Ed Sheeran arrives at High Court to continue fight against copyright claim

Ed Sheeran apologised to the High Court today for not disclosing a MacBook he used when creating Shape of You, as he described his songs as ‘excitement bottles’ and denied being a ‘magpie’ who stole parts of the hit from uncredited songwriters.  

The pop star, 31, has furiously rejected claims by songwriting duo Sami Chokri and Ross O’Donoghue that he copied the song’s ‘Oh-I-oh-I-oh-I-oh-I’ refrain from their track Oh Why. 

Today, he rebutted the arguments of their barrister, Andrew Sutcliffe QC, but apologised to the court for failings he had made around the disclosure of material to the court. 

Mr Sheeran said sorry for initially saying he had disposed of a computer he thought he used at the time of creating Shape Of You so it could not be searched. 

‘If, as appears to be the case, the silver MacBook is the MacBook which I used at the time of creating Shape Of You, then my comments about no longer having that MacBook were wrong,’ he said in a written statement, adding: ‘Again, I sincerely apologise to the defendant and the court for that error.’

Today, Mr Sheeran said he approaches songwriting without a ‘premeditated thought process’ and ‘makes things up as I go along’. 

‘If it sounds good, I keep it,’ he said in written evidence. ‘I frequently write and record a number of songs in a day. I have recently had a session lasting a week in which I wrote 25 songs.

‘Almost all of my songs are written in under two hours. I think of them as sort of  »excitement bottles » – if a song is working, the excitement pushes it to the point where it’s finished; if it’s not, then I’ll leave it and move on to something else.

‘There is therefore nothing unusual for me in the speed with which Shape Of You was created and the vocals recorded.’ 

Asked what type of music the record label representative had asked for, Mr Sheeran replied: ‘Rhythmic, always rhythmic. He knows I can do ballads in my sleep.

‘I think being a mid-20s bloke you have real ups and real downs and that was the subject matter of a lot of songs that I was writing.’

He later added: ‘My life is a flurry of songwriting. Every month is a flurry of songwriting.’ 

Mr Sutcliffe questioned whether Mr Sheeran was a rapper, to which the singer replied: ‘I mean, what constitutes a rapper? I write songs with raps in them.’

The court heard that part of the writing of the song Eraser, which shares an album with the song Shape Of You, took place within a half-hour period.

Later asked if he needed to see the lyrics of Eraser, Mr Sheeran replied ‘I wrote this, I know it.’

Mr Sutcliffe later said: ‘There’s no way you wrote this in 30 minutes.’

Mr Sheeran responded: ‘I mean, I did, so I don’t know what you expect me to say.’

‘I suggest that because it’s not something you normally do, you looked elsewhere for inspiration,’ the barrister said.

Mr Sheeran denied this and listed songs he had rapped on from various albums. 

Today, Mr Sutcliffe asked Mr Sheeran about his previous settlement of a copyright claim in the United States over Photograph, which was released in 2015. 

The barrister, cross-examining, asked if the musician had been ‘fully involved in the negotiation and drafting of the agreement’.

He replied: ‘My lawyers went through it and I trusted their advice.’

The court heard that the agreement included paying 35% of the gross publishing revenues to songwriters Thomas Leonard and Martin Harrington.

Asked if he accepted this was a large sum, Mr Sheeran replied: ‘I took the advice of my lawyers.’

Mr Sutcliffe later said: ‘I suggest that you settled it because you thought you would lose.’

‘I took the advice of my lawyers,’ Mr Sheeran repeated. 

Mr Sutcliffe, previously told the court Mr Sheeran ‘borrows ideas and throws them into his songs, sometimes he will acknowledge it but sometimes he won’t’.

The barrister also alleged that Mr Sheeran’s acknowledgement depended on how famous the other artist was, adding that Mr Chokri and Mr O’Donoghue ‘are not Shaggy, Coldplay, Rihanna or Jay-Z, if they were they would have been treated in a very different way’.

At the start of his evidence today, Ian Mill QC, representing Mr Sheeran, asked: ‘Do you accept that you behave or have behaved in that way?’

Mr Sheeran said ‘no’, before adding: ‘The examples he has been using are obviously famous artists, two of them are people I’ve made songs with.’

He continued that ‘if Mr Sutcliffe would have done his research’, he would have known there were ‘lots’ of unknown artists he had cleared parts of songs with.

Mr Sheeran denied that he was ‘talent spotting’ and ‘plugged in’ to the UK music scene in 2015 when Sami Chokri was making a return, the court heard.

Mr Sucliffe asked Mr Sheeran: ‘In 2015 you were listening to everything in the UK scene, weren’t you?’

‘No,’ Mr Sheeran replied, later adding: ‘I wasn’t plugged in at all’.

Mr Sutcliffe said: ‘It’s in the middle of 2015 that Sami Switch returns from a two-year absence, at a time when you were talent spotting, plugged in, glued to your screen.’

Mr Sheeran, who told the court he quit social media in late 2015, explained he ‘wouldn’t be talent spotting’ as British artist Jamie Lawson, who had signed to Mr Sheeran’s Gingerbread Man record label, was his ‘priority’.

