• Last month, attorneys for Taylor Swift requested to recoup about $75,000 in legal fees after judge Michael Fitzgerald threw out a “Shake It Off” lawsuit brought by two songwriters who'd claimed that Swift's 1989 lead single ripped off lyrics from one of their songs.
• Songwriters Sean Hall and Nathan Butler, who wrote “Playas Gon’ Play,” a song by American R&B girl group 3LW, had sued Swift in September for allegedly copying the lyrics - “playas gonna play” and “haters gonna hate” - from their 2001 song.
• Swift's lawyers argued that Hall and Butler are successful songwriters and producers and are perfectly capable of bearing the attorneys' fees they caused the defendant (Swift) to incur.
• The judge however wasn't having any of it stating, “Regardless of Plaintiffs' level of industry success, the Court is comfortable in conluding that the singer and songwriters of “Shake it Off” (which is on an album, of which more than 10 million units have been sold worldwide) are perfectly capable of bearing the approximately $75,000 attorneys' fees that they request through the present Motion. The compensation factor is thus neutral.”
• “Put more bluntly, if the Court's only choice were between awarding fees to Defendants based on the Complaint or fees to Plaintiffs based on the Motion, the Court would without hesitation award the fees to Plaintiffs,” adds the judge.
• “There are very few recording artists, if any, who have a greater interest than Ms. Swift in a robust regime of copyright law. Be careful what you wish for,” Fitzgerald wrote. “Having considered all the fee-award factors, and appropriately weighing objective reasonableness following Kirtsaeng, the Court need not consider the argument of the parties about the appropriateness of the claimed fees. The Motion is DENIED.”
This is very good stuff.— Bill Donahue (@Bill__Donahue) April 16, 2018
A federal judge just politely reminded Taylor Swift that it may not be in her best interest to argue that people should be punished for enforcing copyrights: pic.twitter.com/LoMp6bJwWr
Yesterday's order had plenty of other good bits that I didn't tweet out, like the judge "bluntly" saying that he'd rather give fees to the plaintiffs than to Swift: pic.twitter.com/u0foPWmIm4— Bill Donahue (@Bill__Donahue) April 17, 2018
Or this one, where the judge is aggressively unconcerned about Swift covering the costs of the case: pic.twitter.com/ceUAboTimm— Bill Donahue (@Bill__Donahue) April 17, 2018
ONTD, do you have a good lawyer?
Sources: 1 | 2 | 3