This appeal arises from a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Structured Asset Sales, LLC (SAS), a firm that purchases royalty interests, against Ed Sheeran and various music publishers. SAS alleged that Sheeran's 2014 hit 'Thinking Out Loud' infringed the copyright of Marvin Gaye's 1973 classic 'Let's Get It On.' The dispute centered on whether Sheeran copied specific musical elements, including a four-chord progression, a syncopated harmonic rhythm, and a bass line found in Gaye's audio recording. The case followed a previous lawsuit, Griffin v. Sheeran, where a jury found no infringement, and SAS had been denied leave to intervene in that earlier action. The district court initially denied Sheeran's motion for summary judgment but later granted it on reconsideration, ruling that the combination of elements SAS relied upon was not original enough to warrant protection and that the scope of the 1973 copyright registration did not cover the audio recording elements SAS sought to introduce.
The Second Circuit addressed two primary issues. First, the court clarified the scope of copyright protection under the Copyright Act of 1909, which governed the 1973 registration of 'Let's Get It On.' The court held that the Act protects only the 'complete copy' of the work deposited with the Copyright Office. Because Townsend deposited five pages of sheet music, the copyright was limited to the musical composition as notated in that 'Deposit Copy.' The court explicitly excluded elements of Gaye's audio recording that were not written in the sheet music, such as the specific bass line, noting that copyright law protects only what is 'literally expressed, not that which might be inferred.' Consequently, expert testimony regarding an inferred bass line was properly excluded. Second, the court evaluated SAS's 'selection-and-arrangement' theory. While a selection and arrangement of unprotectable elements can be copyrightable, the combination must be original. The court found that the four-chord progression and syncopated harmonic rhythm were basic musical building blocks. Evidence showed that this same combination appeared in well-known songs predating 'Let's Get It On,' rendering it 'garden variety' and lacking the minimal degree of creativity required for protection. The court reasoned that granting protection to this combination would create an impermissible monopoly over basic musical elements. Finally, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find the songs substantially similar as a whole, given the distinct melodies and lyrics, and the fact that the shared elements were unprotectable.
The decision affirms the summary judgment in favor of Ed Sheeran, effectively ending this specific infringement claim. It establishes a clear precedent that for works registered under the 1909 Act, the scope of protection is strictly confined to the deposited sheet music, preventing plaintiffs from relying on unnotated elements of the sound recording. Furthermore, it reinforces the legal standard that common musical building blocks, even when combined, must possess a significant degree of originality to be protectable, limiting the ability of plaintiffs to claim infringement based on ubiquitous chord progressions and rhythmic patterns.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download