Thank you so much for the kind words, and for your generous recommendation of Zappagram, Chris. I truly appreciate your support more than I can say. By the way, I feel the same way you do regarding the whole Sheeran thing.
If so, please consider clicking the above link and liking the Notes post—leave a comment or even share within your own community. Poetry lives on in the minds of hearts of writers, it breathes on the page.
Your voice can be heard among the starry illuminations, howling at the moon.
These are all very good points on the Sheeran suit. I'm pretty sure we have all used the same chord progressions from time to time. It's fun to take those same olds and make them new again.
The courts need to use better judgment on something like this. The "Ice Ice Baby" lawsuit was blatant sampling without credit. "Thinking Out Loud" is an homage of style in the production. If the song had a different chord progression, I don't think the lawsuit would've ever happened.
If you play "Thinking Out Loud" on an acoustic guitar, it sounds nothing like Marvin Gaye's "Get It On."
So all in all, this is scary and outrageous for songwriters and producers. No bueno.
What would you consider classic rock? Because just the other day I heard the goo goo dolls song Iris on my classic rock station. I'm not quite ready for the day that Blink 182 and Nickelback are considered classic rock but that time is coming soon.
As for a band, I'm not a huge classic rock listener but I am partial to early Springsteen. I'd say those early albums are as much an E Street album as they are Springsteen albums. Does that count? I guess they're underrated because they are in Bruce's shadow.
I'd have to respectfully disagree that this case must rest on the copyright of "chord progressions":
From the US Copyright Office Compendium 300:
COMPENDIUM: Chapter300
Copyrightable Authorship: What Can Be Registered
313.4(D)... (NOTE: some material excised by me as extraneous)
"...For the same reasons, the Office cannot register a claim in common sayings, diatonic and chromatic musical scales, or common chord progressions that merely consist of standard harmonies or common musical phrases. "
When I copyright my original songs, I include the chords that I use. The copyright office specifically states the chords are extraneous and only the copyright to the lyrics will be enforced. Note this applies to my "Composer" copyrights. I suspect this case will rest on a different type of copyright, that of the original "Sound Recording" copyright of "Let's Get It On" vs the "Sound Recording" copyright by Mr. Sheeran or his label of his song. Sound Recording copyrights are where an artist can secure rights to the arrangement of a song, and any subsequent rearrangement, which may be the actual issue in this case.
So that’s actually what’s fascinating here. My understanding is that since this is before 1978 you couldn’t copyright the recording. Only the song. So this lawsuit is specifically about the sheet music that was submitted to the copyright office in 1973. Nothing about the recording is at play
That may change the dynamic, certainly. Artists may avoid even listening to, much less covering pre-1978 songs then to be able to say truthfully they relied on the copyright office’s scrutiny of their sound recordings to avoid infringement. My most recent sound recording copyright got really complicated in a hurry, but the copyright specialist was very helpful (after a lot of back and forth) in offering an elegant solution. I was expecting faceless bureaucracy, but it was exactly the opposite. I am hopeful the Sheeran case will provide some clarity and I’m in complete agreement with you that it at least appears absurd.
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.
Thank you so much for the kind words, and for your generous recommendation of Zappagram, Chris. I truly appreciate your support more than I can say. By the way, I feel the same way you do regarding the whole Sheeran thing.
The best part about Substack is meeting so many other great writers
I fully agree. There’s a real sense of community here which is missing from all other social platforms.
Great content from one strapping young lad to another 😉
That’s my entire readership
Dire straits, not really underrated, but certainly less popular than led zeppelin, black sabbath and such other bands. Def an incredible band
I think that counts. “Sultans of Swing” is in the same pantheon as “The Boys are Back in Town”.
Fine writer and reader of Substack—we are starting a movement to get a poetry section added to the platform. Can I ask, are you with us?
https://substack.com/profile/10309929-david/note/c-15579327
If so, please consider clicking the above link and liking the Notes post—leave a comment or even share within your own community. Poetry lives on in the minds of hearts of writers, it breathes on the page.
Your voice can be heard among the starry illuminations, howling at the moon.
Thank you for your time and support.
Love and appreciation,
David
Who has cassette players?
These are all very good points on the Sheeran suit. I'm pretty sure we have all used the same chord progressions from time to time. It's fun to take those same olds and make them new again.
The courts need to use better judgment on something like this. The "Ice Ice Baby" lawsuit was blatant sampling without credit. "Thinking Out Loud" is an homage of style in the production. If the song had a different chord progression, I don't think the lawsuit would've ever happened.
If you play "Thinking Out Loud" on an acoustic guitar, it sounds nothing like Marvin Gaye's "Get It On."
So all in all, this is scary and outrageous for songwriters and producers. No bueno.
What would you consider classic rock? Because just the other day I heard the goo goo dolls song Iris on my classic rock station. I'm not quite ready for the day that Blink 182 and Nickelback are considered classic rock but that time is coming soon.
As for a band, I'm not a huge classic rock listener but I am partial to early Springsteen. I'd say those early albums are as much an E Street album as they are Springsteen albums. Does that count? I guess they're underrated because they are in Bruce's shadow.
I'd have to respectfully disagree that this case must rest on the copyright of "chord progressions":
From the US Copyright Office Compendium 300:
COMPENDIUM: Chapter300
Copyrightable Authorship: What Can Be Registered
313.4(D)... (NOTE: some material excised by me as extraneous)
"...For the same reasons, the Office cannot register a claim in common sayings, diatonic and chromatic musical scales, or common chord progressions that merely consist of standard harmonies or common musical phrases. "
When I copyright my original songs, I include the chords that I use. The copyright office specifically states the chords are extraneous and only the copyright to the lyrics will be enforced. Note this applies to my "Composer" copyrights. I suspect this case will rest on a different type of copyright, that of the original "Sound Recording" copyright of "Let's Get It On" vs the "Sound Recording" copyright by Mr. Sheeran or his label of his song. Sound Recording copyrights are where an artist can secure rights to the arrangement of a song, and any subsequent rearrangement, which may be the actual issue in this case.
So that’s actually what’s fascinating here. My understanding is that since this is before 1978 you couldn’t copyright the recording. Only the song. So this lawsuit is specifically about the sheet music that was submitted to the copyright office in 1973. Nothing about the recording is at play
That may change the dynamic, certainly. Artists may avoid even listening to, much less covering pre-1978 songs then to be able to say truthfully they relied on the copyright office’s scrutiny of their sound recordings to avoid infringement. My most recent sound recording copyright got really complicated in a hurry, but the copyright specialist was very helpful (after a lot of back and forth) in offering an elegant solution. I was expecting faceless bureaucracy, but it was exactly the opposite. I am hopeful the Sheeran case will provide some clarity and I’m in complete agreement with you that it at least appears absurd.
Totally interested to see how it plays out. Gotta check out your newsletter
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.