Search

Mariah Carey slapped with multi-million dollar lawsuit over hit festive song

Mariah Carey is facing a multi-million dollar lawsuit over her hit festive song, as another musician has come forward claiming she plagiarised an original work. Carey’s song All I Want For Christmas Is You has long been a staple of December, and has sold over 10 million copies since its 1994 release. However, Andy Stone, lead vocalist of Vince Vance and the Valiants, claims Carey infringed on his copyright. Stone co-wrote a song, which has the same title as Carey’s smash hit, in 1989 to which he claims Carey and her team of copying his song’s “compositional structure,” according to the complaint obtained by <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/mariah-carey-facing-20-million-lawsuit-over-all-i-want-for-christmas-is-you" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fox News Digital</a>. <iframe title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/w8HWHd0EYJA?si=IdW0GIKXEQBJqaO_" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe> The court documents state that Carey “directly” copied lyrics from Stone’s 1989 hit and “approximately 50 per cent” of the song is copyright infringement. Stone went on to claim that Carey and her team “undoubtedly” had access to his version of All I Want For Christmas is You due to its “wide commercial and cultural success.” Stone’s track charted on Billboard for years, with the band even performing the track at the White House in 1994 - the same year Carey’s festive song was released. “Carey has capitalised on the success of her infringing work,” Stone’s complaint alleged. <iframe title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yXQViqx6GMY?si=Exrq9M0AA2u5XRpB" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe> “All I Want For Christmas is You has become a ubiquitous part of popular culture, and Carey’s name has become synonymous with the season.” Stone first sued Carey over the copyright issue in June 2022 in a Louisiana court before dropping the claim five months later. Image credits: Getty Images

Legal

Inspiration, influence and theft: what the Ed Sheeran case can tell us about 70 years of pop music

