There shouldn't even be a copyright issue for a work released in 1971 - over 50 years ago. Surely the work should be in the public domain in any reasonable system.

Somewhat oddly this song fits into a weird slot in history:

“ A quirk of the law restricts which aspects of “Let’s Get It On” (1973) are under copyright. For many songs made before 1978, only the contents of the sheet music submitted to the Copyright Office (known as the “deposit copy”) are protected. With “Let’s Get It On,” that notation was skeletal: just chords, lyrics and a vocal melody. Other key aspects of the track, like its bass line and signature opening guitar riff, were absent. That means the lawsuit primarily came down to the chord progressions of the two songs, which are nearly — but not entirely — identical.”

https://www.nytimes.com/article/ed-sheeran-marvin-gaye-copyr...

I think the law in the USA is that copyright is maintained until 70 years after the death of the writer/composer (unless it was a work-for-hire). So just another 31 years to go here (2054) assuming Marvin Gaye was the sole author.

The parent comment is surely well aware of that. They were speaking normatively (what should be) rather than descriptively (what is).

Except it’s infinite because Disney lobbyists. Not that someone else wouldn’t do it if they weren’t.

Adam Neely does a better job, and includes multiple examples of other songs that Gaye could have "ripped off" by some definition. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpzLD-SAwW8

This is a bit frustrating because Neely did a better job covering the "Blurred Lines" case but Beato has more viewers, I guess.