Ed Sheeran Cleared in ‘Thinking Out Loud’ Copyright Lawsuit, Upholding Creative Freedom

Global superstar Ed Sheeran has emerged victorious in a high-profile copyright infringement trial, where he was accused of plagiarizing Marvin Gaye’s iconic 1973 hit, ‘Let’s Get It On,’ for his own Grammy-winning ballad, ‘Thinking Out Loud.’ On May 4, a jury in New York federal court found Sheeran not liable, concluding that his song did not infringe upon the copyrights held by the estate of Ed Townsend, who co-wrote the soulful classic with Marvin Gaye.

The verdict marks a significant moment for the music industry, reaffirming the principle that common musical elements, such as basic chord progressions, are fundamental building blocks of music and should not be monopolized. The trial captivated audiences and legal experts alike, with Sheeran himself taking the stand and even performing in court to demonstrate the independent creation of his hit song.

The Heart of the Dispute: Allegations and Musical Similarities

The lawsuit, initially filed in 2016 by Kathryn Townsend Griffin and other heirs of Ed Townsend, alleged that Ed Sheeran’s 2014 track, “Thinking Out Loud,” lifted “overt common elements” from “Let’s Get It On.” Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that Sheeran “copied the heart of ‘Let’s’ and repeated it continuously throughout” his song. These allegations pointed to similarities in melody, harmony, and rhythm, leading to viral YouTube mashups that blended both tracks, further fueling public perception of a connection.

“The melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic compositions in ‘Thinking’ are not the product of independent creation,” the Townsend complaint asserted, suggesting a direct appropriation rather than mere inspiration. It’s important to note that Marvin Gaye’s own heirs were not involved in this particular legal battle, which focused solely on the copyright held by Townsend’s estate.

The core of the plaintiffs’ argument revolved around the perceived structural and emotional parallels between the two songs. Both are beloved romantic ballads, and the musical arrangement indeed evokes a similar atmosphere. However, as the defense would later argue, a similar mood or even a shared foundational structure does not automatically equate to copyright infringement. The crucial question before the jury was whether Sheeran had copied specific, protectable elements of the composition.

Sheeran’s Defense: Common Chord Progressions and Creative Independence

Throughout the trial, Ed Sheeran vehemently denied the allegations, maintaining that “Thinking Out Loud” was an original creation inspired by his then-girlfriend (now wife) Cherry Seaborn. His legal team built a robust defense centered on the argument that the only genuine similarity between the two songs was their use of a highly common chord progression: I-iii-IV-V.

This particular four-chord sequence is ubiquitous in popular music across genres and decades. Sheeran’s lawyers emphasized its foundational nature, stating, “It is such a basic chord progression that it is taught in elementary guitar method books, one of which ironically opines that [‘Let’s Get It On’] did not infringe earlier songs using the same progression since it is so ‘common.’” They argued that granting a monopoly over such a basic and widely used musical sequence would severely undermine the very essence of copyright law, which aims to encourage creativity, not stifle it. Such a precedent, they contended, would unduly “chill future expression” by limiting the harmonic vocabulary available to songwriters.

To further illustrate his point, Sheeran famously brought his guitar into the courtroom and performed a mashup of “Thinking Out Loud” and “Let’s Get It On,” demonstrating how easily different songs could share fundamental chord structures without being plagiarized. He also performed parts of “Thinking Out Loud,” showing how he developed the song with co-writer Amy Wadge (who was not named in the lawsuit), emphasizing the spontaneous and independent nature of its creation. His label Atlantic Records and Sony/ATV Music Publishing were also named as defendants, highlighting the broad implications of the case for the music industry.

The Crucial Distinction: Sound Recording vs. Lead Sheet Copyright

Ahead of the full trial, Ed Sheeran’s team secured a significant legal advantage: the court ruled that the sound recording of Marvin Gaye’s ‘Let’s Get It On’ was inadmissible as evidence. This pivotal decision stemmed from the fact that Townsend’s heirs only owned the copyright to the “lead sheet” or “deposit copy” of the song, not the actual sound recording. A lead sheet is a bare-bones written version of a song, typically containing the core melody, lyrics, and basic chord notation, but lacking many of the detailed musical choices found in a full studio recording, such as specific instrumentation, vocal nuances, drum patterns, or bass lines.

