Lawyer Reacts to Musicologist Adam Neely’s 'Did Ed Sheeran ACTUALLY Plagiarize Marvin Gaye?'

Real lawyer reacts to Adam Neely's video, "Did Ed Sheeran ACTUALLY Plagiarize Marvin Gaye?" @AdamNeely The attorney discusses the Copyright infringement case and trial against Ed Sheeran involving his song Talking Out Loud, which is alleged to copy the Marvin Gaye hit Let's Get It On. The lawsuit is brought by the Estate of Ed Townsend who co-wrote the song. Real legal analysis with some laughs!

[grahambennett]

The cruise ship / elegant jail cell comment killed me

[skyisreallyhigh]

You are no longer allowed to have influences as a musician or you will get sued

[blackstonejimmy]

I didn't know about the drum/bassline pre-court ruling - that seems to be the main sticking point a lot of people focus on so it's really interesting that the "similar drums"/"anticipated bass" stuff can't be used to prove that Ed copied Let's Get It On. Interesting stuff!

[jessicalesowitz-ipru]

Looking forward to seeing the trial outcome. Great analysis, great info and great job.

[RoyAllen-vv]

yes --- very informative of music and copyright law

[jsjscool]

Too bad Bach’s copyrights have expired; he could sue everyone.

[reprintranch]

"Your Honor, move to shred..."

"On what grounds?"

"The majority opinion in _Malmsteen v. Three-Headed Dragon_ held that when trial counsel's ability to melt faces is called into question, the presiding judge has, quote, 'wide f****n' latitude' to allow a display of fretboard wizardry before the jury, so long as it does not exceed the length of the studio version of 'Eruption, ' that being 1:43."

"Opposing counsel?"

"We object, on the grounds that _Malmsteen_ is in conflict with the 1991 opinion in _Cobain v. Virtuosity_ which held that sheer mind-searing leadwork typically fails to overcome memorable vocal melodies accompanied by rudimentary instrumental backing."


"I'll allow it. However, counsel is cautioned to refrain from tortured facial expressions."