Geraes claims Adele’s melancholic tune mirrors his 1995 samba classic Mulheres (Women), a song immortalised by Martinho da Vila on the album Tá Delícia, Tá Gostosa. This injunction demands Sony and Universal Music halt the song’s reproduction across all platforms, with noncompliance threatening fines of $8,000 (£6,300 ) per infraction. The decision currently remains open to appeal.

Fredimio Trotta, Geraes’ lawyer, called the decision a victory for Brazilian music, a genre often preyed upon by international creators seeking inspiration. “This landmark ruling sends a message to producers and artists who might view Brazilian compositions as easy targets,” he told AFP according to the Guardian. The case is aiming to both protect Brazilian musicians as well as set a clear stance on musical appropriation on an international stage

The stakes are high. Geraes is suing for $160,000 (£126,000) in damages, lost royalties, and songwriting credit. The case rests on the claim that the melodies reveal an “undisguised symmetry,” an accusation Adele’s team has yet to address.

This marks the second time Adele has faced plagiarism claims for this particular track. In 2015, Turkish music fans accused it of resembling Acilara Tutunmak (Clinging to Pain) by Kurdish singer Ahmet Kaya. The controversy then fizzled without legal action after Kaya’s widow decided it was unlikely that any similarity was an intentional act of appropriation by the megastar.

Brazil’s adherence to the Berne Convention, a cornerstone of international copyright law, lends weight to Geraes’ claim, embedding it within a legal framework designed to protect the creative commons across borders. As Sony and Universal deliberate on the potential for an appeal, the ultimate fate of ‘Million Years Ago’ remains uncertain, suspended in the liminal space between accusation and adjudication.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Adele (@adele)

Adele’s decision to pause her career after the crescendo of her Las Vegas residency finds her unexpectedly drawn into a legal maelstrom. The dispute underscores the migratory nature of melodies, whose origins and influences often transcend the confines of time and geography. It is a testament to the enduring entanglements of cultural production, where artistic echoes can resonate in ways both celebratory and contested.

Sheeran took to his socials after the victory, summarizing, “where a claim is made with the idea that a settlement will be cheaper than taking it to court, even if there’s no basis for the claim.” Adding, “It’s really damaging to the songwriting industry. There’s only so many notes and very few chords used in pop music. Coincidence is bound to happen if 60,000 songs are being released every day on Spotify. That’s 22 million songs a year and there’s only 12 notes that are available.” At the ruling, Judge Antony Zacaroli completed proceedings by saying, “similarities between the one-bar phrase [share] such similarities are only a starting point for a possible infringement”, concluding, “differences between the relevant parts [of the songs, which] provide compelling evidence that the ‘Oh I’ phrase.”.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Ed Sheeran (@teddysphotos)

This result comes with a great sigh of relief for Sheeran, who back in 2017 took the particularly unusual step of counter-suing Sami Chokri and Ross O’Donoghu in an attempt to clear himself of any charges. This ultimately failed.

On the subject of copyright lawsuits, pop sensation Dua Lipa was being sued by Florida reggae band Artikal Sound System; the group claimed that in reference to their own track “Live Your Life”, it was “highly unlikely that ‘Levitating’ was created independently.”. The case is still in process, and I don’t have enough background to comment, but in a conversation with Rolling Stone, Musicologist Joe Bennett weighed in on the situation. While the melodies may be similar, copyright infringement is about confluence – and according to Bennett “In my opinion, for what it’s worth, I think this is a coincidence.”