A Judge Scolded Taylor Swift For Trying To Get Her Legal Fees Paid In The “Shake It Off” Lawsuit 

April 19, 2018 / Posted by:

For the past week Taylor Swift has been easily morphing into that super-extra, entitled sorority sister everyone tolerates but doesn’t really like. First, she fucked up a classic cookout jam. Then in a surprise twist she received praise from the creators of said cookout jam (because they know they about to get PAID!) And now, in a move that can only be summed up as “have several seats little girl,” a judge is scolding her for trying to make the plaintiffs. who lost against her in a recent copyright infringement lawsuit, pay for her legal fees.

Songwriters Sean Hall and Nathan Butler filed the suit against Taylor back in September of last year once they realized that her constant “players gonna play” and “haters gonna hate” caterwauling on 2014’s corporate office party approved jam Shake It Off may have been a direct rip from a song they wrote for 3LW in 2001 entitled Playas Gon’ Play. They claimed they were due 20% of Shake It Off’s massive profits, totaling $30 million dollars.

The case was thrown out in February after a courtroom showdown that was shorter than Taylor’s vocal range. That should’ve been the end of that, but noooo. Not for Taylor. She countersued for the $75,000 she paid in legal fees to defend herself. That’s when the judge who presided over the case, Michael W. Fitzgerald, decided it was time to school Tay Tay about how the law works.

According to Page Six, Fitzgerald let Taylor know that although the suit may appear like a money shakedown, it’s not entirely too unbelievable that she stole from their song.

“There are at least colorable arguments on both sides,” the judge said.

Fitzgerald also claimed that demands for the plaintiffs to cover Swift’s legal fees defied the Copyright Act’s goal of “striking a balance” between rewarding a creator’s work and allowing others to build on it. The jurist then dismissed the claim the Swift team tried to position as a deterrent to other frivolous suits as an unwarranted money grab.

“Put more bluntly,” the judge wrote, “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.”

Perhaps Taylor should have just skipped her little ass home after the first ruling to write more love songs about rainbows to save herself the embarrassment. But who I really feel bad for are both Nathan and Sean. Not because they lost their suit, but because they really must be hard up for cash if they thought anyone would have believed this mess. Taylor took slang, old unused slang, and dropped it in a song that should only be broken out for pep rallies and wedding receptions. Y’all really tried it with this one.

Pic: Wenn

Our commenting rules: Don't be racist or bigoted, or get into long-ass fights, or go way off topic when not in an Open Post. Also, promoting adblockers is not allowed. And some comment threads will be pre-moderated, so it may take a second for your comment to show up if it's approved.

alt="drupal analytics" >