Music is owned by the artists and composers who create it. But there have been instances where songs are used without permission. Copyright laws protect both the song's composition (music and lyrics) and its recording. To legally use a copyrighted song, two licenses are needed, a sync license for the composition and a master-use license for the recording. Without proper permission, using or sampling music can lead to legal disputes, and historically, this has caused significant legal battles in the music industry.
Ed Sheeran is one of the artists who is currently involved in a high-profile legal case brought by the heirs of Ed Townsend, co-writer of Marvin Gaye's "Let’s Get It On." The case claims Sheeran's 2014 hit "Thinking Out Loud" closely resembles key elements of Gaye's 1973 song. Sheeran recently appeared in court to deny these allegations, defending his song against accusations of plagiarism.
Below is the list of 5 of the most memorable and famous music copyright cases till now.
1. Chuck Berry vs. the Beach Boys
Chuck Berry's legendary guitar riffs have often inspired other musicians. But the Beach Boys went beyond sampling when they adapted his 1958 song ‘Sweet Little Sixteen’. They altered the lyrics and released it in 1963 as ‘Surfin' USA’. This move led to potential legal trouble and prompted their manager, Murray Wilson, to transfer the publishing rights to Arc Music, Berry's publisher. As a result, both Chuck Berry and Wilson received songwriting credits. While a lawsuit was avoided, this incident became one of the earliest high-profile plagiarism cases in music history that showcased the complexities of copyright in creative work.
2. Queen & David Bowie vs. Vanilla Ice
Queen and David Bowie's 1981 hit ‘Under Pressure’ features a legendary bassline that Vanilla Ice famously sampled for his 1990 track ‘Ice Ice Baby’. When Queen and Bowie’s representatives accused him of copyright infringement, Vanilla Ice argued his version was different because he added a note. This defense didn’t hold up in court and led to a lawsuit. Ice settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, claiming it was cheaper to buy the song's rights. However, this remains unconfirmed. The case reignited debates about protecting artists' creativity and ensuring proper credit for original work.
3. Katy Perry vs. Marcus Gray
Katy Perry faced a major copyright lawsuit from rapper Marcus Gray, who claimed that her song ‘Dark Horse’ copied an eight-note riff from his track ‘Joyful Noise’. After years of courtroom battles, a jury initially awarded Gray $2.8 million. This decision was supported by expert testimonies arguing similarities between the songs. However, the ruling was overturned when a judge declared the melody was too generic to be copyrighted. This decision mirrored Led Zeppelin's victory in a similar case involving ‘Stairway to Heaven’. Both cases highlighted the challenge of proving originality in popular music disputes.
4. George Harrison vs. the Chiffons
George Harrison's song ‘My Sweet Lord’ was his first major solo hit that achieved immense success. It also became the best-selling single in the U.K. in 1971. However, it also brought legal trouble. In 1981, a court ruled that Harrison had unintentionally copied elements from the Chiffons' 1963 song ‘He’s So Fine’ written by Ronnie Mack. The court described this as "subconscious plagiarism," where similarities in melody led to the ruling. Harrison was ordered to pay $587,000 in damages, making the case one of the most notable in music copyright history.
“I wasn’t consciously aware of the similarity to ‘He’s So Fine’,” the musician wrote in his biography “I Me Mine.” “It would have been very easy to change a note here or there, and not affect the feeling of the record.” The judge determined that George Harrison did not intentionally copy the melody of ‘He’s So Fine’ but did so subconsciously. The situation became more complex when Harrison’s manager, Allen Klein, acquired the rights to the song. As a result, Harrison ended up paying Klein the $587,000 judgment for the rights which created an unusual twist in the case.
5. Marvin Gaye vs. Robin Thicke & Pharrell Williams
“Blurred Lines,” the 2013 hit by Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams, and TI sparked a controversy when Marvin Gaye’s family accused the song of copying his 1977 track ‘Got To Give It Up’. The legal battle dragged on for five years and concluded in 2018, with Gaye’s family winning nearly $5 million in damages. The case highlighted the complexities of copyright infringement in the music industry and brought attention to how songs can sometimes inadvertently echo earlier works.
During the trial, the Marvin Gaye Estate frequently referenced a quote from Thicke's GQ interview, where he discussed the inspiration behind "Blurred Lines." This interview played a key role in the case, as it implied Thicke and Williams acknowledged that their song was heavily influenced by Gaye's music, leading to the accusations of copyright infringement. In the interview, he said “Pharrell and I were in the studio, and I told him that one of my favorite songs of all time was Marvin Gaye’s ‘Got to Give It Up.’ I was like, ‘Damn, we should make something like that, something with that groove.’ Then he started playing a little something and we literally wrote the song in about a half-hour and recorded it.”
Both Thicke and Williams later denied the claims made in the interview. In a conversation with producer Rick Rubin, who wasn’t involved in creating ‘Blurred Lines’ expressed that the verdict “hurt my feelings because I would never take anything from anyone.” Rubin then suggested that ‘Blurred Lines’ sounded “nothing like ‘Got to Give It Up’,” which prompted Williams to respond with, “Nope. But the feeling was. You can’t copyright a feeling. All salsa songs sound pretty much the same.” “It’s bad for music because we’ve had an understanding of what a song is, and now, based on that one case, there’s a question of what a song is,” Rubin added. “It’s not what it used to be in the past, because in the past it would be the chords, the melody and the words. It leaves us as music-makers in a really uncomfortable place making things, because we don’t know what you can do”.
With AI tools like ChatGPT and DALL-E changing the way creative work is made, the rules around copyright are likely to evolve. The real question is not whether AI will impact music, art, writing, and other creative fields, but how much copyright laws will need to adapt to address these changes in the future. The next generation of copyright cases will likely focus on how AI-generated content fits into existing legal frameworks.
