Copy right claim, Yes or No, what do you think?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BesaMoogie
  • Start date Start date
Just found this...

"Intent, however, is not relevant to copyright infringement liability as copyright infringement is a strict liability tort (the caveat being liability for contributory infringement which does require intent). Copyright infringement has not always been a strict liability though."

From the glance I've taken at search results, intent matters when its a criminal proceeding, not a civil one.
 
I just think that because it would be incredibly hard to determine intent in an artistic pursuit, they would just follow the money. I'll have to look more into it.
Valid point, which why these copyright lawsuits are a waste of time for the most part.
 
Ok, so most people here think the lawsuit is bs. Good for me as I am guilty as well of writing something which than sounded like XYZ.
 
^ yes he did.

There was a 4 chord progression with a similar drum beat but I don't see them as copies. Ed had been sued before I believe too. I know very little about the guy. And really, these super simple songs....there is going to be some repetitive stuff. I mean you can only do so much with the same chords and simple beats. They were in different keys though :lol:

Here is 20 sec summary of each if anyone needs a listen (like I did)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/arts/music/ed-sheeran-marvin-gaye-copyright-trial-verdict.html

Just found this...

"Intent, however, is not relevant to copyright infringement liability as copyright infringement is a strict liability tort (the caveat being liability for contributory infringement which does require intent). Copyright infringement has not always been a strict liability though."

From the glance I've taken at search results, intent matters when its a criminal proceeding, not a civil one.

Great points.

Also, I too feel some of the riffs I've come up with are original but I'm sure if I dug deep enough or let someone else here listen - there would be a similarity somewhere. Actually, that is a pretty cool thread idea. I think both of the first clips in my sig are original to me :D
 
Last edited:
Not sure but I’ll just leave this Rick Beato video for you suckas to enjoy and make your day ?

 
Total B.S. in my opinion. The Queen and Vanilla Ice thing was an example of a blatant issue.

I think it comes down to if people are losing money from sales, if it is the same audience, etc. There are no 70 year old soul fans requesting Ed Sheeran at the local bar, I can assure you. Two totally separate audiences.
 
First time thru I was just listening for similarities but I just listened to those verses back to back again and…Marvin Gaye’s voice and soul is soooo much better than that other song.
 
First time thru I was just listening for similarities but I just listened to those verses back to back again and…Marvin Gaye’s voice and soul is soooo much better than that other song.
No argument there. What a loss that was.
 
So Ed Sheeran is getting sued for copying music. As an occasional songwriter, I was wondering where you guys would draw the line and if this is justified?

It`s one little part of the song (like 6 seconds) that has the same chord progression and same rhythm and groove/tempo. However, the lyrics and melody are different and of course, the key. After that part, the songs change in different directions and you would probably never her assume any similarities.


Not the same
 
Imagine how many blues songs would lose copyright suits if chord progressions and beats were copyrightable. Pretty much all of them except for the first 2 or 3...
 
after the blurred lines fiasco, and now this, the marvin gaye estate is apparently attempting to make case law that kills the music business,
 
Super blatant stuff goes back to the early days and nobody was suing anyone - at least no one did at the time.

Same intro, different key.



 
Does Overkill need to cut a check to Diamond Head via Metallica on this one….lol

 
Back
Top