one A U.S. appeals court ends a long-shot effort to revive a copyright infringement lawsuit over Ed Sheeran’s hit song think out loud.
2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejects music copyright owner’s request Structured Asset Sales (SAS) petition for rehearing on appeal from the 2023 ruling, which held that think out loud No infringement Marvin Gaye‘s classic songs let’s get started.
As is customary, the appeals court did not provide a reason for refusing to rehear the case.
SAS is a music copyright investment company founded by David Pullmanknown as one of the innovators of music-backed bonds. He was the driving force behind the launch of Bowie Bonds and received david bowie1997. let’s get started.
SAS lawsuit against Sheeran is one of two alleging Sheeran’s hit 2014 incident think out loud copied element let’s get startedreleased in 1973. Ed Townsendwho co-wrote let’s get started.
Both cases were heard in the U.S. District Court in New York and were presided over by the following judges: Judge Louis Stanton. In May 2023, a jury sided with Sheeran in a case involving Townsend’s estate, and shortly thereafter, Judge Stanton dismissed the case brought by SAS.
However, SAS appealed Judge Stanton’s decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against the rights holders last November.
SAS argued that Judge Stanton erred in refusing to hear from SAS’ musicology experts and instead relying on a “pre-stored copy” of the composition filed with the U.S. Copyright Office.
It was not until 1978 that the Copyright Office accepted recorded music for registration as a work and required that the scores be archived. SAS argued the score did not include the bass line Sheeran allegedly plagiarized let’s get started. Its experts are expected to testify that the musicians will interpret the score to include the same bass line as the one above. let’s get started.
A three-judge panel for the Second Circuit rejected that argument, following the Copyright Office’s assertion that only the portion of the song contained in the deposited copy was protected by copyright.
However, SAS returned to court and requested a hearing on the bench – meaning a hearing before all the judges on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals – a recent Supreme Court decision changed how courts view government agencies’ interpretation of the law.
A 1984 Supreme Court decision Chevron United States v. Natural Resources Defense Council Establishes the principle that if there is a disagreement over the interpretation of a law, the courts must defer to the interpretation used by the relevant government agency. However, in the case of last summer Loper Bright v. Raimondothe Supreme Court overturned the 1984 ruling and said courts do not have to automatically accept a government agency’s interpretation of the law.
SAS argued that this gave it the right to reopen the appeal on the benchas such appeals are usually granted when matters of “particular importance” are brought before the court. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals clearly disagreed with this assessment.
Currently, the only way for SAS to proceed with the case is to appeal to the country’s highest court. It’s unclear whether the company plans to do so, or whether the Supreme Court will accept the case if SAS appeals.global music business
