Sheeran and two of his co-writers – Snow Patrol’s Johnny McDaid and producer Steve McCutcheon, better known as Steve Mac – have been accused of plagiarizing part of a track called Oh Why by Sami Chokri, a grime artist who plays Sami Switch. However, ruling Wednesday after a trial in March, Judge Zacaroli said Sheeran “neither intentionally nor subconsciously” copied a hook from the song when he wrote “Oh I” for Shape Of You. In a video statement released after the ruling, Sheeran told fans that “unfounded” copyright claims were “damaging” to the songwriting industry. “I’m not a company. I’m a human being,” he said. “I am a father, I am a husband, I am a son. The lawsuits are not a pleasant experience and I hope with this decision, it means that in the future unfounded allegations like this can be avoided. This really must end.” The judge concluded that while there were “similarities” between the OW (Oh Why) hook and the OI (Oh I) phrase, there were also “significant differences” and that “such similarities are, however, only a starting point for a possible infringement action ‘. He also said that “irrefutable evidence” had been provided that “Shape Of You” came from sources other than “Oh Why” and that the allegations that Sheeran had heard of the song before writing his own were merely “speculative”. The charges against Sheeran and his co-authors Chokri and co-writer Ross O’Donoghue have claimed that the main hook “Oh I” on Shape Of You is “strikingly similar” to the chorus of “Oh Why” in their own lineup, with Chokri telling the court that he felt “stolen”. after hearing it. However, Sheeran, McDaid and McCutcheon all denied knowing Oh Why before writing Shape Of You. Musicologists gave conflicting views during the tiral – with one telling the court that it was “objectively unlikely” that any similarities between the pieces were a “copy effect”, while another said it was “so numerous and impressive that the possibility of independent creation is … extremely unlikely “. Use the Chrome browser for a more accessible video player 0:28 Sheeran v Switch: Is it similar? During the two days he spent in the witness box giving testimony, Sheeran told the court that he is not an artist who “changes” words and music belonging to others to “pass as originals” and denied the claim that he “borrows” ideas from unknown songwriters. without recognition. He told the court that he “always tried to be absolutely fair” by crediting people who contribute to his music. The star also denied that he used litigation to “intimidate” the lesser-known songwriters, saying that he was in court just to “clear my name”. The written conclusion of the judge Now that he has examined all the evidence, the judge has ruled in Sheeran’s favor. “While there are similarities between the OW Hook and the OI Phrase, there are also significant differences,” he said in a written statement. “As for the elements that are similar, my analysis of the Shape musical elements in general, the writing process and the evolution of the OI Phrase is that they provide convincing evidence that the OI Phrase came from sources other than Oh Why. Image: Sheeran testified for two days in the Supreme Court. Photo: Elizabeth Cook / PA “All the evidence related to Mr Sheeran’s access to Oh Why (either by others sharing it or by him finding it) provides nothing more than an artistic basis for Mr Sheeran to have listen to Oh Why. “In view of the above, I conclude that Mr Sheeran did not hear Oh Why and in any case did not intentionally copy OI from OW Hook.” The judge also said that Sheeran, McCutcheon and McDaid were “unaware” that the dispute had frozen 2, 2.2 million in song rights and had said they were in court only to “clear their names”. In a statement following the ruling, Sheeran’s lawyers Simon Goodbody and Bray and Krais’s Andrew Forbes said: You together, without copying from anyone else “. What do the experts say? Copyright cases rarely reach the courts and are “infamously difficult” for songwriters who claim that their copyright has been infringed in order to succeed. Gill Dennis, a specialist in copyright and brand protection at Pinsent Masons, said: “The plaintiff has to prove, with solid evidence, that the accused had access to the song to copy it. “Even with this evidence, and where commonalities are found, copying is not necessarily proven, especially when an accused may have doubts by proving that his work had a different origin.” Isaac Murdy, a copyright expert at Shakespeare Martineau, said: “This ruling shows that UK copyright courts are not going to uphold American-style speculation. It will take more than a short section of the “basic little pentatonic motif” that is “quite common” to establish a successful copyright infringement claim. “All the music is produced to some degree, and in the words of Elvis Costello, ‘This is how rock & roll works.’
