Ed Sheeran WINS High Court battle over claims his 2017 hit Shape of You

59

View
comments

Ed Sheeran has called for an end to the ‘really damaging’ copyright claim culture that he said is ripping through the music industry after winning his High Court case against a grime artist over his song Shape of You.

The popstar lashed out at the ‘baseless claims’ being brought against singer-songwriters ‘with the idea a settlement will be cheaper than taking it to court’.

The 31-year-old said there were ‘only so many quotes and so many chords used in pop music’ meaning ‘coincidences are bound to happen’.

The comments came as Sheeran opened up about the ‘pain and hurt suffered’ in his own court case brought about by two grime artists.

He said he was ‘obviously happy with the result’ but added: ‘I’m not an entity, I’m not a corporation, I’m a human being, I’m a father, I’m a husband, I’m a son.’

Sami Chokri , who performs as Sami Switch, and Ross O’Donoghue had claimed the popstar ripped off their song 2015 song Oh Why with his 2017 tune Shape of You.

But in a ruling on Wednesday, Mr Justice Zacaroli concluded Sheeran ‘neither deliberately nor subconsciously’ copied a phrase.

He said: ‘While there are similarities between the OW Hook and the OI Phrase, there are also significant differences. I am satisfied that Mr Sheeran did not subconsciously copy Oh Why in creating Shape.’ 

Sheeran said on Instagram this morning: ‘I wanted to make a small video to talk about it a bit because I’ve not really been able to say anything while it’s been going on.

‘While we’re obviously happy with the result, I feel like claims like this are way too common now It’s become a culture where a claim is made with the idea a settlement will be cheaper than taking it to court even if there’s no base for the claim.

‘It’s really damaging to the some writing industry. there’s only so many quotes and so many chords used in pop music.

‘Coincidences are bound to happen if 60,000 songs are released every day on Spotify, that’s 22million songs a year and there’s only 12 notes available.

‘I don’t want to take anything away from the pain and hurt suffered by both sides of this case But I just want to say I’m not an entity, I’m not a corporation, I’m a human being, I’m a father, I’m a husband, I’m a son.

‘Lawsuits are not a pleasant experience and I hope with this ruling it means in the future baseless claims like this can be avoided.

‘This really does have to end. Me Johnny and Steve are very grateful for all the support sent to us by fellow songwriters over the last few weeks. Hopefully we can get back to writing songs rather than having to prove that we can write them.’

At the trial last month, the singer and his co-writers, Snow Patrol’s John McDaid and producer Steven McCutcheon, faced accusations they ripped off Oh Why by Chokri and O’Donoghue.

Mr Justice Zacaroli concluded Sheeran ‘neither deliberately nor subconsciously’ copied a phrase from Oh Why when writing Shape Of You.

The judge said: ‘While there are similarities between the OW Hook and the OI Phrase, there are also significant differences. I am satisfied that Mr Sheeran did not subconsciously copy Oh Why in creating Shape.’

In a joint statement after the case, Sheeran, McDaid and Mac said: ‘There was a lot of talk throughout this case about cost. But there is more than just a financial cost.

‘There is a cost on creativity. When we are tangled up in law suits, we are not making music or playing shows. There is a cost on our mental health.

‘The stress this causes on all sides is immense. It affects so many aspects of our everyday lives and the lives of our families and friends. We are not corporations. We are not entities. We are human beings. We are songwriters.

‘We do not want to diminish the hurt and pain anyone has suffered through this, and at the same time, we feel it is important to acknowledge that we too have had our own hurts and life struggles throughout the course of this process.

‘There is an impact on both us and the wider circle of songwriters everywhere. Our hope in having gone through all of this, is that it shows that there is a need for a safe space for all songwriters to be creative, and free to express their hearts.

‘That is why we all got into this in the first place. Everyone should be able to freely express themselves in music, in art and do so fearlessly.

‘At the same time, we believe that there should be due process for legitimate and warranted copyright protection. However, that is not the same as having a culture where unwarranted claims are easily brought.

‘This is not constructive or conducive to a culture of creativity. We are grateful that Mr. Justice Zacaroli has delivered a clear and considered judgment which supports the position we have argued from the outset.

‘Shape of You’ is original. We did not copy the Defendants’ song. We respect the music of those who’ve come before us and have inspired us along the way, whoever they are.

‘We have always sought to clear or to acknowledge our influences and collaborators. It doesn’t matter how successful something appears to be, we still respect it.

‘It is so painful to hear someone publicly, and aggressively, challenge your integrity. It is so painful to have to defend yourself against accusations that you have done something that you haven’t done and would never do.

‘We are very grateful for all the messages of love, hope and support we received throughout the course of this case from songwriters everywhere.

‘Thank you also to our publishers, who stood shoulder to shoulder with us at every step of the way. We are privileged to do what we do, and we know that. We want to live in a world where we are free to do what we do, openly and honourably.

‘While this has been one of the most difficult things we have ever been through in our professional lives, we will continue to stand up against baseless claims, and protect our rights and the integrity of our musical creativity, so we that can continue to make music, always.

‘Our message to songwriters everywhere is: Please support each other. Be kind to one another. Let’s continue to cultivate a spirit of community and creativity.’

