Ed Sheeran Triumphs in Supreme Court Battle Over 'Thinking Out Loud'

Mia Reynolds, 6/17/2025Ed Sheeran celebrates a Supreme Court victory in the ongoing copyright battle over his hit "Thinking Out Loud," as the court declines to hear claims of borrowing from Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On." This decision could reshape music copyright laws, balancing inspiration and imitation for artists.

Let's be real — anyone who's spent time in the music business knows these copyright battles have become as common as Taylor Swift breaking streaming records. But this particular case? It's got more layers than a platinum-selling power ballad.

At its core, we've got Structured Asset Sales (think Wall Street meets Motown) pushing to revive their dismissed lawsuit against Sheeran and the music industry heavyweights backing him. The company, helmed by investment banker David Pullman, owns a piece of Gaye's 1973 masterpiece and claimed Sheeran's track helped itself to more than just inspiration — specifically the melody, harmony, and rhythm that made "Let's Get It On" such a timeless hit.

But here's where it gets interesting. U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton wasn't having any of it. Back in 2023, he basically said what many musicians have been thinking for years — some musical elements are just too basic to slap a copyright on them. Think of it like trying to copyright the idea of serving coffee hot — it's just too fundamental to claim ownership.

The emotional weight of these accusations hit home when Sheeran spoke outside the Manhattan courthouse after winning a related case. "It's devastating to be accused of stealing someone else's song," he said, his voice carrying the kind of raw honesty that's made his music connect with millions. For artists who pour their souls into their work, these allegations cut deeper than any critical review ever could.

Sure, both songs share some DNA — they're soul-stirring love songs that climbed the charts in their respective eras. Gaye's track owned the Billboard charts back in the day, while Sheeran's "Thinking Out Loud" nearly topped the Hot 100 in 2015. But as any songwriter worth their salt will tell you, similarity doesn't automatically equal theft.

The real game-changer here? The appeals court's stance on what actually constitutes protected material. They zeroed in on the "deposit copy" — the sheet music filed with the Copyright Office — and whether elements not found there should even factor into these claims. Their rejection might just reshape how future music copyright cases play out as we head deeper into 2025.

Don't pack up the legal briefs just yet, though. Structured Asset Sales still has another lawsuit waiting in the wings, this time focusing on their rights to the actual recording of "Let's Get It On." It's like a remix of the same dispute, just with a different beat.

What makes this Supreme Court decision truly fascinating isn't just its impact on Sheeran's career — it's how it helps define the blurry line between inspiration and imitation in an era where every chord progression seems to spark a lawsuit. As the music industry continues to evolve, these legal guideposts become increasingly crucial for artists trying to create while looking over their shoulders.

In the end, perhaps this case will help clear the air for musicians who've been walking on eggshells, worried that their next hit might land them in court. After all, shouldn't the focus be on creating great music rather than avoiding legal landmines?

The music industry's latest copyright drama has finally hit a crescendo — and Ed Sheeran can breathe a little easier. The Supreme Court just dropped the curtain on yet another act in the seemingly endless "Thinking Out Loud" saga, declining to hear an appeal claiming the hit song borrowed a bit too liberally from Marvin Gaye's sultry classic "Let's Get It On."Let's be real — anyone who's spent time in the music business knows these copyright battles have become as common as Taylor Swift breaking streaming records. But this particular case? It's got more layers than a platinum-selling power ballad.At its core, we've got Structured Asset Sales (think Wall Street meets Motown) pushing to revive their dismissed lawsuit against Sheeran and the music industry heavyweights backing him. The company, helmed by investment banker David Pullman, owns a piece of Gaye's 1973 masterpiece and claimed Sheeran's track helped itself to more than just inspiration — specifically the melody, harmony, and rhythm that made "Let's Get It On" such a timeless hit.But here's where it gets interesting. U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton wasn't having any of it. Back in 2023, he basically said what many musicians have been thinking for years — some musical elements are just too basic to slap a copyright on them. Think of it like trying to copyright the idea of serving coffee hot — it's just too fundamental to claim ownership.The emotional weight of these accusations hit home when Sheeran spoke outside the Manhattan courthouse after winning a related case. "It's devastating to be accused of stealing someone else's song," he said, his voice carrying the kind of raw honesty that's made his music connect with millions. For artists who pour their souls into their work, these allegations cut deeper than any critical review ever could.Sure, both songs share some DNA — they're soul-stirring love songs that climbed the charts in their respective eras. Gaye's track owned the Billboard charts back in the day, while Sheeran's "Thinking Out Loud" nearly topped the Hot 100 in 2015. But as any songwriter worth their salt will tell you, similarity doesn't automatically equal theft.The real game-changer here? The appeals court's stance on what actually constitutes protected material. They zeroed in on the "deposit copy" — the sheet music filed with the Copyright Office — and whether elements not found there should even factor into these claims. Their rejection might just reshape how future music copyright cases play out as we head deeper into 2025.Don't pack up the legal briefs just yet, though. Structured Asset Sales still has another lawsuit waiting in the wings, this time focusing on their rights to the actual recording of "Let's Get It On." It's like a remix of the same dispute, just with a different beat.What makes this Supreme Court decision truly fascinating isn't just its impact on Sheeran's career — it's how it helps define the blurry line between inspiration and imitation in an era where every chord progression seems to spark a lawsuit. As the music industry continues to evolve, these legal guideposts become increasingly crucial for artists trying to create while looking over their shoulders.In the end, perhaps this case will help clear the air for musicians who've been walking on eggshells, worried that their next hit might land them in court. After all, shouldn't the focus be on creating great music rather than avoiding legal landmines?