Taking on Taylor Swift (2023)

[bunniefuu]

Welcome to the Eras Tour.

Taylor Swift's Eras
record-breaking tour

has had some unprecedented moments.

There was seismic activity
in Seattle.

The Swifties danced
and jumped so much.

The equivalent of
a 2.3 -magnitude earthquake.

Taylor Swift's impact
on pop culture today

is extraordinary.

The concert, from my understanding,
generated billions of dollars.

One economist suggests

that Taylor Swift

through her US tour

could add $5 billion to US GDP.

If you're 8 to 80,
you know a song of Taylor Swift's.

In modern pop times

you know, you have
your cream-of-the-crop artists

and Taylor Swift is probably,
arguably, the tip of the top.

Pop star Taylor Swift is taking

her record-breaking Eras Tour

to the big screen.

There seems to be

not only a fascination
but an obsession

with what she's singing

who she's singing to,
who her friends are

what these songs mean to her.

We have a dedicated NFL cam

to Taylor Swift
in all of these games.

I've never, I promise you,
have seen anything like it.

She is the biggest artist,
like, in the world.

She's just, like, rolling in dough.

Taylor Swift is very modern
pop star.

But in some ways

she's as old fashioned
as it gets.

She still believes in magazine covers

and performances on late night TV.

She started off in the country lane,
and she moved into the pop sphere.

All of a sudden, she exploded
onto the pop music scene

with her 1989 album

with the first single
being "Shake It Off."

And this was massive.

"Shake It Off" was everywhere.

It's actually stuck
in my head a little bit.

'Cause the players
Gonna play, play, play, play, play

And the haters
Gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate

Baby, I'm just gonna shake
Shake, shake, shake, shake

- I shake it off, shake it off
- I shake it off, shake it off

We were used to seeing Taylor Swift

as, like, this kind of sweet,
strumming the guitar

talking about the boy next door
that she loves.

And then here she is
and she's standing up

and she's got her back up dancers.

And she's like, "You know what?

I'm hip. I'm cool.
I'm not here for the haters."

But she's not been able to shake off
the controversy from that song.

I was in my car in Atlanta
on the 10th and 14th bridge

going over the 75/85 split
when I heard "Shake It Off."

The first thing I thought
was the track was amazing.

And then the hook came in.

How does a person feel
when they come home

and they feel like
their house has been robbed?

That's how I felt.

One, two, three, four.

When I first got into
the music business, I was 17.

Back then,
getting deals was a situation.

Everyone has a deal now.

Back then, it's like

if you had a deal,
it's because you fought for it.

I met Nate Butler through a friend.

Nate was just leaving college.
He wanted to write music.

So, we met,
and we hit it off, like, immediately

and became, like, best friends.

And then, you know, of course

you know, not everything you write
is going to be a smash.

But we got a lot
of placements together.

We worked on Xscape.

We loved that song so much

that Sean produced.

I feel like people really appreciated

real vocals back then.

People loved R&B back then.

R&B was, I would say,
bigger than hip-hop.

So, we have this emergence
of black girl groups

who are very unapologetic.

And they're singing
a different type of song.

And I believe, truly, for me

that was the start of women singing
in a very empowered way.

My first pop hit would probably be
No More on 3LW.

You do or you don't, don't
You will or you won't, won't

- No more
- Yeah, yeah

So, within the pantheon
of black girl groups

of the late '90s and early 2000's

3LW definitely had staying power.

They had a steady fandom.
They had marketability.

They could harmonize.

They could dance.

They had personality.

They had identity.

And they had something

you could hold on to.

Nate and I worked on

about three or four songs

on the LW album.

I think it was "No More,"
"Curious," "Playas Gon' Play."

When we were writing
"Playas Gon' Play," we were at church

and I did this track
right before service.

I played it for Nate
and he's like, "Oh, my god.

That's incredible,
that's incredible."

Service is over.

He's like, "Shawn, I got the hook.
It's crazy, it's crazy."

So, we go back to the house

he sings the hook to me,
I lose my mind

and we're like,
this is a smash, this is crazy.

We just knew. It's...

Sometimes, when you write something
and you get goosebumps

you don't know
if it's going to go number one

but you have
a really good feeling, yeah.

In this case,
we're talking about a song

that was legitimately popular.

While it wasn't "Shake It Off"

it was legitimately something
that was in the airwaves.

