Supreme Court won't revive copyright suit over Ed Sheeran's ‘Thinking Out Loud'
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to revive a copyright challenge to Ed Sheeran's 'Thinking Out Loud' that accused the pop star of unlawfully emulating the late Marvin Gaye's 'Let's Get It On.'
The justices turned away an appeal by Structured Asset Sales, a partial owner to the rights of Gaye's 1973 hit, which filed suit in 2018 over alleged similarities between the songs.
Lower courts deemed Sheeran not liable for copyright infringement, finding the singer's 2014 hit did not unlawfully rip off Gaye's song because the earlier tune was too mainstream to be legally protected.
'Even when combined, the four-chord progression and syncopated harmonic rhythm at issue are too unoriginal for copyright protection,' wrote Judge Michael Park of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 'Plaintiff failed to rebut evidence that this same combination appears in well-known songs predating Let's Get It On, leaving no triable issues of fact as to the originality of the alleged combination.'
'And no reasonable jury could find that the two songs, taken as a whole, are substantially similar in light of their dissimilar melodies and lyrics,' the judge continued, affirming a district court's ruling.
Structured Asset Sales, owned by investment banker David Pullman, owns about 11 percent of the rights to Gaye's song and argued that the lawsuit should not have been thrown out.
Hillel Parness, a lawyer for Structured Asset Sales, wrote in its petition to the justices that the law surrounding the company's copyright claim is unsettled and should be addressed by the nation's highest court.
'The rights of thousands of legacy musical composers and artists, of many of the most beloved and enduring pieces of popular music, are at the center of the controversy,' Parness said.
Sheeran previously saw victory in a separate copyright lawsuit brought by the family of Ed Townsend, the co-writer of Gaye's song. A jury in 2023 said that he didn't steal key components of the tune.
After that verdict, the singer told reporters that the claim should not have been brought in the first place.
'I am just a guy with a guitar who loves writing music for people to enjoy,' he said at the time, according to the Associated Press. 'I am not and will never allow myself to be a piggy bank for anyone to shake.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
11 hours ago
- Associated Press
DEA Judge Mulrooney's MMJ Marijuana Ruling May Be DEA's Last Stand Before the Constitution Strikes Back
Judge Mulrooney's decision may have handed MMJ BioPharma Cultivation a defeat inside the DEA's walls, but in doing so, he may have handed MMJ a powerful victory in federal court. The record of constitutional violations and DEA violations is now preserved - the 'Axon-Jarkesy defense' is primed - and the very administrative law judge system the DEA clings to may not survive scrutiny. WASHINGTON, D.C. / ACCESS Newswire / June 22, 2025 / In a move that now appears both unconstitutional and strategically reckless, the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) Chief Administrative Law Judge John J. Mulrooney II has ruled against MMJ BioPharma Cultivation - not by adjudicating evidence, but by canceling the hearing altogether, shutting the courtroom door before any facts could be presented. This denial of due process is not just procedural misconduct. It stands in direct violation of recent Supreme Court precedent - namely, Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC (2023) and Jarkesy v. SEC (2024) - which fundamentally altered the authority of federal agencies to conduct internal administrative hearings shielded from constitutional scrutiny. Why DEA's ALJ System is Constitutionally Cracked In Axon v. FTC, the Supreme Court held that constitutional challenges to federal administrative adjudication systems need not wait until after the agency's internal process is complete. The ruling opened the door for early judicial review - precisely to prevent agencies like the DEA from causing irreparable harm to regulated parties before a federal court can weigh in. Justice Gorsuch put it plainly: 'A proceeding that has already happened cannot be undone.' But that is exactly what happened to MMJ BioPharma Cultivation. Despite spending seven years pursuing a legally sound registration to grow marijuana for FDA-sanctioned clinical trials, MMJ was denied the chance to be heard. Judge Mulrooney ruled - without trial - that the case could be decided on the papers, ignoring contested facts, ignoring ex parte communications concerns, and ignoring the constitutional structure of justice itself. Jarkesy and the Death Knell for DEA's Shadow Court The Supreme Court's decision in Jarkesy v. SEC went even further. The Court ruled that administrative adjudications violate the Constitution on multiple fronts: The DEA's administrative system which allowed Judge Mulrooney to operate unchecked, issue rulings without testimony, and sabotage a life sciences company without judicial oversight - now sits squarely in the crosshairs of both Axon and Jarkesy. MMJ BioPharma Cultivation: The Victim of an Unconstitutional Machine MMJ BioPharma Cultivation is not a fringe operation. It is the only DEA applicant actively pursuing pharmaceutical-grade cannabinoid therapies under FDA Investigational New Drug (IND) protocols, including a manufactured softgel formulation for Huntington's Disease and Multiple Sclerosis. Despite this, Judge Mulrooney's June 2025 ruling canceled a long-scheduled hearing without any opportunity for MMJ to introduce its DEA-compliant facility documentation, binding supply agreements, or evidence of DEA ex parte interference. Even worse, the company was never formally noticed of the pretrial decision - a basic requirement of any fair proceeding. Instead