UPDATE: Ed Sheeran vs Marvin Gaye Lawsuit 

There won't be many more of these law suits, because judging by Rick's top 20 rundown, no one is actually writing pop songs anymore.

I hear a similarity but if we’re going to say songs can’t sound similar at all, we’ll have to stop writing new music.

I just heard about this lawsuit and Ed Sheeran winning it today even though apparently it's been going on for 8 years already. I am familiar with both songs and I never made the connection of both songs sounding similar. Personally that tells me that the two songs are different enough.

Sometimes lawsuits like these make me feel like the suer is a washed up has been desperate for money. It’s like disrespecting someone that admires you, too. 🤷🏾‍♂️

The sad part is that this lawsuit has nothing to do with the artists themselves. I would imagine that if Marvin Gaye was still alive, it would be settled by having them sing a duet together or something along those lines.

These lawsuits are hardly ever brought by the original artists - we're all being held to ransom by trolls. Copyright law has gotten completely out of control, and now it's nigh on impossible to come up with a melody that doesn't replicate some part of some tune from the last century. This has to stop.

Well done Ed! You can't copyright the building blocks of music. It belongs to everyone.

From a friend of mine and lawyer (not mine LOL): So...Sheeran won the infringement suit and really deserved to win the suit. As a songwriter, I found out early on that your friends and family love to compare your songs (particularly your early songs) to songs and writers they know. "That sounds like Billy Joel!" Or, "did you take that from Let it Be?" The thing is--with pop music there are only so many ways to combine chords. And a simple song, like Let it Be, uses a chord structure that has been used in thousands of songs (both before and after it was written). Let it Be is a great song because of what McCartney did with that structure. I've linked to the recent Rick Beato video (pre-verdict) in which he argues that Sheeran borrowed his verse chord progression and sound from Gaye's Let's Get it On (and that Sheeran should pay part of his profits to the plaintiffs). It's a convincing video. The verses in Thinking Out Loud do have the same tempo, chord structure, and drum and bass rhythm as Gaye's tune. But Beato didn't quite understand what was at issue in the case. The plaintiffs (heirs of Gaye's co-writer) only had a piece of the "musical composition" copyright. Think of it as the "sheet music." It's the lyrics, melody line, and chord changes. They didn't have the "sound recording" copyright--which is a copyright for the song as performed/produced. So you're basically comparing sheet music. The songs share a chord progression (which Sheeran has in his verses)--but the melody lines (notes and rhythm) in those verses are completely different. The lyrics are completely different. And Sheeran's song has a completely different chorus and bridge chord structure. In my view, the case shouldn't have gone to trial. You can't enforce a copyright on a common "chord progression" used in many, many pop songs. The jury got it right. Beato's analysis would at least be interesting if the "sound recording" copyright was at issue. To borrow his analysis, when you listen to the verses side by side, the musical similarities are substantial--not just the chord progression but the rhythm tracks, arrangement and sound. I still would side with Sheeran because I don't think the progression and sound combination are that unique AND because I think the overall effect of the two songs are very different. I hear the similarities, when played side by side; but when I first heard Thinking Out Loud, I didn't think of Let's Get it On.

You cannot copyright a chord progression. This case is nonsense

I was chatting to a professional author at a party, and he said it was weird when he first turned professional as he knew he was trying to make a living using the same words that everyone else had access to , just putting them in a different order. Songwriters are in the same boat.

Justice prevailed! I'm no Sheeran fan, but for the sake of the music industry, then I was happy with the verdict.

Interesting that Ed Sheeran was able to win this lawsuit and actually testified on his on behalf! His defense was pretty straightforward and as a fan of both singers I think the "Not Guilty" was the right verdict. Ed's team said "The two songs share versions of a similar and unprotectable chord progression that was freely available to all songwriters"

You cannot copyright a chord progression. Imagine of someone in the movie, book, or game industry managed to successfully sue someone else over the use of the Hero's Journey

I think all lawyers should be sued for suing in the same sue style that other suers have sued in. Edit: For people saying I copied the comment, yes I did and so to let you know that I'm not taking any credit for it just letting out some old comment to some people and making their day and plus the situation is such that its still the same so why not? And why won't I,if it makes people smile to these mind blowing copyright of song. It just cuz of ridiculous common chords and the tempo. I don't know why people are so triggered or sensitive about me copying a comment which does even benifits me. Talk about which should be a copyright and which not to be lol.

