State Champ Radio

by DJ Frosty

Current track

Title

Artist

Current show
blank

State Champ Radio Mix

1:00 pm 7:00 pm

Current show
blank

State Champ Radio Mix

1:00 pm 7:00 pm


Legal

Page: 70

Lana Del Rey has reached a settlement to end a lawsuit claiming her music video for “Summertime Sadness” featured 17 seconds of material lifted directly from a copyrighted short film, weeks after a federal judge refused to dismiss the case.

Explore

Explore

See latest videos, charts and news

See latest videos, charts and news

Lucas Bolaño sued Del Ray (real name Elizabeth Grant) and Universal Music Group last year, accusing them of “blatant disregard” of his rights. He claimed the 2012 video not only copied the footage from his short film “Sky,” but even stole audio of a voice saying “Remember, I will always love you, bye.”

But in a filing in California federal court on Tuesday, lawyers for both sides said they had reached an agreement for Bolaño to drop his case. Specific terms of the settlement were not disclosed, and neither side immediately returned requests for comment.

The settlement came just a month after a federal judge refused to dismiss the lawsuit against Del Rey. The star’s lawyers had argued that Bolaño waited far too long to sue, but in a May 16 ruling, Judge Stephen Wilson sent the case to a jury trial — a risky proposition even for any defendant.

Bolaño sued in July 2022, claiming the first 17 seconds of the “Summertime Sadness” music video was copied directly from his film, with “only marginal differences” like cropping and color saturation: “These minor alterations do not make Defendants’ copying any less apparent or egregious.”

His lawyers claimed the video, which had more than 350 million views on YouTube when he filed his case, had “generated millions of dollars in royalties” for Del Rey and UMG. “Unfortunately, Plaintiffs have not seen a dime of these ill-gotten proceeds and have never even been credited for their work,” they wrote.

In April, attorneys for Del Rey asked a federal judge to toss the case out. They didn’t argue about whether or not the clip appeared in the music video, but said simply that Bolaño had waited years too long to sue. In particular, they pointed to a 2015 YouTube comment on his short film, in which a user said “this was used in Summertime Sadness!”

“The undisputed facts demonstrate that plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the music video and Del Rey’s use of their works no later than 2015,” the star’s lawyers wrote. “Ignoring clear, indisputable, and specific notice, plaintiffs waited an additional seven years to bring this suit.”

But Bolaño argued that he never saw that comment and didn’t notice Del Rey’s video until 2021. And last month, a Judge Wilson said a jury might believe that argument: “These arguments are more properly resolved before the jury.”

Kesha and Dr. Luke have reached a settlement to end his long-running lawsuit accusing the pop star of defaming him by accusing him of rape, just a week after a New York court issued a key ruling that would have made it harder for Dr. Luke to win the case.

Explore

See latest videos, charts and news

See latest videos, charts and news

Reached just weeks before the case had been set to go to trial, the agreement will resolve nearly a decade of litigation between the two former creative partners. The producer claimed Kesha legally defamed him in 2014 when she made a “false and shocking” allegation: that he allegedly drugged and raped her after a 2005 party.

In a joint press release on social media featuring statements from both sides, Kesha said that “only god knows what happened that night.”

“As I have always said, I cannot recount everything that happened,” the star wrote. “I am looking forward to closing the door on this chapter of my life and beginning a new one. I wish nothing but peace to all parties involved.”

In his own statement, Dr. Luke said he was “absolutely certain that nothing happened” that night in 2005: “I never drugged or assaulted her and would never do that to anyone. For the sake of my family, I have vigorously fought to clear my name for nearly 10 years. It is time for me to put this difficult matter behind me and move on with my life. I wish Kesha well.”

The abrupt settlement came just 10 days after New York’s top appeals court handed a key victory to Kesha in the case. The court ruled that Dr. Luke was a “public figure,” a finding that would make his case far harder to prove; it also said that Kesha could recoup her legal bills if she ultimately won.

