Taylor Swift’s lawyers want copyright case tossed

[Teletubby 140,120]

Taylor Swift‘s attorneys are asking a federal judge to dismiss a copyright lawsuit claiming the star stole aspects of a self-published book of poetry when she created a companion book for her album Lover, calling the case “legally and factually baseless.”

Teresa La Dart sued Swift last year, claiming that “a number of creative elements” from her 2010 book (also called Lover) were copied into Swift’s book. In a motion filed Friday, Swift’s lawyers said the copyright lawsuit should be dismissed immediately because it failed in every way possible.

La Dart sued Swift over the star’s Lover book – an extra bundled with the special edition of her Lover CD that The New York Times called a “must-read companion” for Swifties.  La Dart’s lawsuit claims the book borrowed a number of visual elements from the outer design, including its “pastel pinks and blues” and an image of the author “photographed in a downward pose,” as well as the book’s overall format: “a recollection of past years memorialized in a combination of written and pictorial components.” La Dart also says the inner book design – specifically that it’s composed of “interspersed photographs and writings” – infringed her copyrights.

Swift’s lawyers said those elements were just commonplace features of almost any book, meaning they fall well-short of being unique enough to qualify for copyright protection. source

[COOOK 76,406]

[Gagaism 10,353]

12 minutes ago, COOOK said:

I can’t stop laughing, I hate it here 

[Borisapillar 8,397]

17 minutes ago, COOOK said:

Noarrrrrr

[River 108,420]

It looks exactly the same omg

[Guest]

C'mon Teresa, get back to work 

[Fiendman 237]

Teresa doesn't own the copyright for the colours pink and blue, or the dreamy pastel aesthetic, so there's not really a lot to go on here. And "Lover" is hardly the most unique title. You'd probably find hundreds (if not thousands) of books with that title published in various formats over the years. If the title of both works was "Poems Written for Lovers of that Good Martian D" then I'm sure we'd have a case here, but otherwise... 

[bionic 46,120]

Just now, Fiendman said:

Teresa doesn't own the copyright for the colours pink and blue, or the dreamy pastel aesthetic, so there's not really a lot to go on here. And "Lover" is hardly the most unique title. You'd probably find hundreds (if not thousands) of books with that title published in various formats over the years. If the title of both works was "Poems Written for Lovers of that Good Martian D" then I'm sure we'd have a case here, but otherwise... 

I disagree

[Fiendman 237]

1 minute ago, bionic said:

I disagree

That's fair enough, you're entitled to - but objectively, there's not a lot to go on for a legal case here. 

[Teletubby 140,120]

1 minute ago, Fiendman said:

That's fair enough, you're entitled to - but objectively, there's not a lot to go on for a legal case here. 

the only reason why this case will be dismissed is because Taylor is rich
#JusticeForTeresa
#PastelPinksAndBluesBelongtoTeresa

[bionic 46,120]

5 minutes ago, Fiendman said:

That's fair enough, you're entitled to - but objectively, there's not a lot to go on for a legal case here. 

its a dangeorus precendent 

[Fiendman 237]

You know what, you're right, I've been so blind 😂 

[Fiendman 237]

I'm not seeing what a dangerous precedent is being created here? Someone is trying to falsely claim that one piece of media is derivative of another, and the similarities are superficial. It's fairly cut and dry in my opinion 🤔

[butthole 9,971]

3 minutes ago, bionic said:

its a dangeorus precendent 

being able to sue someone more famous for extremely tenuous similarities? yes, that's a dangerous precedent

[bionic 46,120]

8 minutes ago, Hold My Ham said:

being able to sue someone more famous for extremely tenuous similarities? yes, that's a dangerous precedent

if you believe big money legal firms yeah