a US court <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/may/04/ed-sheeran-verdict-not-liable-copyright-lawsuit-marvin-gaye">ruled in favour of singer-songwriter Ed Sheeran</a>, agreeing his song Thinking Out Loud did not breach musical copyright. The high-profile court case, brought by the estate of soul singer Marvin Gaye, claimed Sheeran’s song was too similar to Gaye’s song Let’s Get It On. On the stand, Sheeran <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/apr/28/ed-sheeran-sings-in-court-as-part-of-marvin-gaye-copyright-case">defended his songwriting process</a>, stating: “I draw inspiration from a lot from things in my life and family.” Sheeran’s case brought up some difficult questions around what we understand as inspiration and influence, and what we may hear as theft. Musical copyright cases are part of songwriting history. Radiohead’s Creep was found to be <a href="https://entertainment.time.com/2013/08/22/11-suspiciously-sound-alike-songs/slide/the-hollies-the-air-that-i-breathe-1974-vs-radiohead-creep-1992/">too similar</a> to the Hollies’ The Air That I Breathe, and in 2018, Lana Del Rey’s Get Free <a href="https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/lana-del-rey-claims-lawsuit-with-radiohead-is-over-watch-1202736177/">was found to plagiarise Creep</a>. Mark Ronson and Bruno Mars altered the credits to Uptown Funk to <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/lawsuit-bmg-uptown-funk-royalties-gap-band-heirs-1234660379/">acknowledge the similarity</a> to The Gap Band’s Oops Upside Your Head. Here in Australia, the flute solo in Men at Work’s Down Under, which quoted the melody of folk song Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree, was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/jul/06/men-at-work-down-under">ruled as plagiarism</a>. In this case against Sheeran, the song’s chord progression was at the heart of the claim. The prosecution argued Sheeran’s chord progression was too similar to the chord progression of Gaye’s. But can we copyright a chord progression if it is used extensively in other pop songs? Gaye’s song uses four chords that gradually move upward (I-iii-IV-V). These same chords can be heard in the Beach Boys’ I Can Hear Music, the Seekers’ Georgy Girl, the Beatles’ I Feel Fine, in the Motown tune This Old Heart of Mine by the Isley Brothers, Elvis Presley’s Suspicious Minds, Cher’s Believe and ABBA’s Knowing Me Knowing You, among many others. This chord progression and many others are part of the songwriting toolkit of rock and pop and have been heard continuously over the past 70 years. <h2>The 12 bar blues</h2> A chord progression is the main instrumental part you hear in most pop music, usually played by a guitar, piano or synth. One of the oldest chord progressions in pop is the 12-bar blues – a looping pattern of three chords that is very identifiable. As the name suggests, this set of chords stems from early blues and was a way for musicians to easily play together and improvise. A version of this progression can be heard in Muddy Waters’ I’m Your Hoochie Coochie Man or John Lee Hooker’s Boom Boom. You can also hear this progression in a number of other pop songs – listen to verses of Queen’s I Want to Break Free and Kiss by Prince – both use the same chord progression, but sound very different to each other. More recently, Lizzo’s Better in Colour uses the 12-bar blues in a way that makes an old formula fresh. <h2>The ‘doo-wop’ progression</h2> The “doo-wop” progression has appeared in pop music for close to 80 years, and is named because most doo-wop songs feature this chord progression – it was an essential part of its sound. You can hear it in 1950s hits such as the Penguins’ Earth Angel and Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers’ Why Do Fools Fall in Love?. The strength of these chords means they are used in pop music of all kinds, including ELO’s Telephone Line, Don’t Dream it’s Over by Crowded House, Destiny’s Child’s Say My Name, Blank Space by Taylor Swift, and Flowers by Miley Cyrus. Despite its consistent use, these chords still cross genres and eras, and still catch our ears. Comedy act Axis of Awesome use a similar progression in their video for 4 Chords, where they cleverly play almost 50 different songs with a variation on these four simple chords. <iframe title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oOlDewpCfZQ" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe> <h2>The I-IV-V (the ‘one, four, five’)</h2> Perhaps the most common chord progressions in rock and pop are those that use the I, IV and V chords in various combinations. They’re usually the first three chords you learn on an instrument and open up thousands of songs to play – from the rock and roll of Summertime Blues by Eddie Cochran, the garage rock of Wild Thing by the Troggs, the bubblegum of Hanson’s Mmmbop and the indie rock of Coldplay’s Yellow, to the modern pop of bad guy by Billie Eilish and good 4 u by Olivia Rodrigo. <h2>Going forward</h2> Rock, pop, blues, doo wop and other musical genres can often be defined by their use of repeated chord progressions. These chord progressions are part of a songwriter’s toolkit in a similar way to how an artist may use different paint brushes. As Sheeran’s lawyer Ilene Farkas <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/may/04/ed-sheeran-verdict-not-liable-copyright-lawsuit-marvin-gaye">noted</a>, chord progressions are, "the letters of the alphabet of music […] these are basic musical building blocks that songwriters now and forever must be free to use." It is how these “building blocks” are used, and in what combinations, that gives us a great variety of pop songs over many decades. The true craft of great pop music is to take these formulas and turn them into something unique (while simultaneously making it sound easy). The ruling in Sheeran’s case supports the rights of musical artists to continue to use these progressions as part of a songwriter’s toolkit, and to build from the artists who came before them. It also acknowledges that influence and inspiration from previous works are part of the construction of the pop music we love. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/inspiration-influence-and-theft-what-the-ed-sheeran-case-can-tell-us-about-70-years-of-pop-music-204747" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Music