There's no comparison to "Let's Get It On" by Marvin Gaye, full Stop.!! Ed Sheeran should win this case; hands down.

"Do they owe them some money because it was borrowed? Probably." That statement really bugged me, I'm glad you were wrong about that, Rick. My answer to that question was "Absolutely not, not a single penny."

Every song I've written was inspired by other music I've heard, in one way or another. Corporatization of music is killing the art.

I have played Thinking Out Loud 100 times and Let's Get It On has never come to mind when I've listened to it, and I've played that a lot too.

Legally, if I’m not mistaken, for a song to to be held as violating a copy, 2 of 3 terms have to be copied by a new work: Lyrics Melody Cadence Sheeran’s song can be argued uses the same chord progression, which isn’t illegal. But it doesn’t use any of the 3 aforementioned terms.

I get the chord progession argument. But its clearly usage of an entire arrangement. Not just the chords

Never get between a hungry Lawyer and a bucket of money

I wouldn't be surprised if there are more than one tune out there written prior to Let's get it on with the very same progression, especially for how simple and basic it is! It's Marvin's take on the progression, his singing, and lyrics that really make the tune. You can take or move a comma in a sentence and completely change it's meaning! Also: Anyone ever notice that artists rarely sue each other over this kind of thing, but rather record companies, publishers and estates... that had jack all to do with writing the tunes? Just imagine if everyone with a 12 bar blues tune sued each other over the chord progression! YIKES!

Ed has been proven not guilty by a jury!!!!

It is the family of Ed Townsend (co-writer for Let's Get It On) that is suing Ed Sheeran. NOT the Marvin Gaye Estate.

I would have never thought the two songs sound similar until they are being played one by one with each other.

i think of how many times i've "written" a guitar riff and super excited about it then 3 weeks later i hear an old song on the radio and I'm like oh...guess i can't use that one

Rick, when did music copyright laws go from protecting melody strings/lyrics, & grow to encompass chord progressions & grooves? If we uphold those as copyright-able, then literally 90% of all modern songs are rip-offs. There's maybe 24 popularly used cadences that you could shoehorn practically every song ever written into.

So many songs are being imitated, remixed, sampled, we're getting to the point where everyone is running out of ideas, just like movies

The worst thing about this is it is the worthless family members doing it, people who have done nothing with their lives except sue other people over songs they had nothing to do with.

A musician friend of mine many years ago said all chord sequences and rhythms have now been used. There needs to be a recognition of the originators, but copyright used to be limited to 20 years. Suggest we revert to that. We've lost the purpose of copyright which is the cause of the problems

The most noticeable is probably the drums. There shouldn’t be copyright laws on drum samples NO MATTER WHAT. I could accidentally layer kicks and snares to get that same vibe

Lots of artists try to steal from black music, but I have to be truthful. This is not the case with this song. I'm glad he won.

You point out the most critical aspect. Derivative. Being influenced by an aspect of a song is not the same as "stealing" or "borrowing". Marvin's song is an all-time classic. Ed's is similar as many other songs are, but it stands alone and a casual observer would probably not put the two together.

In the 80's EMI tried to sue John Fogerty for Old Man Down thr Road because it sounded like Green River, even though he wrote both songs.

The melodies are what's driving the songs in this case. Though I do think something should be paid to whoever owns the rights to Let's Get It On because the chord progression and rhythm is identical.

Thankfully the jury saw otherwise ..

This lawsuit is incredibly disrespectful. I think if Marvin Gaye was still alive he would’ve never agreed to this. It all comes down to personal greed, its disgusting.

That chord progression and drum groove are so common/basic that I don't think there's any infringement at all. Copyright is supposed to be for non-obvious ideas. It's like saying cars infringe the copyright of bikes because they both use wheels.

The chord progression plus being almost identical in groove, bass line and tempo is what prompted this lawsuit. I think the mechanical similarities with Etta James "I'd rather go blind" and Chris Stapleton's "Tennessee Whiskey" are much stronger. It is noteworthy that the melodies are different in both examples. I think what will be argued in court is that Ed benefitted greatly from the collective consciousness of the music listening public being exposed to "Let's get it on" for nearly 40 years beforehand. Between the two songs how do you value the predecessor? It can be argued that "Thinking out Loud doesn't stand solely on it's own merits but on the familiarity of "Let's get it on". Tens of millions of people might have liked the song consciously or subconsciously because of "Let's get it on." I agree with credit/acknowledgement being given but not total $$ in "damages." Who exactly was damaged and how were they damaged? If anything this song fueled a resurgence for the popularity of "Let's get it on." How then do we calculate the added value to the copyright? It can be argued that a 40 year old song had lost relevance and popularity in the musical landscape and that "thinking out loud" brought it back into our collective conscience. This creates a never ending loop. Both parties benefitted financially.

