Skip to main content
Legally Insightful

Everyday Law Insights

Music Copyright Cases: Taylor Swift, Blurred Lines and More

Jurisdiction: United States, with Australian comparison; historical case commentary. Reviewed 27 October 2026.

Music copyright disputes ask what protected expression was copied, not merely whether two songs share a style. The title’s phrase “vexatious litigants” is rhetorical; this article does not report a judicial declaration that the named claimants were vexatious.

Taylor Swift: allegations are not findings

The Shake It Off dispute discussed here included the claims of Sean Hall and Nathan Butler. The original article predicted a trial. In December 2022, the parties stipulated to dismissal and the case was dismissed, as contemporaneously reported. That procedural ending is not a judgment establishing that the alleged copying occurred.

Blurred Lines

Williams v Gaye involved a jury verdict and appellate review, rather than a simple settlement declaring ownership of a musical “vibe”. The 2018 Ninth Circuit majority upheld important parts of the judgment on the record and issues before it. A genre, feel or style is not by itself the protected work.

Dark Horse

The earlier account stopped at a jury award against Katy Perry and others. In Gray v Hudson (2022), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the later judgment in the defendants’ favour, finding insufficient protected musical similarity in the ostinatos at issue. The earlier verdict should not be presented as the final outcome.

An Australian comparison

Larrikin Music v EMI Songs [2010] FCA 29 concerned copying of protected musical expression in Kookaburra, not ownership of an overall musical style. Substantiality is not a universal percentage rule. The composition and recording can have separate rights, and each case needs its own evidence.

Neon musical instruments with the original Taylor Swift vs the World headline

Sources and further reading

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ASIC's $678 Million Super Warning, ANZ's $7.59 Billion Profit and the AI Inflation Twist

ASIC's $678 Million Super Warning, ANZ's $7.59 Billion Profit and the AI Inflation Twist Legally Insightful | Tuesday, 10 November 2026 | Australian law, finance, technology and consumer affairs A superannuation sales funnel can move hundreds of millions of dollars. A bank can announce a multibillion-dollar profit and still worry about customers under pressure. And artificial intelligence might make things more expensive before it makes them cheaper. Those are three of the more revealing findings from Monday, 9 November. Add Google's warning that Australia's proposed online-safety law could affect teenagers' access to Gmail, a new stage of open banking, and two international consumer-law developments, and there is plenty to unpack. The important theme is not simply that regulators are busy. It is that the details matter: who is actually providing financial advice, whether a profitability measure has a fair comparison, when a new legal obligation commences, and...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ten Tips for In-House Lawyers Navigating Change

Jurisdiction: General career commentary. Reviewed 27 October 2026. These ten tips are general career suggestions, not guarantees about employment or professional obligations. Apply them alongside your duties of independence, confidentiality and competence. Get accustomed to change. The economy can be unpredictable, and the good times never last. It's essential to be vigilant and prepare for tough times, whether self-inflicted or imposed by external forces. Embrace uncertainty as an opportunity and consider what steps you will take if things go sideways. Review your priorities during difficult times. Ask what work needs urgent attention, where the business faces material risk, what your colleagues need from legal, and which tasks can reasonably wait. These are practical prompts, rather than a proven formula for career success. Maintain a sense of humor. Humor is an essential tool that can help you keep a positive outlook during even the most challenging situations. It is important t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Trade Mark Classes in Australia: How to Choose

Jurisdiction: Australia. Reviewed 27 October 2026. A trade mark application must identify the goods and services for which the mark will be used. The Nice Classification provides 45 classes: 1–34 cover goods and 35–45 cover services. Class numbers help organise applications; selecting a number alone does not secure all goods or services in that class. Choose the actual goods and services Start with what your business supplies and use IP Australia’s classification tools to select accurate terms. A business may need several classes: selling goods and providing delivery, retail or software services can involve different claims. Once filed, you generally cannot add new goods or services to expand the application; a new application may be needed. Examples, not a complete specification Cosmetics are commonly in class 3, downloadable software in class 9, clothing in class 25, advertising services in class 35 and legal services in class 45. These examples are not a substitute for checking the ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Education, with context. Legally Insightful provides general educational information about law and finance. It does not take your individual circumstances into account and is not a substitute for advice from an appropriately qualified legal, financial or tax professional. Check the publication date and relevant jurisdiction before relying on information. Investing involves risk, including loss of capital; past performance does not guarantee future results.