What was mentioned in opening arguments?
In opening statements, Ben Crump, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, urged the jury to make use of “widespread sense” in evaluating the 2 songs, and mentioned that the proof within the case included what he described as “a smoking gun”: a fan video from a live performance which confirmed Mr. Sheeran performing a “mash-up,” or medley, wherein he moved seamlessly between performing “Considering Out Loud” and “Let’s Get It On,” and again once more.
“That live performance video is a confession,” mentioned Mr. Crump, who’s greatest referred to as a civil rights lawyer who represented the household of George Floyd.
Ilene S. Farkas, a lawyer for Sheeran, mentioned in her opening assertion that the live performance video doesn’t show copyright infringement, and that onstage Mr. Sheeran often strikes easily between his songs and people of many different artists. She argued that Mr. Sheeran and his co-writer, Amy Wadge, had created “Considering Out Loud” independently, with out copying, and that the similarities between the songs are commonplace elements which are present in quite a few songs, and free for any musician to make use of.
She mentioned that the plaintiffs “can’t personal these widespread musical components.”
The primary witness, known as simply earlier than midday, was Ms. Townsend. She praised Mr. Sheeran as “a terrific artist with a terrific future” and mentioned she had introduced the case reluctantly.
“I’ve to guard my father’s legacy,” she mentioned.
The trial was briefly interrupted on Wednesday afternoon when Ms. Townsend appeared to break down and was carried out of the courtroom. It got here within the midst of the defendants’ cross-examination of Alexander Stewart, a musicologist employed as an skilled witness for the plaintiffs. After a delay of about eight minutes, the choose overseeing the case, Louis L. Stanton, resumed proceedings.
Because the trial ended for the day, attorneys for Ms. Townsend mentioned she had been taken to a hospital. They mentioned she had “a pre-existing situation,” however declined to elaborate.
