WIPO China: In the Courts - Ed Sheeran succeeds in music copyright infringement case, but it's not over yet…
本文原载于2023年第3期《WIPO杂志》。作者为Hayleigh Bosher，英国伦敦布鲁内尔大学知识产权法准教授兼副院长。
The article was originally published in the issue 3/2023 of WIPO Magazine. The author is Hayleigh Bosher, Reader in Intellectual Property Law and Associate Dean, Brunel University London, UK.
在英国和美国，卷入版权诉讼的艺术家越来越多，歌手、
词曲作者艾德·希兰就是其中之一。最近，在2023年5月，
纽约一家法院裁定希兰的《自言自语》并没有侵犯
《尽情欢爱》的版权，后者是马文·盖伊与他人共同创作并
表演的一首歌曲。（图：Harald Krichel - CC BY-SA 3.0）
Singer,songwriter Ed Sheeran is one of a growing number of artists that have been involved in copyright-related lawsuits in the UK and the US. In the most recent, in May 2023, a New York court found that Sheeran’s Thinking Out Loud did not infringe the copyright of Let’s Get It On, a song co-written and performed by Marvin Gaye. (Photo: Harald Krichel - CC BY-SA 3.0)
我们是怎么走到这一步的？
How did we get here?
艾德·希兰在美国的一起音乐版权侵权案中胜诉，该案称他的歌曲《自言自语》抄袭了马文·盖伊与他人共同创作并表演的歌曲《尽情欢爱》。
Ed Sheeran has successfully defended a US music copyright infringement case, which claimed that his song Thinking Out Loud copied Let’s Get It On, a song co-written and performed by Marvin Gaye.
艾德·希兰在美国和英国都卷入了几起纠纷。2016年，他与共同创作者约翰尼·麦克戴德（Johnny McDaid）一起，以1600万英镑赔偿和解了一场纠纷，当时他们的歌曲《照片》（Photograph）被起诉抄袭了《X音素》节目冠军马特·卡德尔（Matt Cardle）发行的歌曲《不可思议》（Amazing）。2018年，他解决了另一项索赔，即他与蒂姆·麦格罗（Tim McGraw）和菲丝·希尔（Faith Hill）共同创作的歌曲《我们的余生》（The Rest of Our Life）抄袭了肖恩·凯里（Sean Carey）和博·戈尔登（Beau Golden）的《当我找到你》（When I Found You）。同年，希兰的歌曲《你的身姿》（Shape of You）在英国被起诉侵犯了山米·乔克利（Sam Chokri）的歌曲《噢，为什么》（Oh Why）的版权，希兰对此进行了反击。之前的和解协议在这次审理中被用作对他不利的类似事实证据，给希兰带来了困扰。2022年，英格兰和威尔士高等法院裁定，希兰既没有故意抄袭，也没有潜意识抄袭。因此，希兰的形势开始扭转，音乐行业的形势也有可能扭转。
Ed Sheeran was involved in several disputes, in both the US and the UK. In 2016, he settled a dispute for GBP16 million, alongside co-writer Johnny McDaid, when it was claimed that their song Photograph copied Amazing released by X-Factor winner Matt Cardle. In 2018, he settled another claim that a song he co-wrote with Tim McGraw and Faith Hill The Rest of Our Life copied When I Found You by Sean Carey and Beau Golden. In the same year, Sheeran fought back on a UK-based infringement claim that his song Shape of You infringed Sam Chokri’s Oh Why. The previous settlements came back to haunt Sheeran when they were used as similar fact evidence against him in this trial. In 2022, the High Court of England and Wales found that Sheeran had neither deliberately, nor subconsciously copied, and so began the turning of the tide for Sheeran, and potentially the music industry.
《尽情欢爱》诉《自言自语》
Let's Get It On v Thinking Out Loud
《自言自语》由艾德·希兰和艾米·韦奇（Amy Wadge）于2015年共同创作。《尽情欢爱》由马文·盖伊和埃德·汤森（Ed Townsend）于1973年共同创作。
Thinking Out Loud was co-written by Ed Sheeran and Amy Wadge in 2015. Let’s Get It On was co-written by Marvin Gaye and Ed Townsend in 1973.
