THE “SHAPE OF YOU” COPYRIGHT BATTLE� � ED SHEERAN VS. CHOKRI [2022] EWHC 827 (CH)

BY-

TRILOCHAN PANDA

SOURAV PATTANAIK

SUNAINA PAWAR

BACKGROUND

• The case of Mr. Edward Christopher Sheeran MBE ("Ed Sheeran") and 5 other individuals ("the Claimants") vs. Mr.Sami Chokri ("Sami Switch") and 2 other individuals was heard by the Intellectual Property List (Chancery Division) of the High Court of Justice in England and Wales on April 6, 2022.
• The court rendered its decision that day ("the Defendants"). The fact that someone had stolen the work of another person was the primary concern of the court. The claimants requested a court to rule that they had not violated any copyright rules when the Performing Rights Society Limited ("PRS") ceased paying the claimants for all public performances and broadcasts of "Shape of You."
• Because of the allegations that were made against them, the Claimants were likewise interested in defending their good reputations. For instance, Ed Sheeran has been accused of being a "magpie" since he allegedly steals the ideas and compositions of other composers and uses them in his own work.

​

THE CASE

• Because the defendants had discussed with the PRS the possibility of receiving credit for composing "Shape of You," a declaror was required in this case.
• After that, the PRS decided to suspend making payments to the Claimants since "Shape of You" had been performed live and shown on television.
• The defendants claim that Ed Sheeran and his co-writers, Steven McChutcheon and John McDaid, copied a significant portion of grime artist Sami Switch's song "Oh Why" to create the eight-bar "Oh I" phrase that is featured in the chorus of Ed Sheeran's song "Shape of You," which can be found on Ed Sheeran's album "Divide."

​

CONTD…

The Defendants further held in support of their counterclaim that:

1. The claimants had access to his song before making “Shape of you” and as a result had a distinct knowledge of what the “Oh I” should sound like.
2. There exists sufficient similarity between the two works.
3. It is common knowledge that Ed Sheeran collects ideas for songs prior to writing them.
4. Ed Sheeran habitually copies the ideas/works of other artists.

According to the Claimants, this is not the case, since neither Ed Sheeran nor his co-writers lifted the chorus from "Oh Why," and none of the Claimants had access to the song in question. It is not possible to argue that the claimants should have had access to "Oh Why” after it was published since they should have been able to copy the "musical work." Even if the lyrics were quite similar, the elements of the chorus in issue that are being questioned cannot be protected since they are not unique to "Oh Why" as a musical composition and so cannot be protected.

MUSICAL COMPARISON

• Add the notes of the music and samples

IMPORTANT SECTIONS

• The court looked at Sections 1(1) and 3(1)(b) of the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act of 1988 ("CDPA"), which indicate that copyright in musical compositions is defined as "a work consisting of music, independent of any words or action intended to be sung, spoken, or performed with the music."
• In other words, the court looked at the definition of copyright in musical compositions. In line with the provisions of Section 17(2) of the CDPA, an infringement of copyright may occur if the work is duplicated in any tangible form. According to Section 16(3)(a) of the CDPA, in order for the copying to be constituted an act of infringement, it must consist of either the whole original work or a substantial part of the original work. The issue that has to be answered is whether or not the portion in question contains any parts that are an expression of the author's intellectual innovation.

FINDINGS

• Having considered all the relevant circumstances including, but not limited to, the musical elements, writing process and evolutions of the “Oh I” and “Oh Why” phrases, Justice Antony Zacaroli found that:
• The case rests on 4 pillars:
• The similarities and differences between the two works, and the significance thereof. The parties were too focused on the similarities that they neglected to consider just how different the two songs are.
• The likelihood of Ed Sheeran having access to “Oh Why”. While Sami Switch is a serious and talented artist, with a team that had conducted extensive marketing on “Oh Why”, this was largely unsuccessful and to say that any of the claimants had access due to the above is merely speculative.

3. Ed Sheeran’s alleged inclination to copy and conceal other songs. Past cases where Ed Sheeran made substantial settlements, and there was a substantial risk of losing the case of copyright infringement, does not mean that he deliberately copied “Oh Why”.

4. The “key fingerprints” which the Defendants say are found in the claimant’s work, do simply not exist. Consequently, Ed Sheeran and his co-writers did not infringe copyright in “Oh Why”.

​

• Shortly after the court handed down judgement, Ed Sheeran took to Instagram as well as YouTube to voice his opinion on the outcome of the trial and the litigious culture in the music industry – “…we’re obviously happy with the result, I feel like claims like this are way too common now and have become a culture where a claim is made with the idea that a settlement will be cheaper than taking it to court, even if there’s no basis for the claim. It’s really damaging to the song writing industry. There’s only so many notes and very few chords used in pop music. Coincidence is bound to happen if 60,000 songs are being released every day on Spotify. That’s 22 million songs a year and there’s only 12 notes that are available. I don’t want to diminish the pain and hurt suffered from both sides of this case. I just want to say I’m not an entity. I’m not a corporation, I’m a human being, I’m a father, I’m a husband, I’m a son. Lawsuits, they’re not a pleasant experience.”

​

🡪 The Video Link:- Dealing with a lawsuit recently. We won and I wanted to share a few words about it all x - YouTube

CONCLUSION

THANK

YOU

​

​

☺