3LW's song "Playas Gon' Play"

only peaked at
on the Billboard Hot .

But in my world at the time,
that was a big record.

When I first heard "Shake It Off"

I was vibing with the song,
I was just in it.

And then when the hook started...

you know, my mouth
kind of just dropped open.

We knew something had to happen.

We had to take action somehow.

At least extend
an invitation to talk.

We reached out

and... didn't really get a response.

So, I called Julian
to get his perspective on it.

Julian Wright is a manager
slash business mind

slash a little bit lawyer.

You know, he went
to Harvard Law School

and took some courses there
or whatever.

So, we was like, you know,
run it by Julian, see what he thinks.

Immediately,
as soon as I heard the hook

and I heard "players going to play"

I said... that's 3LW.

Players gon' play

and haters gon' hate, you know?

Songwriters Nathan Butler
and Sean Hall sued Taylor Swift

claiming that Taylor Swift's song
"Shake It Off"

borrowed from a song
they wrote for LW

called "Playas Gon' Play."

In 2017, Hall and Butler

filed a lawsuit against Taylor Swift

because they felt like those lines

that "players gonna play,
haters going to hate"

had come from their 2000 hit song

with 3LW.

To someone who says
they hear absolutely no similarity

between "Shake It Off"
and "Playas Gon' Play"

between those two choruses

you would have to be listening
with three sets of earmuffs

to try and really argue with that.

Some lawyers reran the situation
but I didn't get it

because, usually, when people
say copyright infringement

nine times out of ten,
they mean the music.

"Oh, there's a sample in there."

Or "You used my baseline."

"You tried to hide it," and blah...

We were saying,
no, it's not the music.

We're talking about
the actual lyrics in the chorus.

It seemed at the time
that it was too common a phrase.

Sort of like trying to trademark
or to copyright "What's up?"

Everyone uses it.

At the time, that was
a very common thing to say.

Like, "hate the player,
not the game."

So, there's also, like,
a cultural component here

where a lot of folks
feel like artists

mainstream artists
like a Taylor Swift

has the agency to take
a little bit of black culture

use it at her disposal, remix it,
and wash her hands of it and say

"I didn't know
this is where it came from."

And it might not even be happening
purposefully or maliciously

but it does happen.

In the early '90 s and into the 2000's

you had to be edgy.

And you had to be comfortable

in your blackness.

And you had to be comfortable

in singing in colloquialisms

that only... that only
the culture could understand

that only the collective
could understand.

Player and hater,
like, words like that

it definitely didn't
come from, you know

a news feed or a country artist.

It came from in the hood.

Check it out, babe.

You say he's the smoothest player

out of the three of us here.

Hey, Uncle Phil.

Hey...

Don't be a player hater, my brother.

One of the original player...

from the Himalaya.

In the '90s and in the early 2000s

as hip hop and R&B
and black music in general

was just enjoying this tidal wave
of cultural influence

a lot of terms that were natural
and synonymous in the black community

became terms that were synonymous
in pop culture writ large.

So, think of slang terms like
player, hater, shot caller, baller.

Want to be ballers
Shot callers, brawlers

- Scrub.
- No, I don't want no scrub

A scrub is a guy
who can't get no love from me.

Scrubs was in my notepad
because I was like

"I'm going to use that
as a title to something."

You know, that was,
like, a little saying

me and my home girls
used to say all the time.

I'm like, "I don't want
no scrub either."

That was our thing.

I was like, oh, we need
to do a song, you know, saying...

you know,
called "Scrubs" or whatever.

I give you the definition of scrubs
the first line of the song.

A scrub is a guy that thinks he's fly

And is also known as a buster

Hello?

That's what a scrub is,
and now the whole world knows it.

With the Taylor Swift
"Shake It Off" case

it was almost a non-starter
from the get-go

because it was thrown out
by the first judge who heard it.

Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald
dismissed the lawsuit yesterday

ruling that combining the phrases

"playas going to play"
and "haters going to hate"

does not entail
sufficient originality

to warrant copyright protection.

The judge decreed
that this particular phrase

was too brief, too unoriginal,
too common, basically

to be a legitimate copyright claim.

When you're a songwriter

you pride yourself on coming up
with new, fresh lingo, phrases

ways to convey an idea.

All righty.

And when you do that
and then it's used someplace else

it'll make you feel a certain way.