Dr. Luke, whose full name is Lukasz Gottwald, filed his lawsuit against Kesha in 2014, claiming she had legally defamed him with a “false and shocking” allegation that he drugged and raped her after a 2005 party. He claimed she did so as leverage to secure a more lucrative deal. Kesha long denied those accusations, arguing that the defamation case was an effort to silence the voice of a victim.

The pair spent years in bitter litigation over those claims, with numerous procedural delays and appeals slowing down the process. But after more than eight years of litigation, a trial in Dr. Luke’s lawsuit had finally been scheduled to start on July 19.

Beyond Thursday’s statements, no details about the settlement were immediately released by the parties or made available in public court records.

Read Kesha and Dr. Luke’s statements below:

Rapper Boosie Badazz is set to be released on bond on his federal gun charge after a judge rejected a request by prosecutors to keep him behind bars even longer.
Boosie (real name Torrence Hatch) was arrested last week over a May 6 traffic stop in which federal prosecutors say the New Orleans rapper was found with a handgun — an alleged violation of a federal law prohibiting former felons from possessing firearms.

Explore

Explore

See latest videos, charts and news

See latest videos, charts and news

Though Boosie was granted pre-trial release on a $50,000 bond at a hearing on Tuesday, prosecutors quickly asked for that order to be put on hold while they appeal the ruling. But in an order issued Wednesday (June 21), the same magistrate judge denied that request.

As of Wednesday afternoon, it was unclear when Boosie would be released or if he already had been released. Neither his attorneys nor the government immediately returned requests for comment.

Boosie was suddenly arrested on June 14 at a California courthouse, just minutes after a court appearance in which charges filed by state prosecutors had been dropped — charges that had been based on that same May traffic stop.

In a criminal complaint unsealed by a judge on June 16, federal prosecutors offered key new details about the May 6 stop. It was was sparked by local police spotting Boosie in an Instagram video of a “known gang member,” sporting a “black handgun tucked into his back waistband of his pants.” Police then used an “Airborne Law Enforcement Unit” to locate the rapper in a neighborhood of San Diego they claim is gang-associated, where he was allegedly found in the car with the gun.

Though the state law charges were dropped last week, Boosie is now accused by federal prosecutors of so-called “felon in possession of a firearm,” since the rapper was previously convicted on drug charges in Louisiana in 2011. The charge carries as much as a 10-year prison sentence, but sentences can vary widely based on cooperation and other factors.

It’s unclear why federal investigators chose to charge Boosie after the state-level case was dismissed. Under U.S. Department of Justice internal policies, prosecutors sometimes choose to avoid filing federal cases after earlier state law charges. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorneys Office in San Diego declined to comment on that issue last week.

In the Tuesday order releasing him from jail ahead of trial, Boosie was ordered to pay the $50,000 bond and surrender his passport. But crucially, the judge said he would be allowed to travel “to perform and travel to/from performances with advanced not to pre-trial services.” That came after his lawyers told Billboard that procedural delays after his arrest had left him “forced to cancel a number of shows over this historic Juneteenth weekend.”

After three members of EXO took legal action against Korean record label and management agency SM Entertainment over what a law firm initially deemed as “slave contracts,” both sides have resolved their differences. Explore See latest videos, charts and news See latest videos, charts and news Korean media reports that EXO’s Chen, Baekhyun and Xiumin […]

A Manhattan judge on Tuesday (June 20) sentenced rapper and podcaster Taxstone to 35 years in prison following his conviction earlier this year on manslaughter charges over his 2016 fatal shooting of rapper Troy Ave’s bodyguard during a T.I. concert at Irving Plaza.

Explore

Explore

See latest videos, charts and news

See latest videos, charts and news

Taxstone, whose real name is Daryl Campbell, was convicted in March of shooting and killing 33-year-old Ronald “Banga” McPhatter and seriously injuring three others – a crime that prosecutors said stemmed from Taxstone’s longstanding feud with rapper Troy Ave, whose real name Roland Collins.

