Skip to main content

Taylor Swift Vs The World - Musical Copyright Issues in the World of Vexatious Litigants



 



In 2014, Taylor Swift unleashed her widely successful 1989 album on the world, and just one year later, the world began to sue her for it. It has been five years since the first litigant commenced proceedings against her and Swift is in Court again, defending herself over allegations of stolen lyrics.


The lyrics in question, 'the players gonna play, play, play, play, play and the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate'. These 16 words have been the cause of multiple million-dollar lawsuits. Judges have read these words in full earnest; law students will spend hours reading precedents using these words, and people have sung these words in their car when they were stuck at traffic lights. But is the fact that you wrote words similar to this enough to claim the profits of a song? A lot of hopeful plaintiffs seem to think so, and in the United States, the courts appear to entertain most notions of copyright infringement at least to a trial level, at which they are quickly dismissed. 


In one matter the Judge used Swift's lyrics in their judgement stating that the Complainant had 'a blank space' in their documents and that 'merely pleading BandAids will not fix the bullet holes in his case'. 


So it seems that the even the courts themselves are poking fun at the sheer ridiculousness of some cases but how did it get this way?


Musical Copyright Infringement in the USA

 

 

Musical copyright cases are not unheard-of in the United States. Since they invented a way to record music, there has been someone trying to sue over it. But this recent spate of high-value cases has resulted from one significant case… that of Blurred Lines. 


Robin Thicke & Pharrell Williams v Marvin Gaye was a pivotal case in further expanding the ways that an artist could claim copyright to music that they had written by allowing artists to claim copyright to the 'feel' of music. In this case, the estate of Marvin Gaye successfully argued that the song Blurred Lines had the vibe of a Marvin Gaye song. Long gone are the days of Vanilla Ice's intellectual property case where the number of beats in a bar of music were counted, now the 'vibe' is sufficient. This case was resolved with a $5 million settlement and 50% of the future royalties being awarded to the estate of Marvin Gay, and it led to the floodgates being opened and a significant amount of out-of-court settlements using this case as precedent. 


Another significant case was in 2019 regarding Katy Perry's song Dark Horse where a relatively unknown artist successfully sued for millions over a claim that her music had breached his copyright. It may be also worth pointing out that Katy Perry's legal representatives are in the process of appealing this ruling. 


But how will this affect Taylor Swift's matter?


Firstly, Taylor Swift is no stranger to litigation. She settled over a dispute with the band Right Said Fred over an instrumental in one of her other songs. However, she refuses to settle in this matter. She has faced multiple cases over Shake It Off, with parties claiming (often at the same time) to be the source of the lyrics as mentioned above. 


She has argued that the lyrics are commonly used expressions that fall into the public domain, which refers to the concept that certain creative materials that are not protected by intellectual property laws. The public owns these works, not an individual author or artist. Anyone can use a public domain work without obtaining permission.


Could this happen in Australia?


Australia has already had several significant musical copyright cases result in extensive damages cases. With the most famous case being the Men at Work case, Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd EMI Songs Australia Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 29, which the Court ordered the songwriters hand over 5% of all the royalties for the song to the owners of the 'Kookaburra sits in the Old Gum Tree' music. In this case, the courts looked at the amount of the infringing work and saw that 50% of Kookaburra had been copied and this was found to be significant enough to infringe copyright. 


In Australia, it is still essential that copyright infringement refers to the infringement on actual work rather than the look or feel of the artwork/artist. 


What's Next?


As the Court refused Taylor Swift's motion for dismissal, this case will now have its day in Court, and we will have to wait to see what the Judge's ruling will be and also whether she releases an album about it as well. 



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Green Eggs and Hamm

Green Eggs and Hamm

How a crotch shot of John Hamm and Dr Seuss have sparked the most intense debate on fair use dealing in copyright in the last ten years. 
In 2013, John Hamm was in full swing, sipping cocktails and filming the wildly successful Mad Men however in years to come he may be remembered for something much more different. One uneventful day, John Hamm was photographed going commando and, thus changed how we see intellectual property rights on the internet forever. 
Like all paparazzi photos, it was promptly uploaded to the internet and licenced for use. Unbeknownst to the photographer, the image was then used in an article by the Huffington Post, titled "25 Things You Wish You Hadn't Learned In 2013 And Must Forget In 2014." The writer of the piece turned the photo into a humourous GIF with the intention of mocking people who would want to see the picture and satirising the idea that it was news at all. 
The photographer later registered the photo's copyrig…

Woman Wins Copyright Case Against Adult Film Studio Who Recorded Videos In Her House.

A recent case in the United States District Court of Massachusetts has seen a woman whose house was used as a film set for adult videos without her knowledge be awarded damages… but not for what you think.
In Bassett v Jensen, Ms Bassett, the owner of the property, signed an agreement with a renter to lease her Martha's Vineyard property for seven months for the sole use of Mr Spafford and his family. Spafford had moved to Martha's Vineyard to work as a photographer and cameraman for an adult film director. Throughout the lease, Ms Bassett claims that 21 different videos were filmed at her property. Following the end of the Lease, Ms Bassett had to stop renting out the property as there was significant damage caused to the building and later due to the publicity that the property was used in filming the videos.
Ms Bassett then argued that not only did the video showcase her property but they had infringed her copyright on numerous of her self-made artworks which were hanging in…

NEVER Read the Comments!

The Federal Court this week delivered their judgement on Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Service Seeking Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1040 going all out by handing out whopping fines, legal costs orders and ordering Service Seeking Pty Ltd to establish a, undoubtedly expensive, compliance system to be monitored by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). 
What did they do that was so bad? According to the Federal Court of Australia, they created a system in which businesses could write their own customer reviews. With a rating system less defined than what constitutes a 5-star rating in an Uber trip, businesses could write a review, assign a star rating and send it off to their customer for approval. If the customer didn’t respond or even open the email containing the review, then the review was automatically published online after a set period. By estimates of the Court, approximately 80% of the reviews published on the website for the period that this scheme …