2003年埃德·汤森去世后，他的女儿凯瑟琳·汤森·格里芬（Kathryn Townsend Griffin）继承了他三分之一的音乐作品份额。2005年凯瑟琳同父异母的哥哥大卫（David）去世后，她还继承了大卫的份额。这起诉讼由凯瑟琳·汤森·格里芬、埃德·汤森的妹妹海伦·麦克唐纳（Helen Mcdonald），以及汤森妻子谢丽盖尔·汤森（Cherrigale Townsend）的遗产法人于2017年7月提起，起诉了艾德·希兰和艾米·韦奇（格里芬等人诉希兰等人）。投资银行家大卫·普尔曼（David Pullman）拥有的Structured Asset Sales公司也针对同一歌曲提起了另一起诉讼，他是汤森三分之一歌曲版权的实益所有人。
Kathryn Townsend Griffin, the daughter of Ed Townsend, inherited a third of Townsend’s share of the musical work when he died in 2003. She also inherited the shares of her half-brother David when he died in 2005. This case was brought by Kathryn Townsend Griffin, Ed Townsend’s sister, Helen Mcdonald, and The Estate of Townsend’s wife Cherrigale Townsend in July 2017, against Ed Sheeran and Amy Wadge (Griffin et al v Sheeran et al ). Additional cases were filed over the same songs by Structured Asset Sales, a company owned by investment banker David Pullman that is a beneficial owner of one-third of the copyright in the Townsend catalogue.
在寻求简易判决的动议被驳回后，格里芬诉希兰案于2023年4月在曼哈顿的美国联邦法院开庭审理。经过6年的诉讼、6天的审理和3小时的陪审团审议，最终做出了判决。
After a denial of summary judgment, the Griffin v Sheeran case proceeded to trial in April 2023 in a US Federal Court in Manhattan. It took six years of litigation, six days of trial and three hours of jury deliberations for a decision to be made.
版权应该保护和奖励符合资格的原创作品，以促进创造性。要做到这一点，它必须在防止抄袭和允许创作者从以前的作品中汲取灵感之间取得适当的平衡。版权是约束原创要素的复制，而不是约束灵感或非原创要素的复制。本案的关键在于，虽然两首歌的某些部分相似，但这些部分是不受保护的要素，人人都可以免费使用。
Copyright is supposed to protect and reward eligible original works to promote creativity. To do this, it must strike the right balance between protecting against copying and allowing creators to build upon and take inspiration from previous works. Copyright is the regulation of copying of original elements, not the regulation of inspiration or copying of unoriginal elements. The crux of this case was that parts of the two songs are similar, but those parts are the unprotected elements that are freely available for everyone to use.
但是，是否应该花这么长时间，由这么多专家来决定是否存在抄袭？还是《模糊界限》让我们和音乐行业偏离了版权的原则？
But should it take this long and this many experts to decide if copying has taken place, or has Blurred Lines led us, and the music industry, astray from copyright principles?
在格里芬等人诉希兰等人一案中，双方的争议在于《尽情欢爱》中使用的和声进行是否是常见的。（图：MarsBars / E+）
In Griffin et al v Sheeran et al, the parties disputed whether the chord progression used in Let’s Get It On was commonplace. (Photo: MarsBars / E+)
这两首歌是实质性相似吗？
Are the songs substantially similar?
根据美国法律，要在版权侵权索赔中获胜，原告必须证明被告实际上复制了原告的作品，并且由于复制，被告作品与原告作品的受保护要素存在实质性相似之处。如果一件作品同时具有受保护和不受保护的要素，则在分析时，必须将不受保护的要素排除考虑。然后，法院只询问受保护的要素这一部分是否是实质性相似。
Under US law, to prevail on a copyright infringement claim, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant has actually copied the plaintiff's work and, as a result of the copying there is a substantial similarity between the defendant's work and the protectible elements of the plaintiff’s work. Where a work has both protectible and unprotectible elements, the analysis must involve extracting the unprotectible elements from consideration. The court then only asks whether the protectible elements, standing alone, are substantially similar.
在本案中，双方都提交了音乐专家的报告，这已成为这种情况下的惯例。亚历山大·斯图尔特（Alexander Stewart）为原告（格里芬一方）出具的报告结论是《自言自语》抄袭了《尽情欢爱》，指出相似之处包括低音旋律、鼓乐部分、和声，以及歌曲整体结构布局和四和弦节奏的轻微变化。
In the present case, as has become the norm in these circumstances, both parties submitted expert musicologist reports. Alexander Stewart’s report on behalf of the plaintiffs (the Griffin parties) concluded that Thinking Out Loud had copied from Let’s Get It On, stating that similarities included the bass melody, drum parts, and harmonies, the structural placement in the overall form and slight shift in setting over the four-chord groove.
