Even if you don't like Ed Sheeran's music, you should be glad he won his copyright trial

• Ed Sheeran has been found not liable in the copyright trial that accused him of plagiarizing Marvin Gaye.
• Although Sheeran tends to strike a nerve for some, the jury's decision is a win for all music lovers.

Ed Sheeran's recent victory in court should elicit a sigh of relief from all music lovers, no matter how they feel about Sheeran's oft-maligned earworms.

The chart-topping singer had been accused of ripping off Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On" to create his own 2015 hit "Thinking Out Loud." On Thursday, a Manhattan jury decided this claim was unfounded.

Of course, the songs share some elements, including a chord progression and tempo. It would be fair to assume Sheeran had been influenced by Gaye's iconic discography.

But as Sheeran pointed out when he testified earlier this week, similarities are common in pop music, while plagiarism is a brutal accusation for any songwriter — an accusation that should require a high bar of evidence.

"It is my belief that most pop songs are built on building blocks that have been freely available for hundreds of years," he told the court, adding, "I find it really insulting to devote my whole life to being a performer and a songwriter and have someone diminish it."

Sheeran is one of pop's biggest stars. He has three diamond-certified singles. He has four Grammy Awards, including song of the year for "Thinking Out Loud." In 2019, he set a new record for the highest-grossing tour of all time.

But Sheeran is also one of the most-criticized artists working today. These criticisms are rarely serious; he's not widely considered tone-deaf, offensive, or otherwise problematic. But his songs get stuck in your head and overplayed in the grocery store.

A lot of people seem to think he's annoying, or they just don't take him seriously. Sheeran is well aware of this reputation. When he was profiled by Rolling Stone earlier this year, he described himself as "meme-able" and "the butt of jokes."

Indeed, when Sheeran threatened to quit music if the jury found him guilty of plagiarism, the general reaction on social media was flippant glee: "don't threaten me with a good time!!," "Best news I've heard in a while," "NO MORE YEARLY TRIPS TO THE EAR DOCTOR !!!"

Although everyone is welcome to like (or dislike) any sort of music they please, these anti-Sheeran reactions ignored the larger implications of his plight.

The prosecution's argument hinged on the chord progression shared by "Thinking Out Loud" and "Let's Get It On," even though Sheeran's melody doesn't resemble Gaye's in the slightest.

By that logic, any number of brilliant songwriters could be sued for using a familiar combination of musical notes, of which there are only 12 to choose from. The possibilities are very much not endless.

In reality, the case hinged on a sense of nostalgia, a kindred vibe — which is difficult (if not impossible) to quantify, let alone litigate.

Sheeran's trial recalled the landmark case against Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke's 2013 hit "Blurred Lines." The artists were ordered to pay $5 million to Gaye's estate for copying "Got to Give It Up" — even though jurors were told to focus solely on the sheet music, which didn't line up. The chord progressions, rhythms, and melodies were different.

"Blurred Lines" isn't an easy song to defend — far more difficult to defend than any song of Sheeran's, to be sure — but the guilty verdict horrified musicians, producers, and songwriters of all kinds.

"I know there are people who will look at me weirdly. I'm siding with Robin Thicke; I'm going against the estate of Marvin Gaye," Questlove told Vulture at the time. "There's a thin line, but for the sake of hip-hop culture: Look, technically it's not plagiarized."

"It's a feeling," he continued. "Because there's a cowbell in it and a Fender Rhodes as the main instrumentation — that still doesn't make it plagiarized."

Virtually every song has the potential to evoke another song, and virtually every artist has cited a forebear who inspired their work. There's a huge difference between inspiration and plagiarism, but cases like these attempt to draw a clear line in the fluid world of music, one that should be ruled by creativity and curiosity.

It's already daunting for an artist to explore new terrain when an homage can be interpreted as a rip-off. That risk becomes even more repellent if an homage is likely to be legally condemned as a rip-off, especially for a new artist who doesn't have millions of dollars to spare.

We've already seen the "Blurred Lines" verdict have a chilling effect on the music industry. Songwriters today are quick to give away credits (and royalties) if fans notice similarities — and that's not even to say what happens before a song is released, what gets watered down or pulled back in the studio for fear of legal action.

Had Sheeran lost, it would've been even more egregious than the "Blurred Line" verdict, considering Sheeran's case didn't even involve Gaye's estate. He was sued by relatives of Ed Townsend, the cocomposer of "Let's Get It On," who were seeking an unspecified payout and hoping to bar Sheeran from performing "Thinking Out Loud" in the future.

Personally, I'd be happy if I never heard "Thinking Out Loud" ever again, but I'm thrilled that Sheeran has preserved the right to play his own song. It's the bare minimum every artist deserves.