Sheeran Wins Decade Copyright War

Pop’s Building Blocks Ruled Safe as Sheeran Wins Decade-Long Copyright War

A conclusive end has been brought by the United States Supreme Court to a prolonged legal battle over Ed Sheeran’s anthem, “Thinking Out Loud.” This final move concludes a decade of courtroom drama, offers profound relief to its creators, and clarifies critical questions about musical originality. On a recent Monday, the highest court in America declined to consider a new petition from an entity called Structured Asset Sales, or SAS. This company, holding copyright interests in the classic Marvin Gaye song “Let’s Get It On,” had alleged that Sheeran’s 2014 global hit unlawfully copied core elements of the 1973 soul ballad. The court’s rejection solidifies lower court verdicts favouring Sheeran, finally closing a chapter that has cast a long shadow over the music industry. For the songwriters, the decision marks the end of an immense personal and professional burden that challenged the very integrity of their work.

A Ten-Year Shadow

The songwriter from Wales, Amy Wadge, who collaborated with Sheeran to write "Thinking Out Loud," described the verdict as a “huge relief.” The legal proceedings had been a source of distress for the last ten years, a constant undercurrent of stress since the song's release. The composition transformed her career, delivering her first chart-topping track at thirty-seven years old. Wadge recalled relishing her success for roughly twelve months before the situation changed dramatically, describing a feeling of "wolves surrounding" as the allegations emerged. The ordeal was described as deeply alarming, transforming a moment of triumph into a period of deep anxiety. The prolonged legal uncertainty presented not just a financial risk, but an existential one that questioned the nature of creative work in the modern music world.

The Heart of the Dispute

The central conflict involved a claim that “Thinking Out Loud” improperly borrowed from “Let’s Get It On.” The legal action centered on the sequence of chords and the rhythmic harmony of the Gaye classic. The company acting as plaintiff, Structured Asset Sales, had secured an interest in the composition from the estate of Marvin Gaye's collaborator, Ed Townsend. Their legal argument asserted that the Sheeran song was substantially similar due to these shared elements. This claim set the stage for a high-stakes confrontation, forcing courts to examine one of the most fundamental questions in music copyright: can a sequence of chords, one of music’s basic elements, be owned?

A Tale of Two Lawsuits

The legal battle over "Thinking Out Loud" was fought on two fronts. The family of Ed Townsend began the first legal action in 2017. This case culminated in a May 2023 jury trial in New York, where jurors deliberated for three hours before delivering a unanimous verdict for Sheeran. The next year, SAS, an organization established by investment professional David Pullman and which possessed its own interest in the Townsend copyright, filed a separate claim. This second case was initially dismissed by a judge following the jury's verdict in the first trial, a decision that SAS repeatedly appealed until it made its way to the country's highest court.

Who is Structured Asset Sales?

Structured Asset Sales, the company behind the persistent legal challenge, operates on a unique business model. Established and managed by finance professional David Pullman, SAS specialises in acquiring royalty interests from musical copyrights. The firm then securitises these assets, essentially converting future royalty streams into bonds that can be sold to investors. Pullman is famous for creating "Bowie Bonds" in the 1990s, which used David Bowie's extensive back catalogue as collateral. In this instance, SAS purchased a percentage of the rights to the song "Let's Get It On" via the estate of Townsend, positioning itself to pursue infringement claims and seek substantial damages, with their lawsuit demanding $100 million.

The ‘Musical Building Blocks’ Defence

Sheeran’s legal team built their defence on a simple yet powerful premise. They argued that the elements in question were not unique creations but fundamental components of popular music. The lawyers acknowledged that both compositions used a comparable four-chord pattern. However, they successfully demonstrated that this exact progression has been a staple of songwriting for decades, appearing in countless songs long before the Gaye track was even written. This defence framed the lawsuit not as a legitimate claim of theft, but as an effort to control fundamental tools of musical expression that should be freely available to all creators.

The Musicologist’s View

The trial placed a heavy focus on the testimony of duelling musicologists, experts who dissect music to identify similarities and differences for a jury. The plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Alexander Stewart, argued that the harmonic rhythm and chord progressions were nearly identical. He presented computer-generated versions of the Gaye song to highlight these alleged similarities. In response, Sheeran’s defence enlisted their own expert, Dr. Lawrence Ferrara. Dr. Ferrara responded that this specific chord arrangement existed in numerous other musical works recorded before the Gaye track, effectively arguing that such common patterns cannot be protected by copyright.

Image Credit - Yahoo! News

A Courtroom Performance

The trial took a theatrical turn when Ed Sheeran took the stand with his guitar. He aimed to demystify the creative process for the jury, demonstrating firsthand how numerous pop songs are constructed from the same basic chord progressions. He performed mashups of his own song with works by artists like Nina Simone and Van Morrison to illustrate the point. Sheeran expressed deep frustration with the proceedings, telling the court he found the accusation of theft "really insulting." At one point, he passionately criticised the plaintiff's musicologist, calling his analysis "criminal" for misrepresenting his work and attempting to confuse the jury.

The Jury's Verdict: 'Independently Created'

After a nearly two-week trial in May 2023, the Manhattan jury returned a unanimous verdict. They found that the creation of the song by Wadge and Sheeran was an independent act, and they were therefore not liable for copyright infringement. This legal standard is crucial; it means the jury believed Sheeran's account of how the song was written without improper influence from Gaye's work. The verdict was a moment of immense relief for Sheeran, his wife Cherry Seaborn, and his co-writer Amy Wadge, who were reportedly in tears when the decision was announced. Sheeran embraced his legal team and even shared a respectful word with the plaintiff, Kathryn Townsend Griffin.

