Sheeran, et al. v. Chokri, et al.

[2022] EWHC 827 (Ch.) (England)

Comment by Charles Cronin

Magpies are highly intelligent birds, with an unjustified larcenous reputation, famously celebrated in Rossini’s La gazza ladra [The Thieving Magpie].  Andrew Sutcliffe, who represented Sami Chokri in this dispute, analogized Ed Sheeran to a magpie and an “obsessive squirrel” attempting to establish the pop singer’s insouciance towards copying the protected musical expression of others. In fact, these derogatory faunal references appear more aptly applied to Chokri, whose gaze was undoubtedly fixed upon royalties of £20 million that had accrued to Sheeran’s “Shape of You”, rightful payment of which Chokri obstructed bringing this specious claim.

Chokri obviously wanted a portion of the £20 million royalties. As is often true of relatively unknown claimants in such disputes with pop stars, however, he likely also sought some measure of the media attention showered upon Sheeran, even if that given Chokri were to be decidedly less sympathetic. In an ostensible effort to establish Sheeran’s access to his oeuvre, but also an embarrassing sub rosa attempt to create an impression of professional parity, even camaraderie, Chokri claimed he was acquainted with Sheeran – indeed, averring even to have once broken bread (more likely greasy chicken wings) with him at a branch of Nando’s, a junk food chain.

In his judgment of over forty pages, High Court Justice Zacaroli thoroughly parses the copying claim, and the (purportedly) expert testimony offered by both parties. He even provides music notation for the contested portions of Sheeran’s song and, straight-faced, the significance of “heya, heya, heya, heya,” and the note sequence A-C-D-E that he (incorrectly) associates with “a minor pentatonic scale.” I agree with his conclusions regarding the questions of musical similarity, but his analysis goes off the rails at times, e.g., his bewildering reference to “the use of octave harmonies as instrumentation” or his observation that “a chant has no words.” If Justice Zacaroli had some difficulty understanding and expressing musical terminology, imagine how much more limited the capacity to do so of a typical juror (as in the “Blurred Lines” case).

Undoubtedly compounding Chokri’s chagrin at Zacaroli’s decision was the same judge’s subsequent ordering, on June 21, 2022, Chokri to pay Sheeran ~$1.2 million to cover his attorney fees. One can only hope Zacaroli’s judgment, and punishing fee award might inform the disposition of similarly baseless claims Sheeran faces outre-Atlantique, and particularly the one involving another Marvin Gaye number, now pending in New York.

***

Andrew White, undergraduate at University of Bristol Law School, recently completed his thesis, “Infinitely Original or Inevitably Derivative? Reconciling the Simplicity of Popular Music with the Rise in Copyright Infringement Cases,” which deals in depth with the musical and legal issues raised in the Chokri/Sheeran litigation, and the potentially harmful legacy of the disposition in the “Blurred Lines” dispute.

High Court of Justice Order re. Costs & Case Management (October 28, 2020): PDF

Judgement of High Court of Justice (April 6, 2022): PDF