In Ed
Sheeran Let's
Get It On
Trial Team
Crump Emails
Judge About
Altered
Melodies
Argument
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
April 25 – In 2017 Ed Sheeran
was sued for allegedly
infringing the copyright of
Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It
On" in his 2014 song,
"Thinking Out Loud."
On April
24, 2023 the jury begins
before U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New
York Judge Louis L. Stanton.
Inner City Press will cover
it.
The actual
Marvin Gaye recording may not
be played for the jury. But a
2014 YouTube concern clip of
Sheeran breaking into Let's
Get It On while (singing)
Thinking Out Loud may be - the
clip is here,
at 4:29.
The
plaintiff is not Marvin Gaye
but rather Kathryn
Griffin-Townsend as heir of Ed
Townsend, Gaye's co-writer on
"Let's Get It On." Among
plaintiffs' counsel is Ben
Crump.
On April 24 for
jury selection, Crump was
there. In the jury pool were a
musicology, a mother with two
daughters who are Sheeran
fans, and a woman who had
Sheeran's "Perfect" as her
wedding song. Thread here.
The jury was picked and sent
home; chords - four or six was
the debate - were played.
On April 25,
opening arguments and
witnesses including Ed Sheeran
(who later left court without
comment). Inner City Press was
there, thread here:
OK - now in Let's
Get It On trial v. Ed Sheeran,
opening arguments
Jury entering!
Judge Stanton: Ladies and
gentlemen, questions are not
evidence.
Ben Crump: This
case is about giving credit
where credit it due. I am
attorney Ben Crump, we have
the honor of representing Ms.
Kathy Townsend Griffin. Please
stand.
Crump: Let's Get
It On is ingrained in our
minds, in the American
songbook. Later Mr. Kathy
Townsend will explain what an
evergreen it. It has become a
cornerstone in the American
experience. It invokes love
and intimacy. Inner City Press
@innercitypress · 7h Crump:
Mr. Ed Sheeran decided to use
Let's Get It On, his career
was catapulted from being an
opening act to selling out
stadium tours. It solidified
his affluence. He got a
Grammy, for "Thinking Out
Loud."
Crump: But Mr. Ed
Sheeran did not ask for
permission. He did not license
it. The evidence will show
that the songs are so
similar that Ms Kathy
Townsend Griffin received
calls, Hey, that's your
father's song. Mr. Ed Sheeran
copied the song, against the
law
Crump: We
have a smoking gun. Mr. Ed
Sheeran himself, in concert,
merged the songs. Crump:
Maya Angelou says, when
someone tells you who they
are, believe them. We take it
a step further: when someone
voluntarily confesses, believe
it. I am a country lawyer. A
confession is enough. The
defendant will try to say all
songs are based on four
chords.
Crump: They will
try to convince you Let's Get
It On is not particularly
orginal. [Scoffs]. But SONY
has administered the rights
for years, for profit.
[Sheeran is sitting at the
defense table, ten feet from
Crump at the podium, looking
up at him] Ed Sheeran's
lawyer: The evidence show that
Ed Sheeran and his co-writer
independently wrote it, after
a conversation about watching
their grandparents spend their
whole lives with their partner
then losing them. Ed Sheeran
is an established songwriter.
No copying
Ed Sheeran's
lawyer: This is about basic
musical building blocks.
Plaintiffs do not own them.
The core progressions here,
they are different. They admit
that. The judge has ruled that
the chord progression is
commonplace and
unprotectable. No one
can own it
Ed
Sheeran's lawyer: He is not
the first person to do a
mashup, as you will hear from
him. He mashed up with other
songs. But no one else sued
him. They are clinging
desperately to that. But if he
copies, why would he publicly
mash up? These melodies are
not alike
1st
witness: Katherine Townsend,
who says, I am a peer to peer
recovery specialist, in sex
industry rehabilitation.
Crump: Any music training?
Kathy Townsend: I studied
Italian opera. I was on the 83
Cold Blooded tour with Rick
James. & with Parliament
Funkadelic
Crump: Was your
father a songwriter? Kathy
Townsend: Yes. A famous one.
He wrote for Dionne Warrick,
Whitney Houston's mom, Frank
Sinatra, Stevie Wonder...
Crump: What do songwriters do?
Kathy Townsend: They capture
beauty... They make income
through copyright.
Crump: What are
his songs? Kathy Townsend: For
Your Love, Oh I Would Do
Anything, with Stevie Wonder -
my father gave Stevie
permission... Let's Get It
On. Crump: He didn't
write Thinking Out Loud,
right? Kathy Townsend: He did
not.
Kathy
Townsend: My father told me
how he wrote Let's Get It On
-- Ed Sheeran's lawyer:
Objection. This is hearsay.
Crump: It is
common knowledge. Judge:
Objection sustained. Crump:
How did Marvin Gaye get
involved? Ed Sheeran's lawyer:
Hearsay! Judge: Sustained.
OK - now Kathy
Townsend is being
cross-examined. Ed Sheeran's
lawyer: You get royalty
payments, don't you? A: Yes.
But my passion is saving sex
trafficking victims all over
the world. I don't dissect
music.
Now Ed
Sheeran on the witness stand.
Townsend's lawyer: Was that
you in the video? Ed Sheeran's
lawyer: This exhibit is
subject to an objection.
[While
lawyers argue about the video,
Ed Sheeran return to a seat
behind the defense table,
talking with his
lawyers.
Update: the video
is admitted and is being
played for the jury: the crowd
singing along, then Ed Sheeran
crooning, Let's get it on...
It's on.
Ed Sheeran: You
could go back and forth from
Let it Be to No Woman, No Cry
-- Townsend's lawyer: This is
non-responsive. You call it a
mash up. What's that? Sheeran:
You play a song live, most pop
songs revolve around three or
four chords.
Sheeran's lawyer:
We intend to call Mr. Sheeran
on our case, we're not going
to cross examine him under
their case.
and more
including on testy on Substack
here
On
April 26, into the record, an
email: "Subject: Re: Griffin
v. Sheeran - Defendants'
Submission re Altered Melodies
Dear Judge Stanton, My
apologies for the informal
response to the matter of
slide 48 of the Stewart
Presentation. The premise of
the objection appears to be
that Dr. Stewart is alleged to
have changed the deposit copy
in some fashion—as a
preliminary matter, this is
not accurate.... The
Defendants’ position is
without merit. The Defendants’
objection goes to the weight
of the evidence and/or the
validity of the methodology of
Dr. Stewart. Not to its
admissibility. Sent from my
iPhone
On Apr 26, 2023,
at 1:33 PM, Maida, Brian M.
wrote: Dear Judge Stanton:
Please find Defendants’
submission attached.
Plaintiffs are copied.
_______________________________________
Brian M. Maida Associate Pryor
Cashman LLP 7 Times Square,
New York, NY 10036-6569
Subject: Griffin
v. Sheeran - Defendants'
Submission re Altered Melodies
See attached"
Email on Patreon here
But the
"attached," to which the above
responds, not in the docket as
of April 26 at 5 pm...
The case is
Griffin, et al. v. Sheeran, et
al., 17-cv-5221
(Stanton)
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2023 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|