“Daryl Campbell used a firearm to target his rival, which led to loss of a life and serious injuries to innocent bystanders,” District Attorney Bragg said in a statement Tuesday. “Gun violence cannot be used as a way to address conflict. The toll of guns continues to be staggeringly high and it is horrific that a night out at a concert ended tragically.” 

Campbell’s lawyer, Kenneth Montgomery, told Billboard in a brief statement that his client would be appealing the conviction: “Justice wasn’t served,” Montgomery said.

Prosecutors say that Campbell, best known for his Tax Season podcast, confronted Collins in the green room at Irving Plaza on May 25, 2016, shortly before Collins was set to open for T.I. He allegedly shot McPhatter in the chest, fatally wounding him, before shooting Collins in both legs during a struggle for the gun. A man and a woman were also allegedly hit, seriously wounding both.

According to prosecutors, the incident came after years of escalating feuding on social media and podcasts. “When I see you walking up with six dudes, bang-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba,” Campbell said of Collins. Collins responded with a diss track: “Twitter fingers, how many times ya gonna tweet me? I’m always on the flier, guess you too scared to meet me.”

Campbell was eventually arrested on federal guns charges in January 2017, after federal prosecutors said his DNA was found on a handgun that was used in the shooting. After he pleaded guilty to those charges, he was arrested by New York authorities in July 2017 and charged with the shooting itself.

In March, a New York jury found him guilty of manslaughter in the first degree, two counts of assault in the first degree, one count of assault in the second degree and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: Twitter is facing a lawsuit from dozens of music publishers over copyright infringement; Bad Bunny, Daddy Yankee and other reggaeton stars fight back against a massive lawsuit; unsealed documents offer key details on the gun charges against Boosie BadAzz; and much more.

Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.

THE BIG STORY: Twitter’s $250 Million Music Problem

In last week’s least surprising development, the music publishers sued Twitter. After years of warnings from National Music Publishers’ Association — David Israelite called Elon Musk’s website his “top legal focus” earlier this year — dozens of the group’s members filed a sweeping copyright lawsuit in federal court.

Surprise or not, the case is a big deal. The publishers claim that Twitter has infringed over 1,700 different songs from writers like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé — a claim that, if proven, could put the social media giant on the hook for as much as $255 million in damages.

Damages aren’t likely the end goal for the publishers. Licensing deals outside the realm of plain ole music streaming, ranging from social media sites like Instagram to gaming platforms like Roblox to fitness services like Peloton, have become an increasingly large slice of the revenue pie for publishers and songwriters in recent years. But many of those deals only came as settlements to lawsuits — just ask Roblox and Peloton. Twitter, the publishers say, is one of the last holdouts refusing to sign such a deal.

To read more about the lawsuit, including the actual complaint itself, go read our entire story here.

If it doesn’t end in a quick settlement, the case will also be a fascinating look at the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a federal law that limits how websites like Twitter can be sued over copyright infringement by their users — and one that has long frustrated content owners. The DMCA provides sites like Twitter with immunity from litigation over material uploaded by their users, so long as they promptly remove infringing content and ban repeated violators from the platform. The new lawsuit claims Twitter failed to do either of those things, meaning the site has legally forfeited the DMCA’s protections.

In that sense, the lawsuit against Twitter is something of spiritual sequel to a series of cases filed against internet service providers like Cox, which pioneered the argument that providers had waived the DMCA’s safe harbor by failing to crack down on subscribers who repeatedly infringed. After a federal judge ruled that Cox had lost the DMCA’s protections, a jury later ordered the company to pay $1 billion in damages to the three major music companies. Yes, billion, with a “B.”

Will those same arguments work against Twitter? Stay tuned.