A Stand Against Baseless Claims

Following the 2023 victory, Sheeran delivered a powerful statement outside the courthouse. He expressed his happiness with the outcome but also his profound frustration that "baseless claims like this are allowed to go to court at all." The singer declared that he would not become a source of easy money for others. He highlighted the personal toll of the trial, noting that he missed his grandmother’s funeral in Ireland to attend the proceedings in New York. His choice to see the legal process through instead of settling was a principled stand, intended to protect the creative process for all songwriters.

The Ghost of 'Blurred Lines'

The Sheeran case unfolded in the shadow of another high-profile copyright dispute: the 2015 "Blurred Lines" trial. In that case, a jury found that Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams's hit had infringed on Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give It Up." That verdict was largely based on the overall "feel" or "groove" of the song, rather than specific melodic or structural copying. The decision sent shockwaves through the music industry, creating a chilling effect on creativity and encouraging a new wave of lawsuits based on perceived similarities rather than concrete evidence of plagiarism. Many feared the Sheeran case could reinforce this dangerous precedent.

The Path of the Final Appeal

Even after the decisive jury verdict in 2023, the legal battle was not over. The separate lawsuit from Structured Asset Sales continued its journey through the courts. After a district judge granted summary judgment to Sheeran, SAS initiated multiple appeals. Their case was heard by the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals, which in November 2024 upheld the original ruling in a strongly worded opinion. The appeals court agreed that the contested musical components were too widespread for legal protection. This left SAS with only one final option: filing a petition with the nation's highest judicial body in March 2025.

A Limiting Factor: The 'Deposit Copy'

A key technical point in the SAS appeal involved the "deposit copy" rule. For songs copyrighted before 1978 under the 1909 Copyright Act, protection was limited to the sheet music deposited with the U.S. Copyright Office, not the full studio recording. SAS argued that elements from the sound recording of the Gaye song, such as a distinctive bass line, should be considered. The courts, however, consistently rejected this. They ruled that copyright law protects what is "literally expressed" in the deposited document, not what might be inferred from it. This significantly limited the scope of the infringement claim.

Image Credit - Rolling Stone

The Appeals Court’s Decisive Ruling

The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a firm and clear rejection of the SAS appeal. The judges affirmed that the core of the plaintiff's claim rested on a combination of a simple four-chord progression and a common syncopated rhythm. The court found that this combination was not original enough to warrant copyright protection. In their written opinion, the judges noted that any sensible jury would fail to see significant similarity between the two works when considered in their entirety, given the differences in their melodies and lyrical content. This unequivocal language left little room for further legal dispute and heavily influenced the Supreme Court's subsequent decision.

The Supreme Court Delivers Finality

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal from SAS. By denying the petition for a writ of certiorari, the justices effectively endorsed the lower courts' rulings without further comment. This decision provides a definitive end to the litigation. Sheeran’s legal team had warned the court that a contrary ruling could "foment vast uncertainty and encourage rampant speculation" in copyright law. The outcome is therefore seen by many legal observers as a victory for common sense, preventing a potential floodgate of speculative lawsuits that could have a chilling effect on the creation of new music.

A Victory for Songwriters

The final outcome is widely regarded as a landmark victory for creative artists. The case reinforces the principle that the basic components of music—common chord progressions, rhythms, and harmonic devices—are part of a shared public domain. They are tools available for all songwriters to use in crafting new and original works. Had the verdict gone the other way, it could have granted a monopoly over basic musical ideas, stifling innovation. Wadge herself remarked on the great burden of this responsibility throughout the trial, aware that a loss might have created a massive problem for creativity overall.

The Song That Changed Everything

For Amy Wadge, the resolution of the case allows the focus to return to the song itself. "Thinking Out Loud" remains among the most notable accomplishments of her career. Before its release, she had worked for years without a major breakthrough. The song's success, which includes a Grammy award for its distinction as the year's best song, changed her life and career trajectory. The legal battle that followed threatened to overshadow this incredible accomplishment. The final verdict allows its legacy to be defined by its connection with audiences worldwide rather than the courtroom controversy that surrounded it for so long.

Commemorating the Struggle

The personal toll of the legal fight was immense. To mark their victory in the 2023 jury trial, both Sheeran and Wadge got tattoos featuring a key phrase from the judicial ruling: "Independently created." This act symbolises the deep personal importance of vindicating their artistic integrity. The phrase serves as a permanent reminder of their struggle and the principle they fought to defend. It underscores that the battle was not just about royalties, but about the fundamental right to create original work without fear of baseless accusations of theft.

The Financial and Creative Cost

Copyright lawsuits carry an enormous price tag. The financial burden includes millions in legal fees, which can be devastating for artists, particularly those without the resources of a global superstar like Sheeran. Beyond the monetary cost, the creative and mental toll is significant. Artists are forced to divert time and energy away from making music to focus on gruelling legal preparations and testimony. The stress of being accused of plagiarism can damage an artist's confidence and stifle their creative process. This case highlights the need for a system that deters speculative claims and protects creators from vexatious litigation.

The Future of Music Copyright

The definitive end of the "Thinking Out Loud" saga sets an important precedent for the music industry. It helps clarify the line between inspiration and infringement, reassuring artists that they can use common musical conventions without fear of litigation. The decision acts as a crucial counterweight to the "Blurred Lines" verdict, which many felt had dangerously broadened the scope of copyright to include musical "style" or "feel." While genuine plagiarism must always be challenged, this ruling protects the way popular music develops and builds on itself, ensuring that the shared language of songwriting remains open to all.