Decision reached over Ed Sheeran's copyright trial

Ed Sheeran has emerged victorious from a lengthy legal battle that claimed he "ripped off" another popular song. Sheeran, 32, was being sued over his 2014 single Thinking Out Loud by Structured Asset Sales, who claim that Sheeran's hit took elements directly from Marvin Gaye's Let's Get It On. On Thursday, the court ruled that the British singer-songwriter did not plagiarise the song, with the jury of three men and four women only taking three hours to reach a decision. Sheeran stood up and hugged his team after jurors ruled that he “independently” created his song, as he stopped outside the courtroom to thank those who supported him through the legal battle. The pop star added he was “unbelievably frustrated that baseless claims like this” even make it to court. “I’m just a guy with a guitar who loves writing music for people to enjoy. I am not and will never allow myself to be a piggy bank for anyone to shake,” he said outside the court. Sheeran revealed he missed his grandmother’s funeral in Ireland as he sat through the “bogus” and “dangerous” lawsuit that claimed he stole key elements for his hit song. “These cords are common building blocks which were used to create music long before Let’s Get it On was written. Will be used to make music long after we are all gone,” Sheeran said. “They are a songwriter’s alphabet. Our toolkit. And should be there for all of us to use. No one owns them. Or the way they are played. In the same way nobody owns the colour blue.” Ed's victory comes after he declared that if he had lost the case, he would've <a href="https://oversixty.com.au/entertainment/music/i-m-done-why-ed-sheeran-is-threatening-to-quit-music" target="_blank" rel="noopener">quit</a> the music industry all together. Outside the court room on Monday when the court proceedings were still in progress, he expressed his exasperation over the case, and made a bold statement about the future of his career. "If that happens, I'm done, I'm stopping," Sheeran said, according to reports from <a title="People" href="https://people.com/music/ed-sheeran-done-if-he-loses-lets-get-it-on-copyright-lawsuit/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">People</a>. "I find it to be really insulting," Sheeran added. "I work really hard to be where I'm at." Image credits: Getty Images

Music

"I'm done": Why Ed Sheeran is threatening to quit music

Ed Sheehan has made a bold statement about the future of his career, while fighting an "insulting" court case. The British singer-songwriter is currently embroiled in a copyright case which has seen him take the stand in a New York City courtroom to defend his music. Sheeran, 32, is being sued over his 2014 single Thinking Out Loud by Structured Asset Sales, who claim that Sheeran's hit took elements directly from Marvin Gaye's Let's Get It On. On Monday morning local time, Sheeran took to the stand for a second time, expressing his exasperation over the case, and saying he will quit music if he loses the case. "If that happens, I'm done, I'm stopping," Sheeran said, per <a title="People" href="https://people.com/music/ed-sheeran-done-if-he-loses-lets-get-it-on-copyright-lawsuit/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">People</a>, on the stand when his lawyer, Ilene Farkas, asked him what he would do if the court found Thinking Out Loud to be too similar to Gaye's Let's Get It On. "I find it to be really insulting," Sheeran added. "I work really hard to be where I'm at." Sheeran didn't clarify his comments once court has adjourned, leaving many fans concerned over the future of his career. Structured Asset Sales launched the lawsuit against Sheeran in 2018 after purchasing a third of the shares of Let's Get It On from the family of the song's co-writer, Ed Townsend. During the courtroom proceedings, Sheeran was also cross-examined in court by the plaintiff's lawyer, Robert Frank – which prompted the award-winning singer to complain. "You're trying to diminish my success," Sheeran told Frank on the stand in response to his line of questioning. "Thinking Out Loud was my first Grammy." "It was pretty devastating and pretty frightening because it's something we did not do," Thinking Out Loud co-writer Amy Wage said on the stand about the copyright allegations. Sheeran also referenced the plaintiff's musicologist Alexander Stewart's testimony from last week, which saw Stewart argue Thinking Out Loud and Let's Get It On were "very, very similar". "I think what he's doing is criminal here," Sheeran said of Stewart's testimony. "I don't know why he's allowed to be an expert." Image credits: Getty Images