This distinction was critical because Sheeran’s lawyers argued that two key elements he was accused of infringing – the drum pattern and the bass line – were not present in the original deposit copy. While lawyers for the Townsend heirs argued these elements were “implied” by the sheet music, the court’s decision to exclude the actual recording meant the jury could only consider the more abstract written composition. This ruling significantly narrowed the scope of the alleged similarities and focused the case on the fundamental compositional elements that are present in a lead sheet, which tend to be more generic than the complete arrangement of a recorded track.

Not Sheeran’s First Rodeo: Previous Copyright Battles

This wasn’t Ed Sheeran’s first encounter with a copyright infringement lawsuit. He faced similar allegations in 2017 regarding his global smash hit, “Shape of You.” In that case, he was sued by Sami Chokri (known as Sam Switch) and Ross O’Donoghue, who claimed that Sheeran had copied elements from their 2015 song, “Oh Why.” The dispute focused on similarities in a particular phrase within the chorus.

After a lengthy legal battle in the UK, a judge ultimately ruled in Ed Sheeran’s favor in 2022, concluding that he had “neither deliberately nor subconsciously” lifted the chorus from the Sam Switch song. This earlier victory provided a precedent for Sheeran’s consistent defense of his creative integrity and highlighted the complexities of proving infringement in an industry where musical ideas can often converge independently.

Following that court victory, Sheeran expressed his frustration with the proliferation of such lawsuits. “While we’re obviously happy with the result, I feel like claims like this are way too common now and have become a culture where a claim is made with the idea that a settlement will be cheaper than taking it to court,” he stated, as reported by Billboard. He emphasized that “even if there’s no base for the claim,” these lawsuits are “really damaging to the songwriting industry.”

The Broader Impact on the Music Industry and Songwriting

Ed Sheeran’s comments reflect a growing concern among artists and music industry professionals about the increasing number of copyright infringement claims. In an age where hundreds of thousands of songs are released daily on streaming platforms, the likelihood of incidental similarities is incredibly high. “There’s only so many notes and very few chords used in pop music. Coincidence is bound to happen if 60,000 songs are being released every day on Spotify,” Sheeran eloquently pointed out.

These lawsuits, often dubbed “song-mining” or “intellectual property trolling,” can have a chilling effect on creativity. Artists might become overly cautious, self-censoring their work to avoid potential legal battles, which ultimately stifles innovation and artistic expression. The financial and emotional toll on artists, particularly independent ones, can be devastating, even if the claims are ultimately dismissed. The cost of legal defense alone can be astronomical, pushing many to settle out of court regardless of the merit of the claims.

The “Blurred Lines” case, involving Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams against Marvin Gaye’s heirs, set a controversial precedent by focusing on the “feel” or “groove” of a song rather than concrete musical notation. This led to fears that such vague criteria could open the floodgates for more speculative lawsuits. Sheeran’s recent victory, however, seems to push back against this trend, emphasizing the importance of specific, protectable elements rather than general vibes or commonalities.

A Victory for Creative Freedom and Songwriting Integrity

Ed Sheeran’s win in the ‘Thinking Out Loud’ trial sends a powerful message to the music world. It reinforces the idea that common musical elements – like basic chord progressions – are part of a shared musical vocabulary that artists should be free to utilize without fear of litigation. The jury’s decision helps to draw a clearer line between inspiration and infringement, safeguarding the fundamental principles of musical creation.

After the verdict, Sheeran expressed profound relief and reiterated his personal stance on such disputes. “I just want to say: I’m not an entity, I’m not a corporation, I’m a human being and a father and a husband and a son. Lawsuits are not a pleasant experience, and I hope that this ruling means in the future baseless claims like this can be avoided.” His words resonate with many artists who feel vulnerable to what they perceive as opportunistic lawsuits. This ruling offers a glimmer of hope that the legal system will continue to protect genuine artistic creation while preventing the monopolization of universal musical components, allowing songwriters to continue building on the rich tapestry of musical history without undue constraint.