You don't go through a process
for five, six years of challenges

not knowing what the end will be.

Cases can be emotional.

Ups and downs, sad, happy,
you know, excited, not excited.

Just... I wasn't nervous.
I wasn't scared.

We've gotten messages.
We've gotten death threats.

It doesn't faze me.

There have been points in times
where it's been a thing.

But scared?

I wouldn't say scared.

This situation is bigger than me.

It's bigger than my kids.
It's bigger than their kids.

This situation affects us
as a community, people of color

and someone has to stand up.

After that decision was rendered

Sean and Nate decided
to appeal the dismissal.

That's when I came in.

Combining those two phrases

and continuing with the four
lyrical sequences that are similar.

Taking the same number of syllables.

Choosing words
that have negative connotations.

You know, haters.

Choosing a colloquial word,
haters instead of critics.

- Choosing...
- I understand you're arguing.

I... But let me just...
My question was much narrower.

So, sure, the phrases themselves
might be common

but that's not what the claim is.

The claim is that Sean
and Nate put together

an original combination of phrases.

They took "players gonna play,
haters gonna hate"

they put them together
in that sequence in a chorus.

Sean and Nate, they're saying

not only are the lyrics
basically identical

but also, it's the combination

and the order
in which these lyrics appear

in "Playas Gon' Play"
and in "Shake It Off."

Taylor Swift's defense coming out
and saying, "Hold on a second"

that Taylor writes all her own music.

These lyrics were inspired

by commonplace phrases
that were used at her school

and that there is no monopoly
over that phrase.

I argued why the case
should proceed to trial

and Peter Anderson argued
why it shouldn't.

There have to be
concrete similarities

and what they're relying on
are abstractions.

There's a big difference
between "row your boat"

and "row, row, row
your boat."

Those are different things.

"Players, they're gon' play"

and "'cause the players gonna play,
play, play, play, play"

are completely different uses
of public domain material.

This is exactly the core
of creativity.

If I recorded a song today

that began "'cause the players
gonna play, play, play, play

and the haters gonna
hate, hate, hate"

would Ms. Swift have
a copyright claim against me?

If you're talking about identically
copying a series of words

we would have a fight
with the other side

over whether it's short...

Well, so tell...

You just said

"players, they gon' play"
and "haters, they gon' hate"

are not long enough phrases
to get copyright protection.

Are your client's phrases long enough
to get copyright protection?

Really, if somebody
just took the same chorus

that Taylor Swift
did in "Shake It Off"

and used it in their own chorus

I'm sure Taylor Swift will be suing
for copyright infringement.

We've got two extremes

where it's identical copying
of this exact number of repetitions

and we've got the plaintiff's work
where there's no repetition at all.

But I think no repetition at all
means it's not protected.

I think there's an argument
with this number of repetitions

it is protected.

Thank you.

Thank you, Your Honor.

I think that was also a point
that influenced the Ninth Circuit

saying, "Yes,
this case should proceed."

The thing that stood out to me
was more than just the words.

There were quite a few

structural things that I saw

within the composition

that's in both songs.

They're both used as the hooks.

A hook is... That's the chorus.

That's the part of the song
that everybody remembers.

In the "Shake It Off" lawsuit,
Taylor's team has been arguing

that the phrase "players gonna play,
haters going to hate"

that those two phrases are part
of the public domain.

That they had been out there,
that they're fair use.

They also are alleging
that it's a money grab

from Hall and Butler

that they see this as an opportunity
to make money off of Taylor Swift

because she's so
incredibly successful.

But it's obvious that Taylor knows
how the game should be played.

Taylor Swift wrote
Look What You Made Me Do.

Look what you made me do
Look what you made me do

And then she gave credit

to the three members
of Right Said Fred

because she said,
"There are similarities

between my song
and their 'I'm Too Sexy' hit."

I'm too sexy for my shirt
Too sexy for my shirt

So sexy it hurts

And your option is either
to change the song

or your option
is to reach out to the person

who wrote the song
you're worried about

and cut them a deal

get them involved
in the songwriting credits

and then everyone
is happy either way.

Very smart on Taylor Swift's part

because she didn't wait
for somebody to point it out.

She said, "You know what?
I recognize it.

I'm going to give them credit."

Clearly, she understands

that if there are more than
a few similarities

that you need to give credit
where credit is due.

Also shows that she is aware
of how the music industry works.

