By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Marvin Gaye's estate are ruthlessly litigious when it comes to copyright. They've already had Pharrell over Blurrred Lines. They've been after Ed for this since 2019.
Trying not to be bias given he's a local lad and Town fan / stakeholder, but I really can't see it. Similar in that they're slow songs, but there's countless examples of those.
Can't see this claim having any legs in my non expert opinion.
Trying to extract money earned contemporarily via a track 50 years old.
Seems a desperate attempt to exploit but I guess if they continue to throw enough mud sooner or later some will stick.
US copyright law is the author's lifetime + 70 years. Marvin Gaye died in 1984 so the beneficiaries of his estate are entitled to come after somebody up until 2054 if they believe there has been a breach of copyright.
I'm not saying that Ed is guilty of a breach in this case but why should performers get writing royalties on songs that are rip offs of somebody else's work? Blurrred Lines was obviously a rewrite of Got To Give It Up Pt 1.
Trying not to be bias given he's a local lad and Town fan / stakeholder, but I really can't see it. Similar in that they're slow songs, but there's countless examples of those.
Can't see this claim having any legs in my non expert opinion.
The chord progression is very similar imo. But it's very subtle and I don't see a copyright breach.
The chord progression is very similar imo. But it's very subtle and I don't see a copyright breach.
Very subjective isn't it. You would've thought there would be some bit of tech that could provide a 'closeness' score in these sort of circumstances based on various criteria. Could perhaps be used prior to an artist releasing anything too in order to avoid such legal claims. I would be petrified if I wrote a song that someone would come out of the woodwork down the line.
Trying not to be bias given he's a local lad and Town fan / stakeholder, but I really can't see it. Similar in that they're slow songs, but there's countless examples of those.
Can't see this claim having any legs in my non expert opinion.
The quieter part of the track throughout the verses (lol, I’m not musical so don’t know how to describe it) sounds almost identical to me. But then in the last case he was cleared I thought there were marked similarities too.
Maybe he’s a scholar of music and pays homage to some of the greats with, ahem, some subtle references
US copyright law is the author's lifetime + 70 years. Marvin Gaye died in 1984 so the beneficiaries of his estate are entitled to come after somebody up until 2054 if they believe there has been a breach of copyright.
I'm not saying that Ed is guilty of a breach in this case but why should performers get writing royalties on songs that are rip offs of somebody else's work? Blurrred Lines was obviously a rewrite of Got To Give It Up Pt 1.
It's not any beneficiary of Gaye's who are chasing this.
It is a firm who bought some of the rights of co-writer Ed Townsend.
The quieter part of the track throughout the verses (lol, I’m not musical so don’t know how to describe it) sounds almost identical to me. But then in the last case he was cleared I thought there were marked similarities too.
Maybe he’s a scholar of music and pays homage to some of the greats with, ahem, some subtle references
It must be virtually impossible to write music and not be influenced by past sounds that you may/may not be knowingly familiar with.
Also given the nature of how songs generally follow finite possibilities when it comes to structure it must also be impossible to avoid all likeness of past works.
Unless there is clear and obvious plagiarism it seems opportunistic for these accusations to arise the way they do.
It must be virtually impossible to write music and not be influenced by past sounds that you may/may not be knowingly familiar with.
Also given the nature of how songs generally follow finite possibilities when it comes to structure it must also be impossible to avoid all likeness of past works.
Unless there is clear and obvious plagiarism it seems opportunistic for these accusations to arise the way they do.
[Post edited 30 Sep 2022 19:56]
I’m sure that will be his defence (and could be right).
I manage to make some unique sounds though, so you’d think someone with his talents would have no trouble.
It must be virtually impossible to write music and not be influenced by past sounds that you may/may not be knowingly familiar with.
Also given the nature of how songs generally follow finite possibilities when it comes to structure it must also be impossible to avoid all likeness of past works.
Unless there is clear and obvious plagiarism it seems opportunistic for these accusations to arise the way they do.
Very subjective isn't it. You would've thought there would be some bit of tech that could provide a 'closeness' score in these sort of circumstances based on various criteria. Could perhaps be used prior to an artist releasing anything too in order to avoid such legal claims. I would be petrified if I wrote a song that someone would come out of the woodwork down the line.
I think you are perhaps muddling inadvertently, with deliberately
the thought is that the latter applies here
One mistake can happen, any more and it is beyond coincidence
Marvin Gaye's estate are ruthlessly litigious when it comes to copyright. They've already had Pharrell over Blurrred Lines. They've been after Ed for this since 2019.
Robin Thicke actually said that they were going for the same vibe as “Got To Give It Up”, and everything but the vocal was pretty much identical- much much more if a stretch to see the similarities between “Lets Get It On” and “Thinking Out Loud”
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
