Ed Sheeran Sued For $20 million For Plagiarism

[Hannah591]

The news has been everywhere about Ed Sheeran's supposed plagiarism of the lesser known Matt Cardle's song "Amazing", who won the X-Factor in 2010. Listening to the songs below, there are incredible similarities which are hard to ignore.

It's disputed that it is simply coincidence, seeing as thousands of songs are produced every year, many sharing the same chords, there is bound to be some kind of similarity clash. Matt Baker on The One Show stated that they both use similar chords which naturally flow into that specific order, so it's nothing more than a coincidence. The choruses of both songs share 39 identical notes which is considered substantial enough to establish copyright infringement.

However, not too long ago, Robin Thicke's song "Blurred Lines" was caught in a copyright claim which resulted in him paying up $7.3 million to the Gaye family, for using the same backing track used in "Got To Give It Up" by Marvin Gaye. There have been numerous copyright claims for music in the past so this isn't an uncommon situation. Surely it's inevitable for some songs to overlap and be riddled with similarities?

Matt Cardle has made it known that he did not file the copyright claim and he believes that "Ed is a genius" who deserves all his success.

Please read news articles closely. This is not my lawsuit. I think @edsheeran is a genius & 100% deserves all his success 🙏🏽❤️ X

— Matt Cardle (@mattcardle) June 9, 2016

A short glance through social media shows a divided opinion of whether it was in fact plagiarism or coincidence, with many believing the latter;

And I highly doubt Ed Sheeran would have to or even want to copy someone else's song ✋

— Jodie Strafford (@JodieStrafford) June 9, 2016

Well.....I understand being inspired by a song but this is pretty much a copy 󾰬 dang ed sheeran l can't see how... https://t.co/9kxvC36ubp

— Tina Vonn (@Tinavonn) June 8, 2016

I doubt ed sheeran was sitting in his living room wondering who's song to copy, and thought "ah that matt cardles class I'll copy his"

— CTR (@CTRussell_) June 9, 2016

Photograph is the ONLY Ed Sheeran song I like, but it's not even really his. CARBON COPY of Amazing. Wow. Fail. https://t.co/i6TlgfVC0y

— Sarah Tracey (@sarahetracey) June 8, 2016

Unless Ed Sheeran was deliberately trying to end his career, I really doubt he would want to copy Matt Cardle's songs...

— Adam (@thegaymeradam) June 9, 2016

Do you think Ed Sheeran plagiarised the song "Amazing" by Matt Cardle or was it coincidence?

Share your opinion below.

#EdSheeranCopy

[NearlyNapping]

This does not even sound close to a copy. You can find similarities between lots of songs, but that doesn't make them copies. Somebody is grabbing at straws on this one and hoping for an out-of-court settlement.

Also, my admittedly weak understanding of copyright law is that it must actually be a copy, not coincidentally be the same. If they are written independently, even if they sound very similar, then it's not a copyright infringement.

[karahiri]

ohmy... they sound similar... but i think it's the singing style... like... pausing a bit after each word. i wouldn't say it's plagiarism though.

[madhatters4]

it's not that you can't use or borrow ideas for songs. you simply ahve to cite and pay the artists. this isn't new. artists for decades have done this and those who don't usually find themselves in court. the similarities between the two songs are too close for it not to be clear that Sheeran heard the song and consciously or unconsciously took very distinct things from the songs.

it's not about just the same chords, its about the structure, the lyrics... sheeran won't have to pay $20million. he'll probably have to pay a couple million, which could've been avoided if he had cited the original writer from the beginning and probably paid him like $50k

[issuenx]

Coincidence. Frankly, I wish royalty-free licencing was applied more so those people who are concerned about piracy will not have to worry too much about it since the "lost" royalties would have been compensated for. As for copyright, it should be reformed at an age when media can pretty much be shared easily; even as far back as the 2000s, making your voice heard online was difficult since the Internet was a luxury for many then, and most people who make themselves heard do so in other forms of media, of which they may have more experience (or not) with the legalities of it.

[Bandit74]

There are definitely similarities but I'm not sure it is an copy.
There are only so many rhythm combinations that flow nicely, it's bound to happen that there will be similarities between songs every now and then.

[Ariadine]

I don't think it was a copy. It's a coincidence. Even though the chorus sounds somewhat similar, the rest of the song is pretty different.

[93stepsawayfromhome]

Blurred Lines and Got to Give You Up barely sounded alike, and yet the Gaye family still won because of that damn lawyer. Copyright needs to exist, but it's heading into disastrous territory right now. Dig deep enough and you can call any song plagiarised.

[BasicFlake]

The song is almost identical, hence why he has now settled out of court. There is not even any doubt that it is a copy, whether intentional or not.

[legalboxers]

sounds like the other guy wants to make himself relevant..

[the_rake]

so many popular tunes nowadays use the same basic chord sequences, it's not plagiarism.

[issuenx]

It's because it's all disposable and motivated by profit. There's a reason why non-mainstream music tends to sound better, although there are some non-mainstream songs that sound horrific and even worse than various mainstream songs.

[Anonymous]

Fortunately for him the recent shooting is basically overshadowing his negative press.

If the other artist is cool with him doing what he wants with his song I say people drop it.

[TheUndertaker]

Its a tough call. No experience in these copy right stuff.

[abundantlyrich]

Cheaters caught out

[Thesis_Something]

nobody likes him