He also denied there was a ‘good chance’ he had seen various song and video releases and a tweet featuring Sami Switch in 2015 and 2016.

Mr Sheeran said that for ‘the whole of 2016’ he was ‘off’ social media and using a ‘flip phone from Tesco’.

He also said he did not recall meeting Mr Chokri, despite the songwriter’s claim that they met at a party in a Nando’s restaurant in central London.

In one of his five witness statements, Mr Sheeran said: ‘I understand that Mr Chokri says that I met him and spoke to him in 2011 at Jamal Edwards’ launch party for SBTV in London Bridge.

‘I remember that party. It was at a branch of Nando’s restaurants.

‘My career had started to take off at that point and a succession of people wanted to have their picture taken with me. It was extremely busy.

‘I have no recollection of meeting anyone there other than someone called Dexter Fletcher, who I am still in contact with. I do not remember meeting Mr Chokri.’

He later added: ‘Prior to this litigation, I was not aware of either Sami Chokri or Ross O’Donoghue and had not heard of the EP Solace on which Oh Why apparently featured.’

Mr Sheeran denied it was possible that the late founder of the SBTV YouTube channel, Jamal Edwards, shared with him Mr Chokri’s 2015 song Oh Why – a track the singer is accused of ripping off in his 2017 track Shape Of You.

Mr Sutcliffe told the court that Mr Edwards’ work was in part ‘dedicated to finding new artists’ and that he had been sent Mr Chokri’s EP Solace, which featured Oh Why.

Under questioning, Mr Sheeran acknowledged Mr Edwards was his ‘best friend’ and described him as a person who ‘prided himself in always finding new talent’.

But he denied that Mr Edwards shared music with him in 2015 and 2016, saying it was only recently that he had done so.

Mr Sutcliffe said: ‘It’s just not credible, Mr Sheeran. This is your best friend who was very much at the centre of the UK scene. You’re saying he didn’t start to share music with you until last year?’

‘Yes, that’s what I’m saying,’ Mr Sheeran replied, adding that the pair would ‘talk about football, talk about his mum, talk about theatre’.

‘I suggest it’s entirely possible that Jamal Edwards shared Oh Why with you, isn’t it?’ Mr Sutcliffe said.

‘No,’ Mr Sheeran replied.

Mr Sheeran said he was ‘surprised’ the claim was pursued, arguing that the part of Shape Of You involved in the case is ‘very short’ and ‘consists of nothing more than a basic minor pentatonic pattern which is sung using the words ‘Oh I ».

In his written evidence, he continued: ‘Both are, in my view, entirely commonplace. Even so, if I had heard Oh Why at the time and had referenced it, I would have taken steps to clear it.’

The singer later added: ‘I have always tried to be completely fair in crediting anyone who makes any contribution to any song I write.

‘I do refer to other works on occasion when I write, as do many songwriters. If there is a reference to another work, I notify my team so that steps can be taken to obtain clearance.

‘I have been as scrupulous as I possibly can and have even given credits to people who I believe may have been no more than a mere influence for a songwriting element.

‘This is because I want to treat other songwriters fairly.’     

The court heard Mr Chokri had sent messages to Mr Sheeran on Twitter and the star had allegedly shouted his name at a performance.

‘This is all stuff you’re saying, this isn’t stuff that’s true,’ Mr Sheeran said.

Mr Sutcliffe asked him: ‘You’re saying you definitely weren’t aware of him, rather than you’ve forgot that you’re aware of him?’

‘Yes,’ Mr Sheeran said.   

He earlier told the court that it was ‘very unlikely’ he was asked to shout Sami Switch’s name at a performance, explaining that he does not do ‘shoutouts on stage’ as he would ‘feel bad’ if he forgets.

Mr Sheeran said he receives ‘hundreds of thousands of tweets’, but that he didn’t ‘look through it’.

He was also asked about videos uploaded by the late SBTV founder Jamal Edwards and tweets Mr Edwards posted referencing Sami Switch.

Mr Sheeran told the court that Mr Edwards ‘championed lots and lots of artists’ and that ‘it wasn’t like I watched every single video he uploaded’.

He also said: ‘I followed him on Twitter, it doesn’t mean I read everything he wrote.’

Mr Chokri and Mr O’Donoghue allege that Shape Of You infringes ‘particular lines and phrases’ of their song, released in 2015.

They argue that a central ‘Oh I’ hook in Shape Of You is ‘strikingly similar’ to an ‘Oh Why’ refrain in their own composition.

But Mr Sheeran’s lawyers have told the High Court that the singer and his co-writers, Steven McCutcheon and John McDaid, have no recollection of having heard Oh Why before the legal fight and deny the allegations of copying.

Mr Sheeran and his co-authors launched legal proceedings in May 2018, asking the High Court to declare they had not infringed Mr Chokri and Mr O’Donoghue’s copyright.

In July 2018, Mr Chokri and Mr O’Donoghue issued their own claim for ‘copyright infringement, damages and an account of profits in relation to the alleged infringement’.

The trial continues.