Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Online Extra: The Other Recent Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Ed Sheeran
The lion's share of attention to copyright-infringement claims against Ed Sheeran over his 2016 Grammy-winning Song of the Year "Thinking Out Loud" recently focused on the trial in New York federal court, presided over by Southern District of New York federal Judge Louis L. Stanton, in which a jury found in Sheeran's favor in the lawsuit brought by the heirs of Ed Townsend, co-author of the 1970s soul-song classic "Let's Get It On" (LGO) with Marvin Gaye. Griffin v. Sheeran, 18-1862.
But in September 2022 in a related infringement suit over the same songs' matching chord progression and harmonic rhythm (i.e., the "backing pattern"), District Judge Stanton had allowed Structured Assets Sales, which owns an 11.11% beneficial share of Ed Townsend's song-royalty income from "Let's Get It On" to also proceed with its claim against Sheeran. Structured Asset Sales (SAS) LLC v. Sheeran, 18 Civ. 5839.
In the SAS ruling, the district judge had decided: "The law does not support Sheeran's contention that the combination of LGO's chord progression and harmonic rhythm is insufficiently original to warrant it copyrightable," adding that the "experts' disagreement on whether the backing pattern is sufficiently uncommon to warrant copyright protection is a genuine dispute as to a material fact, preventing summary judgment." (Judge Stanton also concluded that "Sheeran's motion in the alternative to dismiss SAS's claim to include concert merchandise revenue in a calculation of damages is granted, but its motion to dismiss the inclusion of concert ticket sales is denied.")
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.