shake it off copyright lawsuit update:
A judge refused to toss out the case against Swift, saying the songs had “noticeable differences” but “enough” similarities for a trial.
some highlights:
Though there are “some noticeable differences” between the two songs, the judge said there “enough objective similarities” that the case would need to be decided by a jury trial. The judge said Swift’s experts made “persuasive arguments” but that it wasn’t enough for her to escape the case. Hall and Butler’s case floundered early. In 2018, Judge Fitzgerald dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that Hall and Butler’s lyrics were merely “short phrases that lack the modicum of originality and creativity required for copyright protection.” The judge cited 13 different earlier songs that featured similar phrases, including “Playa Hater” by The Notorious B.I.G. and “Man U Luv to Hate” by Sir Mix-A-Lot. But a year later, a federal appeals court reversed that ruling. The court said Fitzgerald had tossed the case too early and that “Playas Gon’ Play” was sufficiently creative for copyright protection. The ruling sent the case back to Judge Fitzgerald for new proceedings. Back in lower court, Swift again moved to escape the case, asking the judge to grant her so-called summary judgment – an immediate ruling that she had not infringed any copyrights. But on Thursday, Judge Fitzgerald refused. “Even though there are some noticeable differences between the works, there are also significant similarities in word usage and sequence/structure,” the judge wrote. “Although Defendants’ experts strongly refute the implication that there are substantial similarities, the Court is not inclined to overly credit their opinions here.”
i've said this before and i'm gonna say it again: this is pathetic. this lawsuit really looks like a whole money grab. that kind of short phrases, especially these generic phrases/expressions used in everyday life, are not protected by copyright. it's not an original idea, even less an original expression of an idea. it's hard to prove that something infringed some copyright, that someone stole something. taylor's legal team is great, and they've already proven that these two songs are not substantially the same. i talked more about this lawsuit here and here. anyways, i guess 1989 (taylor's version) is delayed again....
another shake it off copyright lawsuit update:
A trial over Swift’s use of “players gonna play” and “haters gonna hate” with some repetition could set a precedent that “cheats the public
so, after the judge denied her summary judgement (see the post above), taylor filed a new motion trying to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the judge failed to address the "extrinsic test". some highlights:
In the new defense motion filed Dec. 23 that asks Judge Fitzgerald to reconsider his ruling, lawyers for Swift and her publishing partners say the “extrinsic test” and established Circuit law “mandate” that the court focus only on protectable elements while filtering out and disregarding phrases in the public domain. “Both works use versions of two short public domain phrases — ‘players gonna play’ and ‘haters gonna hate’— that are free for everyone to use,” the new motion states, arguing that while both songs also use repetitive phrases called tautologies, those aren’t protected either. “The presence of versions of the two short public domain statements and two other tautologies in both songs — a commonality that the court has noted — simply does not satisfy the extrinsic test. Otherwise, plaintiffs could sue everyone who writes, sings, or publicly says ‘players gonna play’ and ‘haters gonna hate’ alone with other tautologies. To permit that is unprecedented and cheats the public domain,” the new motion argues.
remember when i said that those kind of phrases are not protected by copyright? so yeah, it's ridiculous.
taylor and her team is right and they're trying to avoid the jury which is always the best thing to do cause it's unpredictable (see for example the blurred lines fiasco). i just read the entire motion document they filed and they have a strong argument, even citing that the plaintiffs themselves admitted that the sentences they claim that infringed their copyright -"players gonna play" and "haters gonna hate"- are not protected by copyright and were used before their song playas gon' play.
“These men are not the originators, or creators, of the common phrases ‘Players’ or ‘Haters’ or combinations of them. They did not invent these common phrases nor are they the first to use them in a song,” the rep told Rolling Stone. “Their claim is not a crusade for all creatives, it is a crusade for Mr. Hall’s bank account.”
i guess we also agree that this looks like pure money grab. lol
anyways, a hearing on the request for reconsideration is set for february 7 in los angeles. so until further notice, i guess it's still a no 1989 (taylor's version) announcement.
