Jump to content
Follow Gaga Daily on Telegram
celeb

Taylor's team says 'Shake It Off' accusers don’t even have the right to sue


Featured Posts

Teletubby

In 'Shake It Off' song-theft case, songwriters Sean Hall and Nathan Butler accuse Swift of ripping off their 2001 song ‘Playas Gon Play’ when she wrote her 2014 hit.
The claim is mainly based on the similarities between the two songs’ respective key lines, with the 2001 track having the line “the playas gon play/them haters gonna hate”, while ‘Shake It Off’ famously includes the lyric “the players gonna play, play, play, play, play/and the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate”.

Swift’s legal team have been trying very hard to get the case dismissed. More recently the Swift side has also gone to great lengths to explain how she couldn’t possibly have heard ‘Playas Gon Play’ before writing ‘Shake It Off’, because she never watched MTV and was mainly into country music when the former was released.

According to Law360, a legal rep for Swift – Peter Anderson – brought up that accusers don’t even have the right to sue in a court hearing yesterday.
He claimed that when Hall and Butler did their publishing deals, they signed away their rights to file a lawsuit in relation to ‘Playas Gon Play’.
And, he alleged, when the two writers approached their publishers about negotiating back that right, said publishers refused. 

While Hall and Butler are still beneficiaries of the song, the rights in it are ultimately controlled by their publishers, which means only those publishers are able to sue if they believe the ‘Playas Gon Play’ copyright has been infringed.
According to the MLC database, the publishers in control of the rights in ‘Playas Gon Play’? are the publishing divisions of Sony and Universal.
Sony and Universal are among the list of corporate defendants in 'Shake It Off' case.

The judge overseeing the case, Michael W Fitzgerald, noted that there isn’t a huge amount of case law – ie previous rulings in similar disputes – to offer guidance on what to do in circumstances like this.

It remains to be seen whether this argument can help the Swift side avoid this dispute going to a high profile jury trial.
source

Reveals when?? Results when?? Do we have all submissions?? Do we have all votes?? Am I winning??
Link to post
Share on other sites
Vicks

Its actually a good thing... 1989 TV shouldn't come for another couple of years.. Maybe release it in 2024 to co incide with the 10th anniversary... Let her drop new music till then. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Midnights Mayhem
8 minutes ago, Vicks said:

Its actually a good thing... 1989 TV shouldn't come for another couple of years.. Maybe release it in 2024 to co incide with the 10th anniversary... Let her drop new music till then. 

That doesn’t make sense to do that as she is doing to devalue her original versions and wants the re-recorded versions out as soon as possible and 1989 (Taylor’s Version) is pretty much ready to go. 

Midnights Mayhem With Me
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Railing
43 minutes ago, Teletubby said:

The judge overseeing the case, Michael W Fitzgerald, noted that there isn’t a huge amount of case law – ie previous rulings in similar disputes – to offer guidance on what to do in circumstances like this.

Huh? They literally don't have a legal right to sue, so it should be dismissed, case closed :toofunny:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...