Sheeran and his co-authors originally launched legal proceedings in May 2018, asking the High Court to declare they had not infringed Chokri and O’Donoghue’s copyright.

Two months later, Chokri – a grime artist who performs under the name Sami Switch – and O’Donoghue issued their own claim for ‘copyright infringement, damages and an account of profits in relation to the alleged infringement’.

The pair alleged that an ‘Oh I’ hook in Shape Of You is ‘strikingly similar’ to an ‘Oh Why’ refrain in their own track.

But in his judgment, Mr Justice Zacaroli concluded ‘Mr Sheeran had not heard Oh Why and in any event that he did not deliberately copy the Oh I phrase from the Oh Why hook’.

He added: ‘Mr Chokri is undoubtedly a serious and talented songwriter and while his management were unsurprisingly trying to create some hype around the release of the Solace EP, it had limited success.

‘In my judgment, the possibility that these attempts might have led to it coming to Mr Sheeran’s attention – either because someone he was associated with played it to him or because he found it himself – is at best speculative.’

The judge said the phrases in the songs at the heart of the legal dispute ‘play very different roles’, with the Oh Why hook reflecting the track’s ‘slow, brooding and questioning mood’, while Shape of You’s Oh I phrase was ‘something catchy to fill the bar’ before the next part of the song.

He continued: ‘The use of the first four notes of the rising minor pentatonic scale for the melody is so short, simple, commonplace and obvious in the context of the rest of the song that it is not credible that Mr Sheeran sought out inspiration from other songs to come up with it.’

During the 11-day trial at the Rolls Building in London, Sheeran denied he ‘borrows’ ideas from unknown songwriters without acknowledgement and insisted he ‘always tried to be completely fair’ in crediting people who contribute to his albums.

The singer told the court he was trying to ‘clear my name’ and denied using litigation to ‘intimidate’ Chokri and O’Donoghue into abandoning the copyright dispute.

Lawyers for the Oh Why co-writers labelled Sheeran a ‘magpie’, alleging he ‘habitually copies’ other artists and that it was ‘extremely likely’ he had previously heard Oh Why.

Chokri told the trial he felt ‘robbed’ by the music star and was ‘shocked’ when he first heard Shape Of You on the radio.

But lawyers for Sheeran, McDaid and McCutcheon said the allegations against them were ‘impossible to hold’, with the evidence pointing to Shape Of You being an ‘independent creation’.

Sheeran was present throughout the trial in March and frequently burst into song and hummed musical scales and melodies when he took to the witness stand.

In one brief incident, the court was accidentally played a clip of unreleased material by Sheeran from McCutcheon’s computer.

All three Shape Of You co-authors denied allegations of copying and said they did not remember hearing Oh Why before the legal fight.

Ian Mill QC, representing the three men, said the legal dispute had been ‘deeply traumatising’, arguing the case should never have reached trial.

But the Oh Why co-writers’ lawyer, Andrew Sutcliffe QC, alleged Sheeran is an artist who ‘alters’ words and music belonging to others to ‘pass as original’.

He claimed Sheeran’s lawyers brought the legal proceedings because PRS for Music – the industry body that collects and distributes royalties – had ‘frozen’ payments for UK broadcast and performance income from Shape Of You.

It was also claimed Sheeran must have been aware of Chokri because they appeared on YouTube channel SBTV at about the same time, they shared friends, Chokri had sent messages to him on Twitter, and Sheeran had allegedly shouted his name at a performance.

Mr Sutcliffe suggested Sheeran ‘consciously or unconsciously’ had Oh Why in his head when Shape Of You was written at McCutcheon’s Rokstone Studios in west London in October 2016.

But Mr Mill said the Shape Of You co-writers were clear they had ‘no preconceived ideas’ when they went into the studio.

Isaac Murdy, intellectual property specialist at law firm, Shakespeare Martineau, said: ‘When a song is as successful as this, it becomes a tempting target for anyone who thinks they can rightfully claim a share of that success for themselves.

‘If you have a legitimate case for copyright infringement, for the right song, pursuing a claim can be a very shrewd investment of time and legal fees. However, as we’ve seen here, that investment is not without risk.

‘This ruling may embolden artists to be more brazen in ‘taking inspiration’ from each other, without fearing the consequences of copyright infringement.

‘While this makes the process of creating (and publishing) music easier, in some cases it might deprive smaller artists of income that should have gone to them.

‘It’s rare for a copyright infringement case to get this far in court. Often, they are settled outside of court, as it’s usually a less expensive result for both parties.

‘Clearly, Chokri believed he had a strong case, unfortunately it wasn’t strong enough and he now faces a considerable legal bill.

‘This ruling indicates that the UK IP courts aren’t going to support American-style speculative litigation.

‘It will take more than a short section of ‘basic minor pentatonic pattern’ which is ‘entirely commonplace’, to establish a successful claim of copyright infringement.

‘All music is derivative to a certain extent, and in the words of Elvis Costello ‘It’s how rock & roll works’. This ruling shows that clear similarities throughout two songs are needed to form a substantial case.

‘Copyright is designed to encourage creativity by rewarding original creators, and this case shows how the law attempts to balance the rights of creators at every stage in a song’s development.’