Taylor Swift as an artist
and as a businesswoman

has always kind of fashioned herself
as a champion for songwriters

and for giving songwriters
their credit where it's due.

I'm in the getaway car,
left you in the motel bar.

- Took the money...
- Took the money in the bag

- and I stole the...
- Took the money...

Put the money in the bag
and I sold the keys.

That was the last time
you ever saw me.

It shows you the complications

that even Taylor Swift

who is certainly an advocate

for her own songwriting
authority

is herself kind of roped into this.

The difference
between cultural appropriation

and cultural appreciation is credit.

If you like something, pay for it.

Cultural appropriation
is co-optation.

It's borrowing without giving credit.

Appropriation is just

outright stealing

and saying that it's your own.

It's that disparity
and that unfairness

that people are constantly
on the lookout for

because it's so historic

and it's so weaved

into the American culture.

Cultural appropriation looks like

not identifying the originator.

And it only becomes popular

in mainstream culture

when someone
who is not black decides to...

use it as their own
or make it their own.

I think a lot of people
are just now waking up to the fact

that most music genres
that were birthed in America

were birthed by black people.

And were stolen and popularized

by mainstream white artists.

The issue of cultural appropriation

really speaks to the roots
of the music industry

which have been

for as long as recording
has existed

has really been riding

on the back of black talent.

Some recording contracts
still say

the record company
will own the master

and any sl*ve recordings.

A sl*ve is a copy of the master.

The roots of these terms
obviously go back

to the very Birth of A Nation era
of white supremacy.

Almost since the beginning
of the music industry

there have been the feeling
that white artists

have taken from black artists
and made it into something

that they felt was more palatable
for a white audience.

And it happens in every industry.

In fashion, in music,
history, you name it.

The money doesn't flow.

The attention doesn't flow
to the black creators.

It is, in a way, h*jacked
by the white creators.

Little Richard had often said,
"I am the originator."

He would say that all the time.

And as a kid,
I didn't know what that meant.

It didn't really make sense to me.

But then when you look back
at the history of some of the greats

documented in history

there's such a soulful sound
that is undeniably from the culture.

I think when it comes
to copyright lawsuits

legal decisions don't have
anything to do with ethical ones.

And cultural appropriation falls
under that umbrella of ethics.

The Chuck Berry song
"Sweet Little Sixteen"

was essentially rewritten
by The Beach Boys, by Brian Wilson

as "Surfin' USA."

They're really rockin' in Boston
In Pittsburgh, PA

If everybody had an ocean
Across the USA

It's the same song almost entirely.

Become so excited

Surfin' USA

Brian even admitted

that he was rewriting
"Sweet Little Sixteen"

when he wrote "Surfin' USA."

If you look back

I think the George Harrison case
with "My Sweet Lord"

and The Chiffons' "He's So Fine...."

He's so fine, wish you were mine

My sweet lord, my lord

that's probably the case
that sort of set the table

for what we're looking at now.

I really want to see you

The generally accepted story

is that him, let's just say

ripping off
The Chiffons' "He's So Fine"

was an accident.

It was one
of the biggest songs at the time.

So, I believe George Harrison

that he could have heard
that song

and it could have subconsciously

influenced him.

Subconscious plagiarism,
also known as cryptomnesia

is when you copy something

without intent
or without realizing it.

The way that people make mistakes
with accidental plagiarism

that's just human nature.

If you can prove
that you independently created

a song that's substantially
similar to another

but had no idea

had never heard
of the pre-existing song

it's just purely coincidental

that is a defense.

He didn't deny that he knew the song

you know, it was a big hit

but that it was just something
that he didn't put together

and he thought he had written
a totally original song.

George Harrison lost that case

and was required
to pay a lot of money.

When you have these discussions
about music copyright cases

you don't have to prove intent.

That's sort of impossible.

But you do need to prove access.

In the case of 3LW

access is inherent
when your song was on the charts.

It was on TRL.

Please put your hands
together for 3LW.

TRL was everything.

LW and their fans here.

Let's make some noise
for Britney Spears.

Live on TRL,
it's Christina Aguilera.

Here is Eminem
with "My Name Is."

Adults were watching it.
Kids were watching it.

The industry was watching it.

That basically
was the ultimate playlist.

The music that you connect with
when you're 10, 11, 12 years old

that is among
the most impactful music

of your life.