Music

Police under fire for blasting Disney songs during arrest

Police officers in a Californian town are being investigated after they were filmed blasting Disney songs late at night. In a video uploaded to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCisja0OfwWUCmhP_NPn0Kpg/videos">YouTube</a>, police are seen searching an allegedly stolen car in the town of Santa Ana around 11pm. After a few minutes, the officers notice the situation is being filmed, and one goes to a police car and turns on the speakers to loudly play You've Got A Friend In Me from the Disney film Toy Story in an effort to deter the filmer. Other songs from Disney films Mulan, Encanto and Coco play next, as nearby residents are awoken from the sound and ask police to turn the music down. They eventually do, but not before attracting the attention of one resident who is also a town councillor, identified as Jonathan Hernandez. Hernandez asked the police what the reason for the music was, with one officer responding, “copyright infringement” while pointing to the person filming the scene. This means if the video was posted online, it would be removed for playing the copyrighted Disney tracks. Police in the US have previously been accused of playing copyrighted songs when being filmed by civilians. Despite their attempts to thwart the video, it remains on YouTube and has amassed over 46,000 views. "I'm embarrassed that this is how you're treating my neighbours," Mr Hernandez said in the video. "There's children here." Santa Ana Chief of Police David Valentin said in a statement that the police department was aware of the video, and that the incident was being investigated. Image credits: YouTube

Music

Ed Sheeran wins huge legal case

In a high-profile trial, Ed Sheeran has clinched a victory in a copyright infringement case over his 2017 song Shape of You. The British singer, along with his two co-writers Johnny McDaid and Steve Mac, were accused of plagiarising Sami Chokri’s 2015 song Oh Why. In his ruling, the judge concluded that Sheeran “neither deliberately nor subconsciously” copied a phrase from Oh Why when writing Shape of You, as Sheeran emphasised during the trial. In a video statement <a href="https://twitter.com/edsheeran/status/1511631955238047751">posted to Twitter</a>, Sheeran said, “While 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 base for the claim.” “It’s really damaging to the songwriting 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.” He continued, “I don’t want to take anything away from the pain and hurt suffered by both sides of this case, but I just want to say that 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 are not a pleasant experience and I hope with this ruling it means in the future baseless claims like this can be avoided.” Chokri, who performs under the name Sami Switch, along with his co-writer, sued Sheeran over similarities in the songs in 2018. During the 11-day trial in London, Sheeran denied he “borrows” ideas from other recording artists, while saying he “always tried to be completely fair” when crediting his inspirations and contributors. In their testimony, Sheeran, McDaid and Mac all denied being aware of Oh Why prior to writing Shape Of You. Image credits: Getty Images

Music

Aboriginal flag freely available for public use

In a historic decision, the Aboriginal flag has been made freely available for public use by all. Following long negotiations, the artist behind the flag agreed to transfer copyright of the design to the Commonwealth. Created by Luritja artist Harold Thomas in 1970, the flag represents Aboriginal people and their connection to the land, and has been an official national flag since the end of the late 1990s. The copyright had remained with Mr Thomas since the flag’s genesis, meaning anyone who wanted to use the flag legally had to ask permission or pay a fee. Indigenous Affairs Minister Ken Wyatt was pleased to announce that the flag now belongs to all Australians following the negotiations. "Over the last 50 years we made Harold Thomas’ artwork our own — we marched under the Aboriginal Flag, stood behind it, and flew it high as a point of pride," Mr Wyatt said in a statement. "Now that the Commonwealth holds the copyright, it belongs to everyone, and no-one can take it away." Harold Thomas said he hopes all Australians will use the flag with the utmost pride and respect to the Indigenous Australian population. "I hope that this arrangement provides comfort to all Aboriginal people and Australians to use the Flag, unaltered, proudly and without restriction," he said. "I am grateful that my art is appreciated by so many, and that it has come to represent something so powerful to so many." In return for the copyright, the government has agreed to establish an annual scholarship in Mr Thomas’s honour worth $100,000, which will see Indigenous students be given the chance to develop skills in leadership, and to create an online history and education portal for the flag. Image credits: Getty Images

