Copyright infringement or merely derivative? There's a fine line between the two both musically and legally, but it's one that often has millions of dollars on the line. On June 16, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decided not to horn in on a battle of the bands, refusing an appeal by the partial owners of a classic 1973 Motown hit.
The ruling likely put an end to the long-running dispute between Structured Asset Sales, which owns a piece of Marvin Gaye's #1 hit song, "Let's Get It On," and Ed Sheeran, for his 2014 release, "Thinking Out Loud," which captured the 2015 Grammy for Song of the Year. Lower courts had ruled that while similar in many ways, many of the musical aspects were so commonly used that copyright laws weren't applicable.
That giant sigh of relief you might have heard came from the music industry, as a decision against Sheeran would have had a chilling effect on musicians, composers, and lyricists. "Let's Get It On" and "Thinking Out Loud" sound remarkably alike, so what do the courts look for - or listen for - when determining musical copyright infringement?
Bar Chords for Everyone!
Much in the same way a painter can't copyright a color, musicians and composers can't claim ownership of notes, chords, and other musical tools of the trade. Recordings and compositions are protected under copyright law and the Musical Modernization Act of 2018. Violations are more often the uncompensated or non-permitted usage of the works as opposed to claims of stolen riffs.
Works published after 1978 have copyright protection for the duration of the creator's life plus 70 years. Different recordings of the same compositions have their own copyrights. This means the music and lyrics of a particular song may have entered the public domain, but recordings from a later date may still have copyright protection for the artist.
Depending on which side you favor, music copyright infringement lawsuits are either a way to protect musical creations or the source of endless frivolous nuisance suits. Attempts to clarify the rules and guidelines set by the Copyright Act of 1909 were updated by the Copyright Act of 1976 and then again by the Music Modernization Act in 2021.
The band Queen didn't even have to file against rapper Vanilla Ice for his lifting of the bassline from their song "Under Pressure" to reach a settlement. In perhaps the most well-known case from recent years, Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were forced to pay the estate of Marvin Gaye a massive settlement after it was determined that their song "Blurred Lines" infringed on his song "Got To Give It Up." One of the controversial aspects of that decision would also be a factor in the case against Ed Sheeran.
You Can Listen to Jimi, But You Can't Hear Him
The Copyright Act of 1976 allowed actual music to be used in determining copyright infringement cases. Before it became law, only sheet music could be used in a decision. The Act didn't allow for music composed and written before January 1, 1978.
This was a point of controversy in the "Blurred Lines" case, as attorneys for the Gaye estate were permitted to play "Got To Give It Up" despite it being released in 1977. The court allowed it because instrumentation such as the bass line, keyboards, and a cowbell was not on the sheet music.
Because "Let's Get It On" was released before 1978, the courts only allowed Structured Asset Sales to use the sheet music to make their case against Sheeran. The plaintiff's claim that they should be allowed to play the songs in court failed to resonate with SCOTUS.
It's difficult to know if playing both "Let's Get It On" and "Thinking Out Loud" would have definitely swayed a jury, but it might have made an impact. Although Gaye's song is in the key of E flat major and Sheeran's is D major, the intro and verse share the same groove, tempo, and chord progressions. The melody and lyrics are different, and Sheehan goes in a different direction during the chorus.
The Courts' Thinking
SCOTUS did not provide a rationale in declining the case, which is typical. Because it declined to take up the issue, the Second Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling will stand. In its opinion, the Second Circuit opined that “[n]o reasonable jury could find that the two songs, taken as a whole, are substantially similar in light of their dissimilar melodies and lyrics.”
Another lawsuit involving these two songs was settled in 2024, with a jury issuing a special verdict ruling that the estate of Gaye's co-writer was not entitled to damages for copyright infringement from Sheeran.
The music of Marvin Gaye, who was tragically shot and killed at age 45 by his father, continues to live on through his many hits.
Related Resources
- What Is a Copyright? (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
- A Farewell to Copyrights (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Copyright Enforcement FAQ (FindLaw's Intellectual Copyright Law)