With a trial looming in January, both sides agreed to end the blockbuster copyright case without a final verdict.
hi! new shake it off copyright lawsuit update: the case has finally been dropped.
billboard pro is a paid feature, so here's the article in full with some highlights:
Taylor Swift has reached an agreement with two songwriters to end a five-year long copyright lawsuit claiming she stole the lyrics to “Shake It Off” from an earlier song about “playas” and “haters,” resolving one of the music industry’s biggest legal battles without a climactic trial or ruling. In a joint filing made on Monday in California federal court, attorneys for both Swift and her accusers – songwriters Sean Hall and Nathan Butler – asked a judge for an order “dismissing this action in its entirety.” Before the deal, a trial had been scheduled to kick off in January. The public filings did not include any specific terms of the apparent settlement, like whether any money exchanged or songwriting credits would be changed. Attorneys for both sides and a rep for Swift did not immediately return requests for comment. The agreement means a sudden end for a blockbuster case that seemed headed toward the next landmark ruling on music copyrights. Following legal battles over Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” and Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven,” the case against Swift posed fundamental questions about the limits of copyright protection, with her lawyers arguing that the accusers were trying to “cheat the public domain” by monopolizing basic lyrical phrases. Hall and Butler first sued way back in 2017, claiming Swift stole her lyrics to “Shake It Off” from their “Playas Gon’ Play,” a song released by R&B group 3LW in 2001. That was no small accusation, given the song in question: “Shake It Off” debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 in September 2014 and ultimately spent 50 weeks on the chart, a mega-hit even for one of music’s biggest stars. In Hall and Butler’s song, the line was “playas, they gonna play, and haters, they gonna hate”; in Swift’s track, she sings, “‘Cause the players gonna play, play, play, play, play and the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.” In their complaint, the duo said Swift’s lyric was clearly copied from their song. In the years since, Swift’s attorneys repeatedly pushed to dismiss the case, arguing that a short snippet of lyrics about “players” and “haters” was not creative or unique enough to be covered by copyrights. They cited more than a dozen earlier songs that had used similar phrases, including 1997’s “Playa Hater” by Notorious B.I.G and 1999’s “Don’t Hate the Player” by Ice-T. Swift initially won a decision in 2018 dismissing the case on those grounds, with a federal judge ruling that Hall and Butler’s lyrics were not protected because popular culture in 2001 had had been “heavily steeped in the concepts of players, haters, and player haters.” But an appeals court later overruled that decision, and a judge ruled last year that the case would need to be decided by a jury trial. “Even though there are some noticeable differences between the works, there are also significant similarities in word usage and sequence/structure,” the judge wrote at the time. More recently, Swift’s team again asked the judge to dismiss the case, this time making a new argument: That documents turned over during the case had revealed that Hall and Butler voluntarily signed away their right to file the lawsuit in the first place. In an August filing, Swift’s lawyers said the documents proved that Hall and Butler had granted their music publishers the exclusive rights to bring an infringement lawsuit over the song, meaning they lacked the legal standing to do so. Her lawyers said the pair had even emailed their publishers – Sony Music Publishing and Universal Music Publishing Group, respectively – asking for permission to sue, but that both companies had refused the request. “After their music publishers refused to assign to plaintiffs the claim they assert in this action, their manager unsuccessfully lobbied a United States Congressman to get a House sub-committee to intervene,” Swift’s lawyers alleged in the filing. That motion was still pending when Monday’s settlement was filed.
so, if you still had doubts that that whole lawsuit circus was a money grab, now that's your answer.
i'm sure she settled it out of court by giving them money - which is what they clearly wanted - instead of putting their names in the credits of the song.
i guess we will see in the next days/weeks if any changes in the credits of shake it off are made, but i don't think she would do that because honestly, it would look bad for her. it would paint her as a fraud and plagiarist, and would make the public question her whole career and artistry, especially when she's such a big advocate for artists' rights, and that's everything she didn't want with that lawsuit in the first place.
so i think for me that it's pretty obvious and safe to assume that she would give them money to make them drop the case and stop trying to sue her over some silly lyrics that are not even protected by copyright.
anyways, we can go back to waiting (and clowning) for 1989 (taylor's version) in peace now.
