Ed Sheeran’s Lawyers Push to End Remaining ‘Thinking Out Loud’ Copyright Case

Why It Matters

The outcome will determine whether beneficial owners can sue using self‑filed registrations, setting precedent for music copyright litigation and royalty structures.

Key Takeaways

• Supreme Court rejected 2018 appeal, leaving 2020 case alive
• Sheeran’s team challenges SAS’s 2020 registration validity
• SAS holds royalty interest, not legal copyright ownership
• Court’s decision could reshape beneficial‑owner infringement rights
• Dismissal would end all Thinking Out Loud lawsuits

Pulse Analysis

The ‘Thinking Out Loud’ dispute has been a marathon for Ed Sheeran and the music publishing world. The first lawsuit, filed in 2018 by Structured Asset Sales (SAS) over Marvin Gaye’s 1973 composition ‘Let’s Get It On,’ was decided in Sheeran’s favor after a series of appeals that culminated in the U.S. Supreme Court declining to review the case in June 2025. That decision effectively closed the original claim, but a parallel suit filed in 2020—based on a newer copyright registration that SAS secured itself—remains pending in the Southern District of New York.

Sheeran’s counsel argues that SAS’s 2020 registration is fundamentally flawed because the company never held the legal title to ‘Let’s Get It On.’ The registration was filed using the original sound recording as the deposit copy, an attempt to broaden protection to performance elements such as the bass line. Under the Copyright Act, the term ‘owner’ refers to the legal copyright holder, not a passive royalty beneficiary. By challenging the registration’s validity, the motion seeks to bar SAS from pursuing infringement claims that rest on a non‑existent ownership claim.

The decision will reverberate across the music industry, where many rights holders hold only fractional royalty interests rather than full copyright ownership. A ruling that dismisses the case on registration grounds would reinforce the legal distinction between beneficial and legal owners, limiting the ability of royalty‑share entities to file infringement suits without proper title. Conversely, a court that permits the claim could open a pathway for similar entities to leverage self‑filed registrations, potentially increasing litigation risk for artists and publishers. Stakeholders are therefore watching the outcome closely as it could reshape copyright strategy and risk management in an increasingly complex digital marketplace.