Art

"Banned" royal family documentary resurfaces online

<div class="post_body_wrapper"> <div class="post_body"> <div class="body_text redactor-styles redactor-in"> A documentary about the royal family was "banned" by Buckingham Palace in the early 70s has resurfaced online 50 years later. <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/01/28/royal-documentary-banned-queen-leaked-50-years-later-palace/" target="_blank">The Telegraph</a> reports Royal Family, the BBC documentary that offered a glimpse into Queen Elizabeth's private life, was uploaded onto Youtube and viewed thousands of times before taken down. The documentary was removed due to a copyright claim from the British broadcaster. It was the first time that footage longer than a 90-second clip had been seen since it was taken off the air. The rest of the film remains strictly "off-limits" to the public, which the curator of the National Portrait Gallery exhibition says is regrettable. "Legend has it that the Queen doesn't want parts of it to be shown. Regrettably, the film hasn't been seen for a long time. It just disappeared. There is a reluctance for this to be revisited." "I wish we could show it in its entirety. It tells you a lot about family life. And it redefined the nation's view of the Queen - the audience were amazed to be able to hear the Queen speaking spontaneously, and to see her in a domestic setting." Historian Sarah Gristwood says that it was Prince Philips idea to film the family to show them in a more relatable light. "Philip's belief was that if people could see their head of state as 'individuals, as people, I think it makes it much easier for them to accept the system.' He was against the idea of any "remoteness or majesty" in the people's view of their monarchy." </div> </div> </div>

Who owns the copyright to your tattoo?

The Australian Copyright Agency has <a href="https://www.copyright.com.au/2020/06/tattoo-licence-body-art/">licensed an Indigenous artwork</a> for a custom tattoo. It is the first instance of tattoo licensing for the agency, and perhaps Australia at large. The agency granted a licence for Jarrangini (buffalo) (2018) by Tiwi artist <a href="https://jilamara.com/artist/chris-black/">Chris Black</a> following consultation with the artist, the Jilamara Arts and Crafts Association, and other senior Indigenous artists. Darwin tattooist Ryan Birkinshaw applied the buffalo print to the arm of art gallery manager and artist Katie Hagebols. In an industry beset by appropriation – of Indigenous and Western imagery – the licensing of this artwork is a rare sign of respect for the intellectual property rights of artists. In the Australian tattoo industry, licences govern the use of tattoo stencils, pre-produced images known as <a href="https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tattoo%20flash">“flash”</a>. Get news that’s free, independent and based on evidence. Get newsletter But the practice of licensing for custom tattoos – one-off original designs created specifically for clients – is virtually non-existent. Copying usually occurs without any thought given to obtaining a licence. The Jarrangini (buffalo) licence recognises that tattoo is an artform regulated by copyright law. Tattoo copyright There are no Australian cases that directly confirm copyright exists in tattoos. However, a drawing in ink falls within the definition of “artistic work” in s 10(1) of the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00414">Copyright Act</a>. A tattoo will be copyright so long as it does not copy a substantial part of another artwork. In Australia, the person who reduces the artwork to “material form” is the default copyright owner. This means that the tattooist is usually the first copyright owner of a custom tattoo because they are the person who draws it, or tattoos it directly on the skin. A tattoo wearer might also hold joint ownership rights, if they contribute more to the design process than just ideas. They might actively collaborate in the refinement of a design, for example, by deleting some aspects and drawing the replacement’s features together with the tattooist. In New Zealand, more restrictive <a href="http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM345930.html">rules around commissioned art and copyright</a> mean a paying client can be the first copyright owner of a custom tattoo, regardless of whether they actively contributed to the design process. Australia’s <a href="http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s35.html">commissioned art rules</a> do not apply to drawings as a category of artistic work. Thus tattoos are excluded from them. (Interestingly, there is an exception here when it comes to portraits, with the copyright for tattoo portraits likely owned by the person who paid for it). In both countries, where a tattooist creates a design in the course of their employment, their employer will be the copyright owner. All of these rights can be varied by contract. Copying is common Despite the law in this area, copying is common in the tattoo industry both here and in New Zealand. My unpublished research among tattooists in New Zealand suggests there can be a lot of pressure from clients to copy existing images. “I do get brought art or pictures of other people’s tattoos,” said one tattooist, and quite a few pictures “come straight off the internet.” Clients often request direct reproductions of imagery they have <a href="https://news.bme.com/2005/09/23/followup-tattoo-theft/">downloaded</a>. In these circumstances, appropriation can be a pragmatic business decision. What Do You Think About Tattoo Copying? | Tattoo Artists Answer. Some people regard the copying of a custom tattoo as a form of <a href="https://news.bme.com/2005/09/25/pop-culture-is-a-language">identity theft</a> because a one-off tattoo is seen as a unique form of self-expression. Copyists might also be <a href="https://minnesotalawreview.org/article/tattoos-ip-norms/">criticised by other tattooists</a> as “scratchers” or “hacks” or subject to gossip that <a href="https://southerncalifornialawreview.com/2012/05/02/who-owns-your-skin-intellectual-property-law-and-norms-among-tattoo-artists-note-by-matthew-beasley/">infers they are poor artists</a>. Creativity is highly valued within this artist community. So, why don’t tattooists sue over copying? In some art industries, there can be a big gap between holding rights and exercising them. To tattooists, appropriation is mostly seen as a matter of ethics or manners rather than law. Many tattooists <a href="https://minnesotalawreview.org/article/tattoos-ip-norms/">are skeptical of litigation</a>. Intellectual property rights only “hold value if you have money and are willing to go through the courts in order to take somebody through the wringer,” said one tattooist I interviewed. There is also a view that the tattoo belongs to the client not the artist because money changed hands. Another tattooist told me it was “complete nonsense” that copyright applies to tattoos because the art is “on a body, man!” Tattooists tend to only threaten legal action when the infringement of their design involves a tattoo on the body of a high profile celebrity (such as footballer <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/exclusive-i-own-becks-tattooand-ill-sue-548295">David Beckham</a>, UFC fighter <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121207/07502921303/tattoo-copyright-strikes-again-tattoo-artist-sues-thq-accurately-representing-fighters-tattoo-game.shtml">Carlos Condit</a>, or NBA player <a href="https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/9636-lcb102harkinspdf">Rasheed Wallace</a>). Even then, they might be criticised by other tattooists for threatening to enforce their copyright. This is because tattooing a celebrity is “good advertising”, as one tattooist said. There have been no high profile tattoo infringements in Australia. These norms aside, copyright law does apply to tattoos. Whether or not more tattoo enthusiasts will seek an appropriate licence, as occurred in the case of Jarrangini (buffalo), or a copyright owner will sue for a rights violation, is another matter. Written by Marie Hadley. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-who-owns-the-copyright-to-your-tattoo-142825">The Conversation.</a>