You know, that's the stuff
that you're going to carry

into your teens
and into your twenties.

In 2008, Taylor Swift gave
an interview to J-14 magazine

in which she said
that she grew up watching TRL

and she was a huge fan.

I literally grew up
watching TRL, but...

But in August 2022, under oath,
Taylor Swift submitted a declaration.

In it, she states, "I listened
to country music almost exclusively.

In my house, we played CDs
and rarely played the radio.

When I listened to the radio,
it was generally country music.

I did not watch the MTV show TRL

and I did not go to clubs
during this time."

I believe it.

Taylor Swift grew up
on a Christmas tree farm.

And, you know, she...
we've seen the early videos of her

you know, playing the guitar
from when she was a little girl

and she started
as a country music artist.

Taylor Swift also says
in this declaration

"Until learning about
plaintiff's claim in 2017

I had never heard
the song 'Playas Gon' Play'

and had never heard
of that song or the group TLW."

The shade.

"I have never seen
a 'Playas Gon' Play' music video."

"'Shake It Off'
was composed independently

of 'Playas Gon' Play.'"

Taylor goes on for pages

about the inspiration
to "Shake It Off" and her defense.

She says, "My parents limited
what I could watch and listen to

and did not permit me to watch TRL
until I was about 13 years old.

The lyrics to 'Shake It Off'
were written entirely by me.

I drew partly on experiences
in my life, and in particular

unrelenting public scrutiny
of my personal life."

Led Zeppelin guitarist Jimmy Page
is defending himself.

Katy Perry is not the only one

who is dealing
with a lawsuit like this.

You've seen this
with a lot of artists

in the past five or so years
with Sam Smith.

Sam Smith and Normani
are facing a copyright lawsuit.

Dua Lipa's Levitating

legal drama continues.

If you want to run away with me

I know a galaxy
And I could take you for a ride

Dua Lipa is facing
copyright allegations

from a pair of composers...

So, the answer to this riddle
When you're caught up

In the middle of the devil
And the deep blue sea

who say that the song
is actually based on a song

that they did back in the '70s.

It's more about composition
as opposed to writing of lyrics.

But then Lizzo, you know

a tweet ended up in a song

and it was a signature moment
of the song.

I just took a DNA test
Turns out I'm 100% that bitch

One of the first lines
on Lizzo's "Truth Hurts" was

"just took a DNA test,
turns out I'm 100% that bitch."

I don't know
if you can say that on CNN.

In the case
of being " 100% that bitch"

Mina Lioness truly
was the originator.

And she ended up with credit
because Lizzo was like

"I got to give credit
where credit is due."

Because one thing about social media

when they come for you,
they come with receipts.

If you have a successful song
that charts

someone is probably
going to come after you

and claim that they wrote
something similar.

It's so common

especially in the last seven years
since the "Blurred Lines" trial.

I hate these blurred lines

I know you want it

There's an age old
music industry saying

"where there's a hit,
there's a writ."

Many in the music industry today

shocked by a jury's decision

that the artists behind

the hit song "Blurred Lines"

stole it from Marvin Gaye.

"Blurred Lines" was a sensation.

I mean, it was

the number one song
in the world.

Jane Gaye, Marvin's wife

immediately believed

that it copied Marvin's

"Got to Give It Up."

Because I was too nervous

To really get down

Did you immediately recognize

the song, the similarity?

Absolutely.

Didn't take more than a minute.

It didn't help Pharrell Williams
or Robin Thicke

that Robin Thicke admitted
that he was inspired.

One of my favorite songs of all time

was Marvin Gaye's
"Got to Give It Up."

And so, we tried to, you know,
get a little groove like that going.

That was almost
an admission of guilt.

And I know if Marvin were alive

he wouldn't have stood for it.

Jan called me and said,
"Hey, Richard."

And I was like, "I'm in."

Marvin Gaye's family won $ 5.3 million

after a dispute over...

But a federal jury in California said

it was much more than inspiration.

It was copyright infringement.

But they're not always successful.

How similar can two songs be

before it's considered
copyright infringement?

That is what a Manhattan jury

is weighing in deciding

a high profile case

against British pop star Ed Sheeran.

Ed Sheeran has prevailed in a case

where someone accused him
and it wasn't successful.

Vindication for singer Ed Sheeran.

A jury found he did not
commit copyright infringement.

