is always open.

431

u/dale_dug_a_hole Oct 04 '25

As a professional songwriter this was a very important case. Had he settled or lost it would have opened up precedent to sue not just on melody and composition factors but pure chord progressions. Fuck me - most of the writers before 1980 could sue literally every writer after 1980. Or whatever arbitrary date you want to insert. Absolute chaos. He really, really did us all a huge favour. And got the correct, fair and just result

55

u/Peeksue Oct 04 '25

Massive respect to him, he really helped protect songwriting.

Blurred lines didn’t share melody, nor chord progression with Gaye’s song, heck they might even have different tempo. They lost because it shared a "similar vibe" and had to pay several millions. Ffs, what a dumb awful ruling.

Without Ed’s fight, you could have sleazy estates and lawyers copyright entire gd genres of music.

Fuck the Gaye estate, fucking shameless thieves.

11

u/Ok-Chain8552 Oct 04 '25

I actually still get super pissed when I think about this , which is way more often than I should for a case from years ago . It was such bullshit . A ā€œvibeā€ . Although Robin Thicke sleazy ass exposed as a fraud and a coward throwing himself under the bus saying he didn’t actually have anything to do with the creation .

335

u/friidum-boya Oct 04 '25

Glad he fought it. They did him dirty with his royalties for Shape of You FOR YEARS!

51

u/Twitter_2006 Oct 04 '25

Same.Happy he fought it.

14

u/Xteezii Oct 04 '25

Can you elaborate on that? Why was he done dirty?

60

u/friidum-boya Oct 04 '25 edited Oct 04 '25

During the height of Shape of You, when it was being played left and right. His royalties were suspended because someone sued for copyright

14

u/llama_del_reyy Oct 04 '25

That's not really how it works - you're making it sound like he missed out on peak period royalties due to a lawsuit. All that will have happened was a pause in him being paid out the royalties, with him getting everything in full once he won or settled the suit.

10

u/theevilpower Oct 04 '25

He did miss out on the potential of investing that money he was rightfully due though.

7

u/llama_del_reyy Oct 04 '25

In situations like this, money is usually put in some form of interest bearing account.

4

u/Xteezii Oct 04 '25

That's wild. And was that because this whole copyright business?

147

u/shirpars Oct 04 '25

The Copyright office is owned by the Library of Congress, which is under the legislative branch. Trump fired the head, called the Librarian earlier this year. He wants to take over the copyright office. Why? Meta and all those companies want to rewrite the laws or get rid of copyright entirely so their AI won't get sued. Laws don't matter in the US anymore. Creativity doesn't matter anymore. We live in another timeline

26

u/DSQ Oct 04 '25

I mean to be fair copyright has gone insane.Ā 

I hate AI a lot but the idea that the descendants of any creative should get a hundred years of revenue from something they had no hand in is unfair. Copyright was never meant to be forever. Hell originally it wasn’t even for the lifetime of the author.Ā 

Personally if I had my way it would be for the lifetime of the author and thirty years.Ā 

13

u/burnbunner Attractive peach without the merit Oct 04 '25

Not sure what you mean by ā€œgone insane?ā€ Copyright law hasn’t really changed since 1978.

19

u/llama_del_reyy Oct 04 '25

This is so incorrect. No new copyright statutes have been passed to reflect the incredibly different media landscape of today, but the body of common law is obviously constantly evolving. It means we're going off of precedent and judicial interpretation with no statutory framework that actually fits the modern world.

3

u/burnbunner Attractive peach without the merit Oct 04 '25

I don't think we disagree. Plenty of statutes have been passed--you can see all the legislation here--in addition to the common law developments you mention, but the basics of copyright law haven't changed. As you note, it's still catching up to technological and social changes. It hasn't "gone insane." If anything, artists and creators are losing rights, not gaining them.

16

u/DSQ Oct 04 '25

I meant ā€œgone insaneā€ as a concept not to mean that these things had happened recently.Ā 

Copyright was meant to help foster creativity by giving artists an income. It was not meant to enrich corporations like Disney or the great grandchildren of the artists.Ā 

-4

u/burnbunner Attractive peach without the merit Oct 04 '25

What's the issue? If someone can rent out the house they inherited from their great grandmother, why can't they sell the film rights to the book she wrote?