另一边，劳伦斯·费拉拉（Lawrence Ferrara）为希兰出具了一份相反的报告，称这两首歌在结构、和声、节奏、旋律或歌词方面没有任何实质性相似之处。凡有相似之处，则都体现了在《尽情欢爱》创作之前就存在的常见表达。因此，希兰的论点是，两首歌并没有实质性相似之处，因为相似的要素很常见，因此不受版权保护。
On the other hand, Lawrence Ferrara provided a contradictory report on behalf of Sheeran, stating that the songs do not share any significant structural, harmonic, rhythmic, melodic, or lyrical similarities. And that any similarities between the two songs represented expression that was common prior to the creation of Let’s Get It On. Sheeran’s argument was therefore that the songs are not substantially similar because the similar elements are commonplace and therefore not protected by copyright.
在庭审中，双方的争议在于《尽情欢爱》中使用的和声进行是否是常见的。汤森承认，希兰方的音乐专家发现了至少13首歌曲，先于《尽情欢爱》使用相同的和声进行，并且该和声进行出现在至少2本吉他教程中。双方的争议还在于四和弦进行的节奏——第二和第四和弦预先出现，或放在节拍之前——是否受到保护。希兰说这是一种常见的技巧，汤森认为这是独特的。
At trial, the parties disputed whether the chord progression used in Let’s Get It On was commonplace. Townsend conceded that Sheeran's expert identified at least thirteen songs that predate Let’s Get It On and use the same chord progression, and that it appears in at least two guitar textbooks. The parties also disputed whether the harmonic rhythm of that four-chord progression - the second and fourth chords being anticipated, or placed ahead of the beat - was protectable. Sheeran said it is a commonplace technique, Townsend argued it is distinctive.
庭审结束时，法官向陪审团重申，无论两首歌多么相似，独立创作都是对版权侵权的完全抗辩。陪审团经过不到3个小时的审议就作出决定。他们裁定，希兰的《自言自语》是独立创作的，因此没有侵犯《尽情欢爱》的版权。
As the trial concluded, the judge reiterated to the jury that independent creation is a complete defence to copyright infringement, no matter how similar two songs are. The jury reached its decision after less than three hours of deliberation. They found that Sheeran’s Thinking Out Loud had been created independently and therefore did not infringe the copyright of Let’s Get It On.
2023年5月16日，美国地区法院法官路易斯·斯坦顿（Louis Stanton）遵循了同样的判决，驳回了Structured Asset Sales公司针对同一首歌，但基于其自己的版权份额提起的第二起诉讼。斯坦顿法官认为，《尽情欢爱》中希兰被指控侵权的那部分是司空见惯的元素，因此没有资格受到版权保护。他强调和弦进行和和声节奏是音乐创作的共同基石。
On May 16, 2023, US District Judge Louis Stanton followed the same decision, dismissing a second case brought by Structured Asset Sales relating to the same songs but based on their copyright share. Judge Stanton found that the parts of Let's Get It On that Sheeran was accused of infringing were commonplace elements and therefore not eligible for copyright protection. He emphasised that chord progressions and harmonic rhythms are common building blocks of musical creation.
但事情还没有结束……
But it’s not over yet…
然而，对希兰来说事情还没有结束，音乐版权侵权案件日益增多的趋势也没有结束。汤森于2023年6月1日提交了上诉通知书。该通知书没有说明上诉的理由，因此我们将不得不密切关注更多细节。
However, this is not the end of the story for Sheeran or the increasing trend of music copyright infringement cases. Townsend filed a notice of appeal on June 1, 2023. The notice did not state the grounds for the appeal and so we will have to watch this space for further details.
在线阅读全文，进一步了解音乐侵权案件。
Read the full article online and learn more about music copyright infringement cases.
欢迎扫描下列二维码进行WIPO杂志订阅！
Scan the QR code below to subscribe to WIPO Magazine!
订阅步骤：
Simply follow these steps:
1. 在第一步中选择"WIPO杂志“；
Select "WIPO Magazine" in the step 1；
2. 在第二步中填写必填项信息；
Fill in the required information in the step 2;
3. 根据个人邮箱收到的验证邮件进行确认；
Confirm your subscription by clicking the verification link in the email sent to your inbox.
订阅成功，阅读愉快！
That's it! You're now subscribed to WIPO Magazine. Enjoy your reading!
点击阅读原文查看关于WIPO中国办事处的更多信息。
Click on Read more for more information about the WIPO Office in China.