Other top stories this week…

MASSIVE REGGAETON CASE – Bad Bunny, Daddy Yankee, Karol G and dozens of other artists asked a federal judge to toss out a sprawling copyright lawsuit that claims hundreds of reggaeton tracks infringed a single 1989 song. In their motion to end the case, Daddy Yankee and many other stars argued that the accusers are “effectively claiming ownership of an entire genre of music.” Bad Bunny, in his own filing, said the case aims to “stake monopolistic control over the reggaeton genre.”

BOOSIE BADAZZ GUN CHARGE – Newly-unsealed charging documents against rapper Boosie Badazz revealed that his recent federal gun charge came after San Diego police tracked his Instagram account and even used a helicopter to locate him in an allegedly gang-affiliated neighborhood.

BAD SERVICE? A judge ruled that Sony Music Entertainment could serve a copyright lawsuit on a TikTok rapper by sending him a message through his DMs. The ruling detailed how the label’s lawyers had spent months unsuccessfully trying to do so in-person — including showing up to his mom’s house on Mother’s Day “in hopes that he would be there to celebrate with her.”

50 CENT ENDS BOOZE BATTLE – The rapper reached a settlement with Rémy Martin to resolve a lawsuit that claimed his Branson brand of cognac copied the design of the company’s bottles. The confidential deal will end litigation that 50 Cent’s company had called “meritless” and designed to “destroy a competitor.”

Daddy Yankee, Karol G and dozens of other artists are asking a federal judge to toss out a sprawling copyright lawsuit that claims “Despacito” and hundreds of other reggaeton tracks infringed a single 1989 song, arguing the accusers are “effectively claiming ownership of an entire genre of music.”
The case, filed by Jamaican duo Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson, claims that their 1989 song “Fish Market” has been sampled or interpolated into more than 1,800 songs in the years since it was released — and that each one amounts to an act of copyright infringement.

But in a motion filed Thursday (June 15), attorneys for the accused infringers finally struck back — arguing that after “30 years of inaction,” Clevie & Steely were unfairly trying to monopolize a whole style of popular music.

“Plaintiffs [are] effectively claiming ownership of an entire genre of music by claiming exclusive rights to the rhythm and other unprotectable musical elements common to all ‘reggaeton’-style songs,” wrote lawyers from Pryor Cashman, the same law firm that just won Ed Sheeran’s big trial with similar arguments.

First filed in 2021, the enormous lawsuit names more than 150 defendants, including “Despacito” stars Daddy Yankee, Luis Fonsi and Justin Bieber as well as Bad Bunny, Anitta, Pitbull, Karol G, Ricky Martin, El Chombo and many other artists, plus units of all three major music companies. The case claims that “Fish Market,” and several other songs that directly copied it, formed the basis for the “dembow” rhythm that’s been used in countless reggaeton songs in the years since.

But in Thursday’s response, lawyers from Pryor Cashman (who represent 89 of those defendants) said the size of the case had made it a procedural disaster — a confusing mess in which nobody knows exactly what they’re accused of doing wrong. Without those specific allegations, they said Clevie & Steely had failed to satisfy “the fundamental elements of a copyright infringement claim.”

“The [complaint] is a ‘shotgun pleading’ filled with conclusory allegations that lump defendants together, making it impossible for Defendants to determine what each is alleged to have done, what works are at issue and what in those works is allegedly infringing,” the attorneys wrote.

The lawyers for Daddy Yankee and the other defendants also sharply criticized the length of time that elapsed before bringing the case. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that copyright cases can usually be filed even decades later, but Thursday’s filing said that Clevie & Steely’s case pushed that system to its breaking point.

“Plaintiffs neither filed any action nor registered any copyrights until 2020 — at least thirty years after the creation of the works,” the lawyers for the accused artists wrote. “These failures constitute misleading inaction, during which an entire genre of reggaeton music developed, which plaintiffs now claim to own.”

An attorney for Clevie & Steely did not immediately return a request for comment on Friday.