i love the softer lighting in this video to differentiate between your normal content and music news or updates. cool beans

As I began writing music, I was always told you can't copyright a chord change or a style, since the first are in limited supply and the second are a question of taste. You can copyright a melody and words, because they are more empirically verifiable: compare the two songs and if they're extremely similar, it's a violation of copyright. I think that rule makes sense.

Hey Rick - IMO, it’s always been about melody and lyrics. Chord progressions and groove can’t be copyrighted; if a chord progression can be copyrighted, then, there are no new songs, and everything is stolen. Love your content! 👊🏼

Hey Rick, with the recent passing of Gordon Lightfoot, I'd love to see your anaylisis of Gordon's "If you could read my mind", versus Mike Masser's "The greatest love of all", made famous by Whitney Houstan. As you may know, this resulted in a lawsuit back in the 80s... Enjoy your posts.. keep up the great work!

Very interesting! Occasionally I hear a song that reminds me of another song, but I never connected these two and I like and listen to both.

Rick I can't say it enough...... I dig ya dude. You are spot on with most things. I wish you a happy 61 and many many healthy, happy, prosperous, and successful years to come.

I hate copyright law when it comes to music. The last thing a songwriter needs is to be afraid to write a song because it just so happens to sound like a song from 50 years ago. There's bound to be some form of overlap when you have a finite number of different notes and chords. I've had some ideas for songs I wanted to write. I'd just better pray that none of them end up sounding anything like Marvin Gaye...

Be careful someone can actually sue you for words like “Love you forever “ and other phrases and probably any letter of the alphabet.

I wanted to hear this song and thus clicked on Ed's song. I've heard Marvin's song many times. But then I went back and boom, your page shows up. Excellent analysis! It's not until you superimposed the songs at the outset of this video that I get it what the claim is all about. I'm no Ed Sheeran fan and at first would never have compared the two. You mention blurred lines at the end and that how you were surprised that that case was successfully won by Marvin Gaye. To me, that song s music was exactly like Marvin's original! The lyrics not so much. I'm a layman. I know what I hear and like. Blurred lines was a great song maybe because the beat was lifted from the original song. While I'm no Ed Sheeran fan, I just don't hear it in this case. Clearly you don't have an influence over the public or a jury's decision and were surprised in the Blurred Lines decision. I'm going to say that based solely on the first part of this video, they might win something, maybe. If it weren't for technology I would never know the differences in this song. I agree that at some point in human evolution songs will sound alike because I don't think song writing is infinite. Thank you

I agree with everything you said, except I would say the part that you played is actually the pre-chorus and the chorus is the one that starts with the same chord progression as the verses, of course it has a different melody and a different ending, so the chorus would be: "Honey now Take me into your loving arms Kiss me under the light of a thousand stars Place your head on my beating heart I'm thinking out loud (then the ending with different chord progression) Maybe we found love right where we are"

I would be hysterical if Sheeran's lawyers blocked this video on a copyright claim!

Let’s Get It On is one of my all time favorites songs… not once has Ed’s song sounded even remotely similar to me.

This is such a weak move by Marvin’s family. People just want money lol this isn’t theft. I can show you songs that are blatant plagiarism, this isn’t it. Not even close.

I’m reminded of Prince reaching out to Journey/J. Cain about Purple Rain. Amazing artist and a stand up guy.

Fox just gave you a shout out for your analysis of the Sheeran controversy 1:15 pm today!

Sheeran won his case. Anyone who confuses these two songs has a vivid imagination! I’ve enjoyed Marvin Gaye tunes for decades. I’ve never heard of Sheeran until the court case came out. The two songs are utterly different. Hopefully Sheeran got a lot of exposure from this.

This is by far the best summary and most simple breakdown to follow 👍

If Ed Sheeran loses this case then it opens the door for thousands of similar cases. Hell, Status Quo would be in big trouble!!!

Here's one...Keith Jarrett "Long As You Know Your Living Yours' 1974 and Steely Dan "Gaucho" 1980. It's pretty obscure, but hard not to notice similarities.

My fiance is a guitarist and drummer, he said if they went after him and won almost every blues writer would be in trouble.

