ED SHEERAN VS. MARVIN GAYE LAWSUIT: Let's Compare!

Share this video on

What's Hot

What's New

Top Grossing

Top of the Chart

Recommend

feroui hamza : at this point anyone who plays in 4/4 will be sued by someone

Beary Boy : They're definetly not close enough to warrant a lawsuit

S4 Dreamland : Marvin's " family" have made more money on lawsuits than Marvin made in his career.. They must have a group of 500 people scanning radio stations around the world 24/7 looking for the odd note Marvin might have used in his songs .. They're relentless. RIP Marvin!!

MR. $p@cely : Anthony Bourdain needs to sue you for stealing his look.

Paul L. Rogers : Dear Marvin Gaye camp. Not everyone is stealing HIS music. Please stop the law suits. You are spoiling his memory. By the way, music follows certain patterns. Are you gonna sue every time someone has a similar pattern?

Waselt : So we have 4/4 signature 4 chords Ride ride snare ride groove Same generic pop tempo I wonder where have I seen this? Oh yeah in every fucking pop song that’s out on the market. It’s not like they’ve written a musical masterpiece with constant time signature changes and different chords every two bars.

MGTOW Videos : I copyrighted the word THE. In music. So please don’t use it. It will offend me since I take my writing seriously.

Johnny Fiction : Is it a Ripoff? Yes, that's obvious. Is it lawsuit worthy? No.

jjosephdubya : Cleary copying. It's not even subtle.

Antonios Vasilellis Neto : For whoever is defending Ed Sheeran, I agree that the melodies are completely different and the songs are not the same. However, being that the backing for most of 'Thinking Out Loud' is EXACTLY the same as 'Let's Get It On' there should be some credit going to Gaye's estate. I don't think Ed copied the song; I think he intentionally sampled the oldie but had to credit it. Marvin Gaye should not get full credit for the song, but definitely sampling royalties.

Jens Larsen : Such a slippery slope these law-suits. It's only a tool for rich companies to steal other rich companies money.

DoctorBlankenstein : This is so bad for music... A horrible environment for creativity. It's really sad actually.

Constantin Philippou : To my ears, both of the verses sounded 95% the same, to say the least...

Graham Hockey : Honestly--and I'm sad to admit this--the first time I heard Thinking Out Loud at the start of 2015 it got Marvin Gaye stuck in my head again. Every time I think of the song, I think of Marvin Gaye.

Ajax : It's just too similar.

Emmanuel Florac : Let someone copyright the famous "4 chords". Hilarity ensues. This is asinine.

HerrMeier007 : As a you Songwriter that is just starting out, the one thing this lawsuit teaches me is not to listen to Marvin Gaye anymore so I‘m not getting influenced by any of his chord progressions by accident 😅

DJ Illinois : I don't understand how some people can't see its literally the same instrumental piece the exact same. Take out the lyrics and it the EXACT same song.

Philly Band : I assumed Ed sampled Marvin Gaye this whole time. Is he claiming he didn’t?? Give me a break. It’s a blatant rip off if that’s the case.

Antonio Robbins : Rip off - peeps gotta start writing new stuff. It's too close. The only thing different is vocal melody which..... IS a lot BUT I have to admit even before hearing about this lawsuit - every time I heard ed's song, I always wanted to sing "let's get it on". So in essence - in my opinion - his melody wasn't strong enough to take out the build up and groove of the original which makes his less and less original.

Marten Dekker : I find the music is identical. I can't just use different lyrics & say it's a different song.

williemo44 : Ripped off marvin man.

jerry abbott : It's a tricky one..... I think there's actually a better case for this than the blurred lines ones. Yes,Thinking out loud is a different song and no,you can't copyright a chord sequence but the trouble comes when,not only is the chord sequence virtually the same but the groove is identical too. If it was just one then fine,it's not a problem but when you have more than one element that's the same that's where problems arise. If Ed sheeran kept the same chords but with a completely different groove then no-one would be having this conversation

Jirk Hamfield : It's a blatant ripoff. Pay up Ed.

Foo Jinn Seng : The resemblance is uncanny

Charles T. : If Marvin Gaye never wrote let’s get it on, then Ed Sheran would NEVER have come up with this song.... obviously Ed stole it and Ed knows that he did... I knew it the very first time I heard Ed’s song.... kind of like the first time I heard robin thicke blurred lines....

Jonathan Brazee : One is sung by a man, one is sung by a boy.

Satchmo1991Music : For what it's worth, I counted how many times the two melodies matched up to the 16th note, including moments of rest, and found that the two melodies were doing the exact same thing almost 40% (39.8) of the time. This does include two moments of octave displacement. I didn't factor this in, but the contours of the melody are also very similar. Now, I'm not making any claims about this finding and I don't have the numbers for other melodic comparisons, but I at least find it interesting to think about.

Joe S : Different key, different lyrics, different melody, different vibe. It’s a simple chord progression that has probably been used millions of times. Damn lawyers.

Mark Emerson : Sounds like ed put his own melody over the original song. Just saying

Charles T. : Also, the Marvin Gaye original is still better then Ed’s blatantly copied version... the sad part is Ed is pretending that he didn’t steal this from marvin.....

