Is this plagiarism? (Update: jury says no) (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

A jury in New York is being asked the question of whether Ed Sheeran's "Thinking Out Loud" is sufficiently similar to Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On" that it qualifies as copyright infringement.

 

[superchuck500]

Personally, I don't think it crosses the line into plagiarism/copyright-violation.

Yes, the chord progression is very similar as is how the notes fall on the beat, but it's not a particularly complex arrangement. Let's Get It On is in E-flat major and Thinking Out Loud is in D major.

I think this is far more a case of how pop songs aren't (by their very nature) inventive and pop chord progressions over pop beats can sound very similar. But I don't see it as any more than that - and I don't think Marvin Gaye gets to lay claim to that progression and beat for 70 years past his death.

 

[mjcouvi]

As someone who doesn't know music it would never even occur to me that the two songs are related even if I heard one after the other. Of course now that I hear them both side by side in this context I do see the similarity, but plagiarism? No.

 

[Madmarsha]

When does the copyright expire? Or doesn't it?

I was thinking about something like this the other day. I love Eric Carmen's "All By Myself" as I love the Rachmaninoff concerto it's based on. Now, it was widely known even in 1975 that it was based on that but not realizing that the composer was so contemporary that he had only died in 1943, I had always assumed it was old enough for it to be in the public domain. But then I looked it up and discovered that Carmen did indeed have to settle that issue with the composer's estate.

 

[Optimus Prime]

saw an interview with a music journalist a while back (i think it was in a documentary on Taylor swift's own plagarism trial) who said questions she used to ask artists all the time in interviews that she doesn't anymore is "who are you listening to?" and "what songs influence your songs?"

It just opens up a huge can of worms now

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

if lawyers are going to keep foisting themselves onto art at the behest of studio/record execs, then at least do it by degree and not make it a yes/no binary

it's 57% similar, therefore there should be 57% recompense

 

[Optimus Prime]

A jury in New York is being asked the question of whether Ed Sheeran's "Thinking Out Loud" is sufficiently similar to Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On" that it qualifies as copyright infringement.

I personally don't hear it but I never heard it in that Robin Thicke song either

 

[superchuck500]

I personally don't hear it but I never heard it in that Robin Thicke song either

That song actually involved a straight sample from the Gaye track itself. It was literally taken from the Gaye song.

 

[Madmarsha]

As someone who doesn't know music it would never even occur to me that the two songs are related even if I heard one after the other. Of course now that I hear them both side by side in this context I do see the similarity, but plagiarism? No.

I love both these songs but listening to the one has never reminded me of the other. I vote no plagiarism also.

But did anyone think this was going to maybe be an AI or ChatGPT thread?

 

[superchuck500]

if lawyers are going to keep foisting themselves onto art at the behest of studio/record execs, then at least do it by degree and not make it a yes/no binary

it's 57% similar, therefore there should be 57% recompense

I think that's actually a pretty impractical idea - and would result in a massive proliferation of music copyright suits. Anytime someone has a big hit and someone else can win a "10% similarity" and get 10% of the revenues? Goodness, no.

The standard is "substantially similar" and often involves an almost forensic analysis of the music - but unless there is a clear "theft" of the music, such as the case of a direct sample, the question of substantial similarity can be a bit vague, and based on whether a typical listener would think it was substantially borrowed from the previous work.

But it is contrasted with "not substantially similar" that even allows for de minimus similarity, which seems reasonable given that in western music, especially western pop music, the range of tones and sounds that are typically employed is somewhat narrow.

So there's a threshold of what qualifies as "substantially similar" - and anything that isn't found to be substantially similar isn't a violation and owes nothing.

 

[superchuck500]

EDIT - this is error: "Also point of note, this suit was brought by Marvin Gaye's estate, through its representative, his daughter."

I was reading a quote about the case from her and just presume she was the plaintiff. The plaintiff here is the co-writer's estate, Ed Townsend.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Also point of note, this suit was brought by Marvin Gaye's estate, through its representative, his daughter.

My understanding is that is isn't even the Gaye estate, it's producer Ed Townsend's estate

 

[superchuck500]

My understanding is that is isn't even the Gaye estate, it's producer Ed Townsend's estate

You're right - I read a quote from her about it and presumed. My bad, good catch.

 

[gboudx]

Here's the 2 songs in instrumental version only. Personally, I guess I hear a similarity, but not enough to be plagiarism.

 

[efil4stnias]

At some point, with all the music that HAS been made, you are bound to come across a series of notes that will sound similar to things previously. I mean we have to be close to all the possible ( good sounding ) iteration of notes/keys combinations, right?