I guarantee if they had recordings from 200 years ago, those artists would have solid lawsuits against all these 'original' writers that are suing others today.

Only so many chord progressions exist. It’s impossible to write a song that doesn’t have the same chord progression as previous songs. It’s insane. Things like this makes you scared to write anything.

My understanding is, you can't copyright a chord progression. Only melody and lyrics.

Marvin Gaye’s greedy family is giving Marvin Gaye a BAD NAME.

This is the issue with the music industry. Literally, EVERY artist has ripped or borrowed from another artist. This is why we as musicians have to take the industry back.

The groove is the same to thousand bluesy songs....

Melody and lyrics are different. Rhythm, bass, groove and chord sequence are the same. Most people would argue that melody and lyrics are the most important?

Sheeran was quoted in 2014 as being inspired by Van Morrison’s Crazy Love. As a listener, to me all three songs are different- people respond to a song’s totality rather than dissected individual notes.

While these songs sound VERY similar, Ed does have a point. There are only so many chord sequences you can use, and since so many songs use the same sequences from other songs, how can one make music without it "plagiarizing" someone else. I personally think if you maintain the same chord structure but make the composition unique, there shouldn't be a problem.

Can't copyright a groove, or a chord progression

I've never heard Ed's song until today. Marvin's song does not come to mind for me.

Ed Sheeran said he was inspired by Van Morrison. Crazy Love is three years older than Let's Get it On. Does that mean Van Morrison can sue Marvin Gaye's estate, someone else can sue Van Morrison and so on? That's where we end up if Marvin Gaye's estate wins, the descendants of long-dead artists laying claim to various components of music theory and making it impossible to write new songs. There's only a finite number of chords and chord progressions, and even fewer if you're working in a particular genre or trying to convey a given emotion. You could, as Ed demonstrated in court, find several songs that sound similar. That doesn't make it plagiarism.

I just listened to the Ed Sheeran song ( for the first time believe it or not ) and if someone didn’t point out the “ similarities “ I would have never heard them , with “ maybe “ the exception of the rhythm . This was an attempted money grab from Marvin Gaye’s estate as far as I’m concerned. Nice post Mr B thank you 🙏

1) it's not just a chord progression. It's a chord progression with a specific accent and tempo; 2) prior to Sheeran's song, had you played it acoustically on a guitar, or a piano, or even just the bass notes to any fairly seasoned session musician, *all would have said "that's Marvin Gaye". Probably the same goes for anyone that has heard the song. In other words, no producer would have heard the demo and *not* thought "that's Marvin Gaye". The accent and tempo defines it, not just the progression. A decision was made to ignore that.

The courts have just cleared Ed sheeran of plagiarism. Game over.

The Blurred Lines case should not be cited. The Appellate Court said its hands were tied, prohibiting it from evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence because the defense attorneys screwed up on an important procedural step that all law students learn in law school.

It really is a case of blurred lines, indeed. I had the pleasure of working with Brad Whitford in the early 90's and I remember him telling me that Aerosmith had preemptively reached out and paid some usage/royalty rights for the chorus of "The Other Side" from the Pump album when they realized the chorus, "Loving you has got to be..." sounded similar to The Four Tops, "Standing in the shadow of love..."

Rick, I enjoy watching your videos. Chord progressions have been similar for maybe 500 years. Compare them to colors. Claude Monet could never accuse Dali of using yellow, green and blue in a painting. The work of art arises from the feeling of seeing or hearing something new. In terms of music, the Beatles' "Let It Be" is surely the best example of hundreds of songs written before and after the FAB4. If a carpenter came today who found a wooden board 6000 years ago and screwed 4 legs underneath, he could not accuse all table manufacturers of having copied it. That's the way it works in all areas. Ed Sheeran doesn't steal anything, he just paints new pictures. Best, Klaus from Hannover, Germany

That's the first time I've heard both songs played like that and your right the verses are very similar as is the feel, but then the chorus changes things. We all listen to music and we all get ideas from great artists, not sure if ED would deliberately steal from another artist as his catalogue is so big. Enjoyed your views.

I’m curious. Are there any songs pre-“Let’s Get It On” that also flow similarly? Also, how much of the feel and tempo of the backing track is controlled by the artist? Do artists have to consider the influences of their backing musicians?