Despite being filed in 2021, the case over “Fish Market” is still in the earliest stages, thanks in no small part to the procedural complexity of a lawsuit involving scores of defendants and hundreds of songs. If Thursday’s motion is denied, the case will proceed into discovery, where both sides will exchange evidence, and head toward an eventual trial. But such a resolution could still be years away.

Lawyers for Sony Music Entertainment have spent months trying to find a TikTok rapper who the label is suing for copyright infringement, even going to his mom’s house on Mother’s Day “in hopes that he would be there to celebrate with her.” Now, a judge now says they can just slide into his DMs.
In an order issued Wednesday, Judge Mark T. Pittman ruled that Sony had exhausted all reasonable routes to locate Trefuego — the artist behind a popular TikTok song called “90mh,” which Sony claims features a “flagrant” unlicensed sample from an earlier song.

Faced with that situation, the judge said Sony’s lawyers could instead reach out to his Instagram, Twitter, TikTok and Soundcloud accounts, which have remained active since Sony filed its lawsuit.

“Plaintiffs have shown that serving process via these social media platforms will be reasonably effective in giving Trefuego notice of this suit,” Judge Pittman wrote.

Sony has been pursuing Trefuego in some form since January 2021, when the company notified him that his “90mh” — a track that’s been featured in 155,000 videos on TikTok and streamed 100 million times on Spotify — was built on an illegal sample from Japanese composer Toshifumi Hinata. After filing takedown requests in August 2022 to get the song pulled, Sony finally launched a lawsuit in December.

Wednesday’s ruling highlights the extraordinary lengths that litigants like Sony must sometimes go to “serve” filings on opponents — a key procedural requirement in any lawsuit.

The same problem recently confronted lawyers repping Kanye West, who desperately wanted to drop the embattled rapper as a client but couldn’t find him to do so. And NBA legend Shaquille O’Neal spent months avoiding a lawsuit over his endorsement of failed cryptocurrency exchange FTX — only to finally be located and served at a Heat-Celtics game last month.

In his decision on Sony’s case, Judge Pittman said the company’s lawyers had made “extensive efforts” and “gone to great lengths” to find Trefuego. They made “seven separate attempts” to serve him with the lawsuit, the judge said, including hiring a private investigator and scouring his social media pages.

In one particularly notable effort, Sony’s reps went “to his mother’s house on Mother’s Day in hopes that he would be there to celebrate with her” but still came up empty: “Sadly, he was not there, and his own mother claimed she did not know who he was,” the judge wrote.

A typical alternative to in-person service would be to print a notice of the lawsuit in the local papers — the same thing that Kanye’s estranged lawyers wanted to do in his case. But in Wednesday’s decision, Judge Pittman said that “modern problems require modern solutions.”

“This court has concerns as to whether SoundCloud and TikTok rapper extraordinaire Trefuego is a regular reader of the Fort Worth Star Telegram or that he regularly visits the information tab of Fort Worth’s city website,” the judge wrote.

Judge Pittman ruled that Sony could instead use “certain social media accounts” that “most certainly belong to the young bard.” Trefuego’s Instagram, Twitter, TikTok and SoundCloud pages all “appear to be substantially active,” the judge said, and indicate that he is a “frequent user” of those platforms.

Ahead of the decision, Sony had offered one other digital alternative: to email the rapper’s manager, with whom Sony had correspondence over the unlicensed sample before it resorted to litigation. But the judge rejected that route, noting that “all lines of communication have ceased” with the manager since the filing of the case.

“Given his own mother’s willingness to deny her relationship to him, it is not unlikely that his manager would also willingly delete emails or continue to ignore them,” the judge wrote. “Because communications through this line have proven futile already, the Court will not grant service through this already explored dead-end avenue.”

The National Music Publishers’ Association says its members are suing Twitter over allegations of widespread copyright infringement and seeking hundreds of millions in damages, telling the Elon Musk-owned site it can no longer “refuse to pay songwriters and music publishers.”
In the lawsuit, which the group plans to announce during its annual meeting Wednesday (June 14), dozens of music publishers allege that Twitter had infringed more than 1,700 different songs — a claim that, if proven, could put the social media giant on the hook for as much as $255 million in damages.