A Shade of Gray : At the opening of this video dude looks exactly like Anthony Bourdain. Is it just me or doesn't he?

Avtar Disange : I really like this person who clearly has a background in music, and has gone into some detail, on the two songs Thinking out Loud, and Lets get it on, this is nothing new, George Harrison, was sued, for My Sweet Lord, which was similar to He's so fine, by the Chiffons, i do not know enough about it all, to me, it does sound similar however not exactly, it is a white line situation, has anyone crossed it. You will need a group of music experts, to go through it like this guy has, and come to a conclusion, which he does not, he just asks us, what we think, whether they are close to each other or not. I think he knows deep down, the real answer, or very close to the real answer, what is the point of being in an industry for so long, like this person has, and all that expensive equipment, all that experience, he knows. He is just keeping it too himself. John Lennon once said " There are only a 100 people in the world who really understand music ". When they are in the Courtroom, it will be a judge who will decide, let us pray, that he knows, something about music, if not, you will get some crazy conclusions. Let us see what happens, the music industry, may have to get a few, musicians, in the Court, to hear some good songs, that will would be nice. The amount of money involved is lottery money, it is so high, for that amount of cash, most people would be happy, to call a chair a table, or cycle a car. Money talks, but it does not sing!

Saxoprane : You cannot copyright a tempo You cannot copyright a rhythm You cannot copyright a chord progression

Autumn Aarilyn : You can't take and use "any recognizable" piece of music. That can even be as little as half of a bar. This gets into how the law is interpreted for samples which are actual sound recordings. Even if you replay it you would still be in violation of the to the original writers. Take Edie Brickell & New Bohemians guitar riff which was sampled and payed for by those who used it like Bran Nubian and INTRO. The one bar riff is so distinct that everyone would know what you were referencing in one bar. Does everyone who replays it have to bow down and pony up? I think so if it is a major part of your new composition. If it's tongue and cheek, then no. But if everyone knows where that work derives from, I don't think you have much defense for a lawsuit. Ed Sheeran is in the wrong and he knows it but atleast he has a good record collection.

RayEttler : WAAAY too close to be just coincidence

Chris Wojo : Yes. It is a complete ripoff.

wabbit1699 : The problem is that you had to slow down Let's Get It On to get there. That in itself makes it different, never mind the transition. Honestly, it would take something a lot more than this to convince me. Besides, the court cases have been all over the place. Not long after the Blurred Lines case came down, a different jury in the same jurisdiction found in favor of Jimmy Page and Robert Plant in the Stairway To Heaven case. This is going to come down to the 12 people that get seated in New York and whether they're willing to buy the nonsense arguments brought forth by the current holders of the Townsend copyright (a portion, btw, which only is worth 1/3 of the total song). Me? I don't buy it. But then again, because I have a college degree I'll almost never get put on a jury.

bernardthedisappointedowl : Just wait for that hedgefund/dodgy lawyer to buy up the rights to the first recording of a 12 bar blues track - that will be the end of popular music, ^oo^

MAQ STUNNA : Plagiarism

David : Ed better pay up... Pop music needs to stop this rehashing of music, producers, lyrical content and so on... FFS its called originality?

Danny DaS : Theft or influence? Obviously theft! I can’t believe people are trying to protect Ed Sheeran. I’m going to steal something from someone and just call it influence.

berryfairy68 : Even if they were similar, to sue for something like this is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. People have become completely greedy and stupid 😑

Jason Bone : Just a heads up, I have copyright on 130 BPM.

Fuga Mante : It’s too easy to change up lyrics, and melodies, to differentiate a song from another when the “feel” and the music itself is so alike. If you are influenced by a style, or a “feel”, one would want to ask “is it sonically far enough so that it does not carry on what that influence sounds like?”. In think Ed Sheeran will have to pay with this one due to the fact that it is Gaye’s music again. And the flow of it all sounds too similar... not just within the chord progression, but on the phonetics of the lyrics, imo.

Bat Man : I told my kids this is a rip off when it was first played. So why doesn't everyone sue Rappers or DJ's who steal beats and samples? How is that different? Rock groups created lots of stuff you hear in rap songs and modern music.

Susan Weissman : I agree with the dissenting judge....a dangerous precedent has been set which does not benefit any musician/composer but only benefits the few large concerns which own most of the music rights. This is not about the rights of the individual composer but more about what the large corporations who own the rights but don't create a thing can get away with to increase there profit. Follows the same lines as the 5000% increase in drug costs that a company that buys "rights" pulled a few years ago. It's all about $$$. The Supreme Court has deemed money to be free speech and corporations as people … supporting the "corporate superhuman" thus squashing the individual.

DumbAnimator : How to piss everyone in the world. Monetize every parody ever.

andrewt248 : I am no fan of theft, but these lawsuits (and their clear ignorance of how music is written) are setting a dangerous precedent. There are only 12 notes and so many popularly acceptable rhythmic ways to arrange them. I think it should mostly be up to the free market to vote with their money for/against creative works.

Mr Man : I listened to the song and come to the conclusion that Ed Sheeran is in wrong..