At a trial last month, Shape Of You singer-songwriter John McDaid of Snow Patrol and producer Steven McCutcheon were accused of cutting off the 2015 song Oh Why by Sami Chokri and Ross O’Donoghue. In a ruling Wednesday, Justice Zacaroli concluded that Sheeran “neither intentionally nor subconsciously” copied a phrase from Oh Why when writing Shape Of You. The singer-songwriter and his co-authors initially started legal proceedings in May 2018, asking the Supreme Court to declare that they had not infringed on the copyrights of Chokri and O’Donoghue. Two months later, Chokri – a make-up artist playing Sami Switch – and O’Donoghue filed their own claim for “copyright infringement, loss and profits in connection with the alleged infringement”. The couple claimed that an “Oh I” hook on Shape Of You was “strikingly similar” to a “Oh Why” chorus on their own track. Ed Sheeran wins High Court battle over whether 2017 Shape of You’s hit copied another artist’s song Ross O’Donoghue arrives at the Rolls Building in High Court in central London, where Ed Sheeran has filed a lawsuit against the 2017 hit song “Shape of You” after songwriters Sami Chokri and Ross O’Donoghue claimed that violated one of their songs Sheeran said on Instagram today: “I wanted to make a short video to talk a little bit, because I could not say anything while it was going on. “Although we are obviously pleased with the result, I feel that such allegations are very common now “It has become a culture where a claim is made with the idea that a settlement will be cheaper than going to court, even if there is no basis for the claim. “It’s really damaging to the writing industry. There are so many quotes and so many chords used in pop music. “Coincidences will definitely happen if 60,000 songs are released every day on Spotify, that is 22 million songs a year and there are only 12 notes available. “I do not want to take anything away from the pain and suffering suffered by both sides in this case. “But I just want to say that I am not an entity, I am not a company, I am a human being, 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. “It simply came to our notice then. Jonny and Steve and I are very grateful for all the support our fellow songwriters have given us in recent weeks. “Hopefully we can get back to songwriting instead of having to prove we can write them.” During the 11-day trial at London’s Rolls Building, Sheeran denied that he “borrowed” ideas from unidentified singers and insisted that he “always tried to be completely fair” to the people who contributed to his albums. The singer told the court that he was trying to “clear my name” and denied that he used a court dispute to “intimidate” Chokri and O’Donoghue to abandon the copyright dispute. Oh Why’s lawyers co-wrote Sheeran as “Kissa”, claiming that he “usually copies” other artists and that it was “extremely likely” that he had heard Oh Why in the past. Chokri told the trial that he felt “stolen” by the music star and was “shocked” when he first heard Shape Of You on the radio. However, Sheeran’s lawyers, McDaid and McCutcheon, said the charges against them were “impossible to accept”, with evidence showing that Shape Of You was an “independent creation”. In a joint statement after the case, Sheeran, McDaid and Mac said: “There was a lot of talk about the cost throughout this case. But there is more to it than just the financial cost. “There is a cost to creativity. When we are involved in lawsuits, we do not make music or play shows. “There is a cost to our mental health. The stress that this causes on all sides is enormous. It affects so many aspects of our daily lives and the lives of our families and friends. “We are not companies. We are not entities. We are humans. We are songwriters. “We do not want to reduce the pain and suffering we have suffered through it and at the same time, we believe it is important to acknowledge that we too have had our own wounds and sufferings in our lives throughout this process. “There is an impact both on us and on the wider circle of songwriters everywhere. Our hope in going through all of this is that it shows that there is a need for a safe space for all songwriters to be creative and free to express their hearts. “It simply came to our notice then. Everyone should be able to express themselves freely in music, in art and do it without fear. “At the same time, we believe that there should be a proper process for the legal and guaranteed protection of copyright. “However, this is not the same as having a culture where unjustified claims are easily made. This is not constructive or conducive to a culture of creativity. “We are grateful that Mr Justice Zacaroli issued a clear and well-thought-out judgment in support of the position we have taken from the outset. “Shape of You” is original. We did not copy the song of the accused. “We respect the music of those who have come before us and who have inspired us along the way, whoever they are. “We have always tried to clarify or recognize our influences and partners. No matter how successful something looks, we respect it. “It’s so painful to hear someone publicly and aggressively question your integrity. It’s so painful to have to defend yourself against accusations that you have done something you have not done and would never do. “We are very grateful for all the messages of love, hope and support we have received throughout this case from songwriters everywhere. “We also thank our publishers, who stood side by side with us every step of the way. “We have the privilege of doing what we do and we know it. We want to live in a world where we are free to do whatever we do, openly and with honor. “Although this was one of the most difficult things we have ever experienced in our professional lives, we will continue to resist unfounded allegations and protect our rights and the integrity of our musical creativity, so that we can continue to make music, always. “Our message to songwriters everywhere is: Please support each other. Be kind to each other. Let’s continue to cultivate a spirit of community and creativity. “ Isaac Murdy, an intellectual property specialist at Shakespeare Martineau law firm, said: “When a song is as successful as it gets, it becomes a tempting target for anyone who thinks they can claim a fair share of that success for themselves. “If you have a legal case for copyright infringement, for the right song, claiming a claim can be a very smart investment of time and legal costs. However, as we have seen here, this investment is not without risk. “This decision can encourage artists to be more audacious in ‘inspiring’ each other, without fear of the consequences of copyright infringement. “While this facilitates the process of creating (and publishing) music, in some cases it may deprive younger artists of the income they should have received. “It is rare for a copyright infringement case to go so far in court. They are often settled out of court, as it is usually a less costly outcome for both parties. “Clearly, Chokri thought he had a strong case, unfortunately it was not strong enough and now he is facing an important legal account. “This decision suggests that the UK’s courts will not uphold American-style speculative disputes. It will take more than a short section of the ‘basic secondary pentatonic motif’ which is ‘quite common’ to establish a successful copyright infringement claim. All music is produced to some degree, and in the words of Elvis Costello, “This is how rock & roll works.” “This decision shows that clear similarities in two songs are needed to form a substantial case. “Copyright is designed to encourage creativity by rewarding original creators, and this case shows how the law seeks to balance copyright at every stage of a song’s development.”
