I think copyright infringement is considered a damage, the underlying idea being that if you infringe on a song's copyright you are taking away listeners from the original song. Regardless, there has been no decision yet, so still hoping sanity wins out.
Shouldn't a plaintiff have to prove damages to win a case? I am guessing Ed Sheeran has cost the Marvin Gaye song roughly $0 in lost revenue.
And surely the song has produced nothing close to $100M for Sheeran.
I think copyright infringement is considered a damage, the underlying idea being that if you infringe on a song's copyright you are taking away listeners from the original song. Regardless, there has been no decision yet, so still hoping sanity wins out.