Taylor Swift is being sued by the band 3LW for allegedly stealing the lyrics of her song “Shake It Off” from the latter’s 2001 song “Playas Gon’ Play”. (I guess we’re copyrighting the words “Playas gonna play and haters gonna hate” now? As if a zillion people don’t say that?)
Here’s a comparison, so you can judge for yourself.
Judging by the printed lyrics, she’s in the clear. I thought there might be some similarity in how it sounded, but that seems not to be the accusation.
(From the 30 seconds I spent reading the link. I have not delved deeply into the issue.)
The song in question peaked at 81 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the US in 2001. Taylor Swift was about 12 years old at the time. I think the argument that she’s never heard the song before is very plausible, and it will probably be impossible for 3LW to prove otherwise. And without doing that, they have no case.
Just to clarify, she is not being sued by 3LW. She’s being sued by the song’s writers, who are not members of the band 3LW.
Yeah, I just can’t buy it. The similar lines are just too common and easily written a phrasing for me to not believe Swift’s side of this.
“Haters gonna hate” is a saying that surely predates either song? So far as I know, “players gonna play” is not.
But for anyone who uses the established saying in their lyrics, the idea of repeating the structure VERBers gonna VERB seems so obvious that without any other similarity this claim of plagiarism is very weak.
This has been going on for a while now. I don’t think that the lyrics in question are eligible for copyright protection, and if I recall the case correctly, the court has so far agreed with me.
To put it this way: there has to be a modicum of originality and creativity before something can receive copyright protection. Playing is literally what players do, and hating is literally what haters do, so there’s no creativity there. Players gonna play and Haters gonna hate have been around in various forms since forever, so there’s no originality there, either.
More here:
I sit corrected.
The “original” lyrics are so awful, you’d think the people suing would be embarrassed to admit having written them.
Not that the lyrics to Swift’s song are much better.
Your second paragraph is why I heavily doubt the first. Surely someone else would have thought of it before that song.
And, yeah, this lawsuit is nonsense regardless. A three word phrase is too short for copyright, and it does not seem to have been trademarked. This seems to be people continuing to hope for dumb rulings every since the ridiculous “Blurred Lines” ruling. But the courts have already pulled back from this. In fact, I’m pretty sure Taylor Swift was involved in a previous attempt.
I think you might be thinking of the Katy Perry case.
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/katy-perry-defeats-appeal-dark-horse-plagiarism-case-2022-03-10/
You may be correct.