Taylor Swift’s request to dismiss ‘Shake It Off’ lawsuit denied by judge

[Teletubby 150,078]

9 months after Taylor Swift filed a Hail Mary motion asking a judge to reverse one of his own key rulings and cast aside a copyright infringement lawsuit centered on her biggest-ever hit “Shake It Off,” the judge issued his decision from the bench.

U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald not only rejected Swift’s last-ditch challenge to his summary judgment decision reached last December, he also made it clear he intends to stick to the January 17, 2023 trial date now set for the long-running case.
“The motion for reconsideration is denied,” Judge Fitzgerald said. “I don’t think it meets the standard for reconsideration, and even if it did, and I was approaching it again on the merits, I still think there’s a genuine issue of material fact in part because of the expert opinion.”

Last December, Swift’s lawyers asked Judge Fitzgerald to rethink his Dec. 9 summary judgment decision that found suing songwriters Sean Hall and Nathan Butler deserved a trial over “genuine” issues of dispute.

Hall and Butler claim Swift improperly borrowed “Shake It Off’s” chorus from their 2001 song “Playas Gon’ Play,” written for the all-female R&B trio 3LW.

In “Playas Gon’ Play,” the allegedly infringed lyrics are, “playas, they gonna play,” and “haters, they gonna hate.” Hall and Butler allege that while the phrases “may seem like common parlance today,” they were “completely original and unique” in 2001.
 

 

[River 117,324]

He didn't shake it off his table

[Monstermilo 4,596]

one of the worst pop songs ever created 

[Versace 7,979]

Honestly at this point she should just release 1989 TV without Shake It Off. 

I know that’s controversial to suggest as its the lead of it but its far from the best song on the record and at this trajectory the album may not be rereleased for the next few years. Trials can take very long. 

Or they can come to a settlement deal and give them some writing credits. I know Taylor would be against that but I hope she lets it slide as rereleasing 1989 is going to be a huge moment and compromising it is not worth it imo. 

[nATAH 49,845]

a Shake It Off-less 1989 would for sure get a higher rating in my library

[Sneaky Oliver 22,220]

This is ridiculous, I believe there’s someone sponsoring the whole thing. The lyrics are completely generic, anyone is able to rhyme those words without knowing that song in particular existed back in a day

[PopEmergency 2,201]

"Hall and Butler allege that while the phrases “may seem like common parlance today,” they were “completely original and unique” in 2001."

well... they said it themselfs 

[Crescent Bloom 1,083]

1 hour ago, Versace said:

Honestly at this point she should just release 1989 TV without Shake It Off. 

I know that’s controversial to suggest as its the lead of it but its far from the best song on the record and at this trajectory the album may not be rereleased for the next few years. Trials can take very long. 

Or they can come to a settlement deal and give them some writing credits. I know Taylor would be against that but I hope she lets it slide as rereleasing 1989 is going to be a huge moment and compromising it is not worth it imo. 

I think that would defeat the entire purpose of what she envisioned for these re-recordings. She has stated/implied that she essentially wants to bury every single track she doesn't own with these projects, and with Shake It Off being one of her biggest hits, (with that mindset) she literally has to do it.

I agree with you though ... like this might take awhile and I am impatient  I need OOTW, Style, and those vault tracks soooooooo bad.

[AkariGaga 1,109]

14 minutes ago, Sneaky Oliver said:

This is ridiculous, I believe there’s someone sponsoring the whole thing. The lyrics are completely generic, anyone is able to rhyme those words without knowing that song in particular existed back in a day

From the article-Judge Fitzgerald said. “Idon’t think it meets the standard for reconsideration, and even if it did, and I was approaching it again on the merits, I still think there’s agenuine issue of material fact in part because of the expert opinion.”

Rulings are made due to testimonies from expert opinions and witnesses so it means that Swift ‘s team still can’t deny or downplay that expert opinion .The expert opinion must be damn good .And I think I saw an article here that Swift’s team is trying to  remove the expert witnesses claiming  they are not expert enough in music production or something like that.

Unless they can disqualify the expert opinion,i can see the suit going forward.Miss Swift will have to be patient.

[TEANUS 15,101]

2 hours ago, Monstermilo said:

one of the worst pop songs ever created 

This and “hey kids! Spelling is fun!” 

[vanna shintuyu 10,809]

1 hour ago, PopEmergency said:

"Hall and Butler allege that while the phrases “may seem like common parlance today,” they were “completely original and unique” in 2001."

well... they said it themselfs 

I legit wheezed when I got to that. That's such a complete lie, it's ridiculous.

[StrawberryBlond 14,881]

I think Hall and Butler are annoyed at the wrong people here. They completely bypass the fact that "haters gonna hate" was a meme a good number of years before Taylor wrote her song. I distinctly remember a gif reading "haters gonna hate" in 2010 and I already knew that phrase by then, which means it must have been around before then. I can guess I first saw it around 2006/7, maybe? When Taylor sang those lines, her intention was not for listeners to think they were original but were, in actuality, referring to popular memes and internet culture of the time. People were meant to hear it and go "oh, there's that catchphrase I've heard!" She's not the first artist to do that and she won't be the last. You could argue that juxtaposing it with "players gonna play" is suspicious however but that was also a phrase that existed, albeit not as popular. And even if this 2001 song was the first iteration, then why didn't the writers try to sue all the people who made memes and gifs featuring these phrases for years afterwards before Taylor? Why is it only worth noticing when a singer does it? Ergo, they're just after money and royalties forevermore.

Most of these little known songs mentioned in these suits are completely unknown to artists. I don't know why anyone believes songwriters spend their days scouring music libraries to find songs they can rip off, especially someone like Taylor, who is constantly writing and releasing. There wouldn't be time to hunt down obscure songs from years ago to steal from in the hopes that no one notices. I don't know what's taking the lawsuit this long nor why the expert specialists aren't applying the logic that I just mentioned to the whole proceedings.