I remember hearing this Ed song for the first time, my immediate reaction was ‘that’s Marvin Gaye’ and I was really surprised at how blatant it was. Ok, the rest of the song changes, but as a songwriter I’d never be comfortable releasing anything so similar and claim it as my own.

To most people, the songs are similar in vibe as Rick says. But they are completely different. I'm sure there are hundreds of songs out there that sound like Marvin's songs, but they don't get sued. It's all about the money.

I’ve never heard an Ed Sheeran song that has reminded me of Marvin Gaye, and I have played Marvin Gaye non stop since the day he died!

The melody in the verse, although different, does have a very similar structure both rhythmically and melodically (i.e., phrase beginnings and endings, contour and melodic structural tones). I'd say all musical aspects of the verse were lifted.

I'd have way more respect for these lawsuits if they were brought by living artists. The Land Down Under lawsuit was brought by a company that inherited the Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree song. Marvin Gaye's estates seems to sue anyone influenced by Marvin. Randy California died ages before the lawsuit against Jimmy Page by whoever owned the rights to Spirit. If a living artist feels ripped off that's one thing but most of these suits seem to be from greedy non-musicians trying to make a buck from the legacy of artists who have long been passed away. But by far the most insane lawsuit was when some publishing company sued John Fogerty for (I kid you not) plagiarizing HIS OWN SONG

I remember back in the 70s when you could walk into a major song publisher on Hollywood or Sunset Bl with a cassette and someone would invite you into his office to listen to your songs. Of course, it had to be a sure top-40 hit to go beyond that stage, but it got heard. Today? They're all so afraid of lawsuits. It's a new world. And not a brave new one.

Yes, there are similarities in the underlying rhyme but the melody is totally different. I struggle to see a case of copyright infringement. But that’s just me,

Music and songwriters are the winners today. Marvin Gaye would be embarrassed by his descendants!!

With all the songs possibly millions of songs out there I’ve always wondered how it’s not possible that some songs sound very similar, it would be impossible to know when writing a song I would imagine.

These lawsuits will mean at some point in the future, songs will stop getting created because every avenue will have been done and copyrighted

Imagine being an heir of a co-writer, earning money based on nothing you've ever done, and suing someone on the argument "the way in which these common elements were uniquely combined". They are deadbeat people with zero lifeskills that are running out of money. Just because you are related to someone talented, doesnt make you entiteled to his or her money, let alone on a bs argument like that. Luckily Sheeran was cleared of all the ba charges

Regardless whether this was copied or not. He has a track record of ripping off other artists, it isn't cool whatsoever, he thwarted many careers because of his popularity and its heartbreaking for the creators. Hope this lawsuit will at least make him consider originality

Some of the lawsuits remind me of an episode of Malcom in the middle. In the episode, Malcom got a guitar and wrote a song about that was supposed to be deep and emotional, but unintentionally it sounded just like the meow mix commercial jingle.

The same progression, I-iii-IV-V was used in these songs, among many others: Lionel Richie "Stuck On You" Cass Elliot "Make Your Own Kind of Music" Rod Stewart "Have I Told You Lately" Weezer "Dreamin" Chad & Jeremy "A Summer Song" I Go to Pieces "Peter & Gordon" Stone Poneys "Different Drum" David Bowie "Ziggy Stardust"

People need to stop saying ‘vs Marvin Gaye’ it’s against his co-writer (Townsend) and it’s not even Townsend going after him, it’s his inheritors.

I fully think that artists shouldn’t scam songs from older artists without compensation. If the melody follows the same pitch changes that’s bad. Ed’s song isn’t in the same key, and the Melodie’s aren’t alike.

The ultimate question is can you copyright a core progression and a style of music because that's what they're trying to say in this case?

One thing that gets forgotten about the "Blurred Lines" case is that it was primarily lost by a technical process failure by the defense. There is a mechanism to get cases like this thrown out after the decision, but you have to ask for it before the trial in order to be able to make the motion later. The defense didn't do this and then tried to use this mechanism anyway, so the judge didn't allow it.

Copyright law only applies to melody and lyrics. Since the lyrics are different and you show the melodies are different their is no infringement. There is no "look and feel" argument in music.

Poor Ed hope he doesn’t get a third one well done him for winning again

In layman's terms- Sheeran has used the Marvin Gaye track as his starting point and built the song out from there. My issue with Sheeran is that he has been accused of stealing from other artists work on a number of occasions now. I don't remember any other artist being accused of this multiple times in the past. Picasso once said the secret of originality is being able to disguise your source/inspiration.