Ed Sheeran’s copyright trial

Bigger issues surface within music copyright ethics

SATVIKA NITYA / ASST. A&C EDITOR / THE USD VISTA

The federal court in Manhattan has been privy to witnessing English singer-songwriter Ed Sheeran’s trial after being accused of copying American R&B singer Marvin Gaye’s soul classic “Let’s Get It On” (1973). The family of Ed Townsend (Gaye’s co-writer) filed the suit in 2017 against Sheeran’s Grammy-winning ballad “Thinking Out Loud” (2014).  

According to New York Times, Townsend’s family claims that the “heart” of “Let’s Get It On” lies in the four-chord progression that repeats throughout the song and accused Sheeran of stealing and copying it. 

Replying to those claims, Sheeran’s lawyers argued that those elements are nothing but basic musical building blocks that are open for public use. Sheeran took the witness stand to testify that he co-wrote “Thinking Out Loud” with a fellow singer-songwriter, Amy Wadge, about personal experiences. 

Even though this case pertains to Sheeran, Gaye and Townsend, many artists and producers are keeping a close watch on the progression and outcome of this trial to see what impact it could have on the overall music industry. 

This trial is a recent addition to a long list of infringement suits that have unfolded in the past few decades. From Dua Lipa and The Weeknd to Led Zeppelin and Pharrell Williams, many artists have landed in the middle of major trials, with varying outcomes.

But after dozens of trials over copyright issues, the rules around what can be owned by an artist, protected by copyright and what can land them into legal challenges remain blurry. 

USD sophomore Nicole Sevcikova talked about her opinion on this evolving topic of copyright issues and artistic credits.

“I don’t think it’s right to use someone else’s music without giving credit,”  Sevcikova said. “But it’s complicated, because if it’s a set of chords that are just chosen and placed together, then it’s not something you can sue someone over. But if it sounds exactly like or very similar to an iconic signature that distinguishes a song, then I definitely think giving writing credits is the minimum.”

The process of deciding what gives a song a “distinguished sound” is completely subjective. In court cases, that decision lies in the hands of the jury. And what makes the issue more complicated is the tricky nature of legal issues surrounding the use of samples.

A sample is a section of an existing song that is worked into creating a new track, a trend that is very prevalent in the music industry. Currently, famous songs like “Super Freaky Girl” by Nicki Minaj sampling from “Super Freak” by Rick James and “First Class” by Jack Harlow sampling “Glamorous” by Fergie are popular examples of using samples.

Legally, an artist must get permission from the original artist that the music belongs to before reworking it into new music. But with so many rules surrounding music production, the apprehension and uncertainty of asking permission translates in different ways for various producers.

USD sophomore Rayan Pal, an independent producer, has worked on tracks with artists before and talked about his experience navigating the complex rules of the industry.

“When I was starting out, I was initially scared of all the rules, but the music industry is such a toxic place where everyone who has resources spends billions of dollars to get those legal clearances and use samples,” Pal said. “There is an obvious unfairness between independent artists and bigger performers. Samples are used all the time, so I’ve chosen not to be scared and let it curb my creative expression. But I think everyone that’s suing over elements for public use is doing it for the money.”

Music copyright issues also threaten regular social media users, as well as producers. Uploading videos or audio to social media without crediting or using copyright-free music can pose the danger of copyright infringement claims, which makes the job of a content creator, podcast or radio host, digital marketer or advertiser more difficult.

USD senior Arlene Gil who handles social media for USD College of Arts and Sciences, talked about her experience dealing with music on Instagram.

“USD CAS counts as an educational account on Instagram, which restricts us from using certain audios,” said Gil. “Trending audios that allow us to increase the reach of our content are usually something Instagram doesn’t let us use, even if I can use them on my personal account. It doesn’t necessarily make it harder to create content ‘cause you get used to it, but you certainly lose out on audiences because of it.”

Platforms like Instagram and TikTok have a library of music on the app that is an aggregate of music that is entirely royalty-free and copyright safe to be used in videos by consumers. Using original audios uploaded by others on the apps is also legal as long as you’re directly using their audio with the name that they’ve given it. 

But when using your own original audio, you cannot use a song in your video that is not in the app library and you have not paid for. You can certainly make this video content, but putting it online, especially if you are making money from it, breaks copyright law.

Although Instagram and TikTok have implemented this style of copyright-free music, platforms like YouTube still face the constant issue of claims and copying. There is no app library for YouTube which makes it ten times harder to upload any kind of music that is not yours, even if it’s just background music. 

Though audiences and consumers have adapted to copyright issues, working around the rules of the music industry that constantly keep changing remains complex, both for users and creators