Beauty & Style

Judge rules against company trying to copyright happy birthday song

Finally we’re free to sing happy birthday without looking over our shoulders, thanks to a landmark court case in the US. A judge has ruled against a company that has been collecting royalties for the song happy birthday for over 80 years, with the song now placed in the public domain. The lawsuit, filed by a range of artists and filmmakers, was seeking the return of millions of dollars in royalties that have been acquired by Warner Music Group that claimed to own the royalties. “Happy Birthday is finally free after 80 years,” Randall Newman, an attorney working for the artists, told the Los Angeles Times. “Finally, the charade is over. It’s unbelievable.” The song happy birthday dates back to 1893 where it first appeared in a kindergarten songbook composed by Kentucky sisters Mildred and Patty Hill. The song was originally called “Good Morning to All” and performed with different lyrics. Patty claims to have composed the more familiar happy birthday lyrics and when Warner acquired the sister’s publisher they believed they had the rights. While people who sung happy birthday at their home and private celebrations were generally safe, Warner was collecting as much as $2 million a year in royalties for the song from films and TV shows that featured the iconic tune. This made the song a prohibitive expense for some projects and Warner will now be expected to return a significant chunk of the money it claimed. So next time you’re sitting around the kitchen table getting ready to blow out the candle say thanks that you’re not going to get a letter in the mail about that the song you’ve been singing!

News

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Mariah Carey slapped with multi-million dollar lawsuit over hit festive song

Inspiration, influence and theft: what the Ed Sheeran case can tell us about 70 years of pop music

Decision reached over Ed Sheeran's copyright trial

"I'm done": Why Ed Sheeran is threatening to quit music