“Twitter profits handsomely from its infringement of publishers’ repertoires of musical compositions,” the music companies write in their complaint, which was obtained by Billboard. “Twitter’s unlawful conduct has caused and continues to cause substantial and irreparable harm to Publishers, their songwriter clients, and the entire music ecosystem.”

Twitter did not respond to immediate request for comment.

The plaintiffs named in the lawsuit, set to be filed in Tennessee federal court, include Concord, UMPG, peermusic, ABKCO Music, Anthem Entertainment, Big Machine Music, BMG Rights Management, Hipgnosis Songs Group, Kobalt Music Publishing America, Mayimba Music, Reservoir Media Management, Sony Music Publishing, Spirit Music Group, The Royalty Network, Ultra Music Publishing, Warner Chappell Music, and Wixen Music Publishing.

The announcement that the NMPA would be pursuing legal action against Twitter shouldn’t come as a total surprise. In a February speech at the Association of Independent Music Publishers (AIMP) summit, NMPA president and CEO David Israelite called Twitter his “top legal focus” this year. He warned that the company was “hiding behind” the Digital Millenium Copyright Act – the federal law that limits how websites like Twitter can be sued over copyright infringement by their users.

In a statement on Wednesday, Israelite echoed that threat, saying that Twitter could no longer “hide behind the DMCA and refuse to pay songwriters and music publishers.”

“Twitter stands alone as the largest social media platform that has completely refused to license the millions of songs on its service,” Israelite said in a statement. “Twitter knows full well that music is leaked, launched, and streamed by billions of people every day on its platform.”

The DMCA provides websites like Twitter with a legal immunity — a “safe harbor” — against copyright lawsuits over material uploaded by their users, so long as they promptly remove infringing content and ban repeated violators from the platform. But in their new lawsuit, the publishers allege that Twitter failed to do either, meaning the site has legally forfeited the DMCA’s protections.

“Twitter routinely ignores known repeat infringers and known infringements, refusing to take simple steps that are available to Twitter to stop these specific instances of infringement of which it is aware,” the publishers wrote.

The NMPA annual meeting each year is known to feature at least one bombshell announcement from Israelite. Last year, the NMPA launched a legal action against over a hundred different apps that skim music from digital services without obtaining licenses, sent cease and desist notices to Apple and Google app stores, and filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against music video-making app Vinkle. In 2021, Israelite announced $200 million copyright infringement lawsuit against Roblox for hosting thousands of unlicensed songs within the game’s library.

The NMPA’s public grievances with Twitter date back to at least April 2021, when a Billboard published a guest column, co-penned by Israelite and RIAA chief Mitch Glazier. In it, the two leaders called for social media platform to license music and noted that in the last year music creators had sent more than 2 million notices to Twitter of unlicensed and infringing appearances of copyrighted music on the platform, more than 200,000 of which were of unreleased songs. “The company’s response to date has been totally inadequate,” the article lamented. It went on to suggest three ways for Twitter to address the grievances the music business has had with its operations: “licensing music and pay music creators like others do,” “better content protection tools,” and “stop demanding exorbitant payments from creators for content protection.”

Since Jack Dorsey stepped down from Twitter in November 2021, the stability of the company has been in constant flux. By the time Musk bought the company and assumed the role of CEO in October 2022, Twitter’s future seemed even more uncertain amid Musk’s controversial leadership, widespread cost cutting measures, and restructuring of the company. Since Dorsey’s departure, Israelite has taken to the platform to express his hope that subsequent chiefs like Parag Agrawal, Musk and now Linda Yaccarino would “finally” “take a new approach” with licensing music.

But in Wednesday’s lawsuit, the publishers said things had only gotten worse: “Twitter’s change in ownership in October 2022 has not led to improvements in how it acts with respect to copyright. On the contrary, Twitter’s internal affairs regarding matters pertinent to this case are in disarray.”