I'm obviously very happy
with the outcome of the case

and it looks like I'm not having
to retire from my day job after all.

As a music journalist,
one of the questions

that I always used to ask artists
when I would interview them

especially when they have
a new album coming out

is "What were you listening to

around the time
that you created this album?

Who was inspiring you?"

You can't ask that question anymore

because if they say "I was listening
to a lot of David Bowie"

and then the David Bowie estate says

"This sounds
a little bit like 'Fame.'

We're going to sue you"

then my interview with this person
now becomes an admission of guilt.

Everyone should just say
their influences are like

Beethoven and Mozart.

Can't get sued there.

Claims like this
are way too common now

and have become a culture
where a claim is made with the idea

that a settlement will be cheaper
than taking it to court

even if there's no base
for the claim.

It's really damaging
to the songwriting industry.

Everyone in the music industry

is sort of looking
over their shoulder

and feeling like they might be next.

You say I'm different

'Cause you don't get to me anymore

Well, I think I'm better off
Than I ever was before

I've learned in this game, like

when you have a hit song,
you're probably going to get sued.

Let me record that real quick.

It's just what the facts are.

And if you haven't
been sued yet, just wait.

Or you're not doing
something right.

I don't know.

The little secret here that unites
all of these controversies is

we have 12 keys.

There's no way to write a song

that is 100% completely
out of nowhere, original.

What makes it original
is what is your perspective?

Breakfast at Tiffany's
And bottles of bubbles

Girls with tattoos
Who like getting in trouble

So, I worked with Ariana on " 7 Rings"

and it was an incredible experience.

Just... we threw it back
with just taking a classic melody

with "Favorite Things."

Girls in white dresses
With blue satin sashes

Snowflakes that stay
On my nose and eyelashes

It started over those simple...

That simple little thing.

And then taking it
to the future, though

and doing a completely
different interpretation of it.

My wrist, stop watchin'
My neck is flossy

Make big deposits
My gloss is poppin'

It was a little bit scary because
you're taking this iconic song

and we're literally trapping it out
and making it and being like

my wrist, my butt,
and all of those other things.

And they could have
been like, "Oh, no...

We cannot have this iconic song,
like, sounding like this."

Ariana Grande agreed to sign over
90% of the royalties of that song

to the estate

of Rodgers and Hammerstein.

She got permission from them

and that was the deal that they made.

After having a few conversations
and figuring it all out

and us all being like, "Man, okay,
is it worth it to keep it in there?

It is? Let's go."

Originality is so much more about
taking something that you love

filtering it through your perspective

filtering it through
your other influences

blending everything together.

And I think that's the thing
that someone like Olivia Rodrigo

does pretty well.

She comes on the scene.

Her first song
is called "Driver's License."

Red lights, stop signs

I still see your face
In the white cars, front yards

Olivia Rodrigo

huge pop success, obviously

and a very post-Taylor Swift

kind of songwriter.

An avowed Swiftie.

I'm just the biggest Swiftie

in the whole world. So, I, like

tweet about her all the time.

This is also the irony
of the Taylor Swift situation.

Which is that, Olivia Rodrigo

she said, how she wrote
the song "Deja Vu."

Do you get deja vu
When she's with you

And she said, you know,
"I really loved 'Cruel Summer'..."

It's a cruel summer

"Taylor Swift's song,
one of my favorite songs

and I wanted to get
that same kind of vibe."

Breakable heaven, but, ooh

It's a cruel summer with you

Annie Clark helped write it
with Taylor and Jack Antonoff

and those are, like, my three
favorite people in the whole world.

They're, like, my three
favorite musicians ever.

Olivia Rodrigo

on her debut album Sour

gave Taylor Swift

writing credits on two songs.

She has said that Taylor

has inspired her

inspired her music.

There's irony in Olivia

doing this for Taylor

when Taylor is not trying
to do this for the two men

who are suing her
about "Shake It Off."

And maybe
that's all Sean Hall wanted.

And if that's the case

then I do understand them
being kind of upset.

It's challenging.

This situation is challenging
because, you know, it's been a while.

It's been going on for a long time,
and it's personal.

It feels personal.

Again, when you respect other artists

when you respect
other songwriters

you give credit
where credit is due.

And you obtain a license.

I definitely feel like
if there was a conversation

with Taylor or her team,
things would be a lot different.