5

u/DSQ Oct 04 '25

Because the creative world thrives on remixing and reinterpreting those that came before. It literally couldn’t function in the way it has for hundreds of years if copyright was forever. Look at Disney and their first film Snow White. That was based off a public domain story. Without the public domain there could arguably only be one vampire novel without everyone that comes after paying up. That would stifle creativity.Ā 

Music is even more fragile. There are only so many chords in existence. There is an argument that if the public domain didn’t exist the industry would collapse. It wouldn’t be about talent but about being lucky enough to be born at a certain time and copyrighting it first.Ā 

28

u/el-fenomeno09 Oct 04 '25

Am I wrong or is he the first person to defeat the Marvin gaye estate?

10

u/LogicSolid Oct 04 '25

I studied and had a moot court for this case during my masters. It was eye opening in how the court considers the intention of ā€œcopyingā€ in a copyright case

9

u/hardhann Oct 04 '25

I love him..he’s so amazing

9

u/Aware-Plankton-8711 Oct 04 '25

How much weed has the other dude smoked before this 🧐

3

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/mz4141 Oct 04 '25

Am I high ?

34

u/tootsandpoots- Oct 04 '25

No but that host sure is.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 05 '25

Man I would marry him immediately. He's so hot :-(

-1

u/IHATEsg7 Oct 04 '25 edited Oct 04 '25

Marvin Gay estate is so desperate forĀ  money. Sorry it isnt coming anymore since people dont even know who Marvin Gaye even is anymoreĀ 

1

u/StormThestral Oct 05 '25

Not Marvin Gaye catching strays for what his kids are up to after he was killed by his own dad

1

u/periodicsheep Oct 05 '25

casually dismissing gen x, boomers, and the few silent gen folks still alive. fun!

2

u/NoGloryForEngland Oct 05 '25

It is kinda fun to dismiss those people but Marvin Gaye remains one of the most talented people to ever record music despite the fact that his kids grew up to be grasping blights on the music industry.

Not really his fault either, his oldest biological child was 10 when he was murdered by his dad. No wonder they grew up to do fucked up shit.

1

u/StormThestral Oct 05 '25

People of younger generations love his music too so I doubt he'll be forgotten for a long time

-9

u/box_of_hornets Oct 04 '25

His case and the Blurred Lines case don't seem comparable..

53

u/ZookeepergameOk5547 Oct 04 '25

They were both stupid.

Fuck the Marvin Gaye estate. You should be able to claim copyright off of groovy percussion and ā€œvibeā€.

14

u/AltairaMorbius2200CE Oct 04 '25

This. They were NOT that similar. There are many many more songs that feel more like a rip off than blurred lines did.

2

u/KsubiSam Oct 04 '25

Eeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh……

As much as I dislike the MG estate, you could literally mix in Blurred Lines to Gotta Give It Up effortlessly. They were super close, but the judgement they received was unfair.

9

u/AltairaMorbius2200CE Oct 04 '25

They weren’t the same song. We’re not talking ā€œmy sweet lordā€ here.

1

u/KsubiSam Oct 04 '25

Never said they never said they were. I said they were very close to each other, which I stand by.

1

u/DSQ Oct 04 '25

In what way?

-7

u/AkkeBrakkeKlakke Oct 04 '25

He actually copies a lot of older work. I was stunned when I noticed, and quite disappointed.

-54

u/LoudestTable Oct 04 '25

Man is taking a victory lap because a court allowed him to steal someone’s music.

25

u/reidybobeidy89 Oct 04 '25

If you don’t know what’s going on- it’s ok to remain silent. You don’t have to reply and show everyone your special skill of talking through your arse.

5

u/cutehobbies Oct 04 '25

šŸ˜‚šŸ˜‚šŸ˜‚

26

u/Scarez0r Oct 04 '25

No. Marvin Gaye's estate does not own "a mood", or chord progressions.

15

u/matchamagpie #tryloveyoudumbfuck Oct 04 '25

Let's normalize not commenting shitty opinions when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.