Licensing for games, social media, and other applications is quickly becoming a major component of music publishers’ income. At last year’s annual meeting, NMPA announced that licensing from new revenue streams — like Twitch, Roblox, Peloton and others — now account for 29.11% of music publishers’ income, something that is expected to only rise over time. This has come with the success of the NMPA’s aggressive legal agenda in recent years, and has helped publishers diversify their income from streaming, which is strictly regulated in the U.S. by the Copyright Royalty Board.

In the lawsuit against Twitter, the publishers noted that TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Snapchat had all entered into such broader licensing deals, enabling their users to use copyrighted music while still compensating songwriters. Twitter, they wrote, cannot not continue to be the exception.

“Twitter is seizing for itself an artificial competitive advantage against companies that are not violating copyright law, undercutting existing markets, cheapening the value of music, and undermining Publishers’ well-established business models,” lawyers for the publishers wrote.

In this episode of Billboard Explains, we take a look at the rise of copyright lawsuits and the significance behind Ed Sheeran‘s case and his win over his track “Thinking Out Loud.”

Producer:Copyright lawsuits are on the rise. Ed Sheeran recently won a copyright lawsuit claim against his Billboard Hot 100 hit “Thinking Out Loud.” While the pop star successfully defended his hit song, it’s actually one of many copyright lawsuits that are bringing music’s most well-known stars into the court.

From Robin Thicke and Pharrell to Katy Perry, why is there a rise in copyright infringement cases? And how does Ed Sheeran’s victory impact the music industry? This is Billboard Explains: Music Copyright Lawsuits.

Let’s first dive into what Sheeran’s copyright case was all about: Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” versus Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It On.” The family of “Let’s Get It On” co-writer Ed Townsend accused Sheeran of copying the chord structure of Gaye’s 1973 hit. The jury ultimately ruled in favor of Sheeran, saying that he didn’t copy any of the elements of the song and created it independently.

This isn’t the first time Marvin Gaye has been involved in a copyright case. In 2013, Gaye’s family claimed Robin Thicke and Pharrell’s song “Blurred Lines” copied Gaye’s 1977 hit song “Got to Give It Up.” Thicke actually told Billboard that Gaye inspired the song, saying in part, “I told him, ‘Pharrell, I wanted to do something kind of like Marvin Gaye’s ‘Got to Give It Up’ that kind of feel because it’s one of my favorite songs of all time.’”

The jury found Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams guilty of copyright infringement, and awarded Marvin Gaye’s estate over $5 million and 50% of future royalties on the song. The verdict of the “Blurred Lines” case jump-started a wave of copyright lawsuits targeting some of music’s biggest hits, from opening guitar riffs to similar melodies, to similar lyrics. So why does this particular case matter? According to Billboard‘s Senior Legal Correspondent Bill Donahue, the “Blurred Lines” lawsuit created confusion and fear among songwriters and artists at the time. So this case shows that the pendulum is swinging the other way. Basically, Sheeran winning this case helps other songwriters in the future. He says it best:

Ed Sheeran:“These codes are common building blocks, which were used to create music long before ‘Let’s Get It On’ was written, and will be used to make music long after we’re all gone.”

Producer:So what’s the impact on the music industry as a whole? Things are starting to change when it comes to copyright cases. Many artists are choosing to go to court and fight for their work as opposed to settling out of court. They want to prove they’re innocent of the claims and not become a target for a cash grab. And the music industry as a whole is learning more about what makes a legitimate copyright case, actual stolen music and lyrics versus common musical elements.

Ed Sheeran:“If the jury had decided this matter the other way, we might as well say goodbye to the creative freedom of songwriters. We need to be able to write our original music and engage in independent creation without worrying at every step of the way that such creativity will be wrongly called into question.”

Producer:All in all, while Sheeran’s win won’t necessarily stop future lawsuits from happening, the win still marks a significant moment in music history.