of adjudicating facts, Mulrooney rubber-stamped DEA's bureaucratic inertia. What's Next? The Courts Must Clean Up the DEA's Mess The Supreme Court has been crystal clear: agencies like the DEA do not have unreviewable authority over people's rights, livelihoods, or innovations. Congress did not create 'mini-courts' within executive agencies to bypass the Constitution. Judge Mulrooney's decision may have handed MMJ a defeat inside the DEA's walls, but in doing so, he may have handed MMJ a powerful victory in federal court. The record of constitutional violations is now preserved - the 'Axon Side-Step' is primed - and the very administrative law judge system the DEA clings to may not survive scrutiny. If MMJ's case advances to the D.C. Circuit or even the Supreme Court, it may well be the case that dismantles the DEA's internal adjudication regime once and for all. In the end, the question is no longer whether MMJ BioPharma has been mistreated. The question is whether the DEA's system can survive the Constitution. MMJ is represented by attorney Megan Sheehan. CONTACT: Madison Hisey [email protected] 203-231-8583 SOURCE: MMJ International Holdings press release
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
NEWS OF THE WEEK: Court rejects Ed Sheeran Thinking Out Loud copyright case
A minority owner of a Marvin Gaye song has tried tirelessly to sue Sheeran over the alleged similarities between Sheeran's hit and Let's Get It On, but the High Court has refused to accept the lawsuit. "No reasonable jury could find that the two songs, taken as a whole, are substantially similar in light of their dissimilar melodies and lyrics," the judge declared, as reported by USA Today. Back in November, the High Court found that Sheeran did not infringe on Gaye's copyright, citing that the songs share only the "fundamental musical building blocks".
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Trump says "maybe" he'll try to fire Fed chief Jerome Powell
President Trump suggested Friday he may try to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, calling the central bank leader a "Total and Complete Moron" for leaving interest rates steady. The president has been lashing out against Powell for months, criticizing the central banker — whom Mr. Trump appointed in his first term — for not lowering interest rates at a faster pace. It's unclear whether the president is legally allowed to fire Powell before his term ends in May 2026, and Mr. Trump said in April he has "no intention" of doing so. But in a post criticizing Powell on Friday, Mr. Trump floated the idea, writing: "Maybe, just maybe, I'll have to change my mind about firing him?" "But regardless, his Term ends shortly!" the president added. Any attempt to fire Powell would be legally contentious. Federal law and prior court precedent says members of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors, including the chair, can only be fired "for cause." The Supreme Court ruled last month that the Trump administration can fire members of other independent federal agencies — but specifically exempted the Fed, calling the central bank a "uniquely structured, quasi-private entity." Powell said last year he will not resign if Mr. Trump asks him to step down. The two met at the White House last month. Mr. Trump also called Powell a "dumb guy" in his Friday evening post. "I fully understand that my strong criticism of him makes it more difficult for him to do what he should be doing, lowering Rates, but I've tried it all different ways," Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social. "I've been nice, I've been neutral, and I've been nasty, and nice and neutral didn't work! He's a dumb guy, and an obvious Trump Hater, who should have never been there." The Fed declined to comment to CBS News. Why has Trump criticized Powell? Mr. Trump's issues with Powell hinge on the Federal Reserve's interest rate policies. The central bank's interest rate-setting committee, which is chaired by Powell, has kept its benchmark rate steady so far this year, after lowering it slightly from a two-decade high last year — following a series of rate hikes in 2022 and 2023 to quell inflation. Most recently, the committee opted against lowering rates earlier this week, drawing backlash from Mr. Trump. The decision comes with tradeoffs. High interest rates can slow down economic growth and make it more expensive for Americans to borrow money, which is why Mr. Trump wants cuts. But lowering interest rates too quickly could overheat the economy and cause inflation to spike yet again. While inflation has cooled off in recent years, it's still higher than the Fed's 2% annual target, and the Fed warns Mr. Trump's tariffs could push prices up. "Because the economy is still solid, we can take the time to actually see what's going to happen," Powell said earlier this week. Mr. Trump disagrees, nicknaming Powell "Mr. Too Late" and arguing that inflation is already low. On Friday, the president amped up his criticism, calling Powell a "numbskull" and suggesting the other members of the rate-setting Federal Open Monetary Committee "override" him. Mr. Trump also said Powell should lower interest rates immediately and just hike them again if inflation spikes — an idea that's at odds with the Fed's cautious strategy. "Don't say that you think there will be Inflation sometime in the future, because there isn't now but, if there is, raise the Rates!" wrote Mr. Trump. The attacks are a redux of Mr. Trump's first-term criticism. The president pushed back against Powell after the Fed hiked interest rates in 2018, but called Powell his "most improved player" for slashing rates during the 2020 pandemic. SpaceX Starship upper stage blows up Hurricane Erick approaches Mexico with destructive winds, major storm surge "Jaws" premiered 50 years ago, but it's a wonder it got made at all