We probably wouldn't
be talking right now.

We would have figured out
what worked for both parties

and it would have been done.

And that's what we expected.

That's what we thought
was going to happen

because it happens every day.

If we know anything
about Taylor Swift

it's that she does not
shy away from a fight.

Taylor Swift has become a sort of

unexpected champion
of creator's rights.

When she went after Spotify...

Abruptly pulling all of her albums

from the streaming service Spotify.

for their rates, which are paltry.

She has taken on Apple...

Apple completely changed its policies
that they spent months negotiating.

And it shows that she has

unbelievable power.

which she said didn't pay

the creators fairly, which is true.

You know, as a songwriter advocate,
she's really done tremendous work.

Taylor Swift is making

big news this morning.

She's bringing her music back
to streaming services.

She used her platform
to be able to help other artists.

She has been around for
almost 20 years at this point.

And... Oh, my god, I'm old.

She has had
so many different feuds

and so many
different controversies.

I'mma let you finish.

Fights she has waged.

Like, I mean, literally

the attorney general is now
investigating Ticketmaster

because the Swifties
couldn't get their tickets.

You know what I mean?

If you want to get something done

get it done with Taylor
and the Swifties.

I'm still someone who is the first
to apologize when I'm wrong.

But I think I'm better

at standing up for myself

when I've been wronged.

Team Taylor
versus team everybody else.

The list just goes on and on.

When you go up against
a star like Taylor Swift

you're going up against a machine.

It goes beyond David and Goliath.

Think of like half a David
against, like, two times Goliath.

And this time, maybe David
doesn't have God on his side.

Sean and Nate's legal team
had a plan all along

that they were going to
go to trial

because they wanted to hear

from Taylor Swift herself.

We will ask for depositions
for the songwriters

including Taylor Swift.

And then the jury will be selected

and this case will be tried
in federal court in Los Angeles.

Yes, we expect
Taylor Swift to testify.

We're hoping it will be.

It probably will be a media circus.

I didn't say they haven't offered it.

I also didn't say that they did.

You know, settlement negotiations
between parties are confidential

and cannot be discussed in public.

Can this case settle?
Anything is possible.

It's like, it's really hard to know
where your sympathy lays

in these situations.

But in terms of "Shake It Off"

look, she has so many hits
to her name

that giving up 50% of this one song
is not going to break the bank.

She's going to be absolutely fine.

And, you know, many artists have
preemptively gone through this step.

And I wouldn't be surprised
if they settled, too

because the publicness of a trial

I think, is much more
damaging ultimately

and the payout could be much larger.

It was a quiet Monday, slow news day.

And all of a sudden,
my phone is going off.

Taylor Swift has finally shaken off

a copyright infringement lawsuit

over "Shake It Off."

It's a copyright infringement case

with huge industry implications.

The judge dismissed the case

with prejudice that...

Swift denied the allegations

and now both sides

have agreed to end the suit.

No word on the terms

of any settlement

between the parties.

The lawsuit has been dropped.

It's been dismissed.

There's gonna be no trial

and everybody is wondering,
how did this happen?

And why?

So, there's a question
of who wins, right?

Are there winners
or losers in this case?

And I honestly think
there are no winners, no losers.

And I think, ultimately,
their stalemate is a win for music

because it opens the door

for each nuanced case
that comes after it

to be judged on its own merit

and without the noise
of the precedent

that would have been set
if Taylor Swift won

or if Sean and Nathan won.

But if she would have won this case

it could have been
a nail in the coffin

for multiple small artists

who feel like their influence
and impact has influenced

large swaths of people and megastars

and they don't get to see
any of the benefit of that.

And the folks
that usually experience that

are black folks.

When you have black success

it resonates so much more

in the black community

and in the brown community.

And then you have
a mainstream artist come

and try to replicate that

it's like, well, what can we have?

Everyone who creates art stands
on someone's shoulder

whether they consume that art.

You might not be directly
influenced by this person

but you're influenced by someone
who is influenced by someone

that you're inspired by.

You know, a lot of people said,
you know, her pockets are deep

and, you know,
her reach is far, and...

Do you know what this weight
is you're about to lift?

Do you understand the size
and magnitude of it?

I said, "Yeah, I get it."

But we don't want to be used.

And we don't want to be appropriated.

What advice would you give to anyone
who wants to become a singer?

Get a good lawyer.