The jury in the Taylor Swift groping lawsuit ruled in favor of the pop star after four hours of deliberation. Swift counter-sued former Colorado radio host David Mueller for grabbing her behind at a meet-and-greet in 2013. Previously he had sued her for $3 million, claiming that her accusations were false. That suit was dismissed by a judge last week, but yesterday, the jury found in favor of Swift in her counter-suit. Mueller will have to pay her $1 in damages, an important symbolic victory for the pop star.

For Swift, this was more than a case of “he said, she said.” She hopes to inspire more victims of sexual assault to come forward. Swift recognized the uniqueness of her ability to launch a countersuit in which she was only seeking $1. After the verdict, she said: “I acknowledge the privilege that I benefit from in life, in society and in my ability to shoulder the enormous cost of defending myself in a trial like this.”

According to Swift, she posed with Mueller at a meet-and-great in 2013, and he reached under her skirt to grab her butt. One of the key points of contention was a photo from the event. In it, Mueller’s hand is clearly below Swift’s back. He claimed that he had just touched her ribs, Swift says that’s when he grabbed her bare butt. Her bodyguard and the photographer testified that they had seen him grope her as well, and her mother testified about the conversation they had in the immediate aftermath in which Swift disclosed what had happened to her.

Mueller was fired from his position as a radio host two days later. In addition to suing Swift, he also sued her mother and her radio promotions director Frank Bell. He claimed that Andrea Swift and Bell told his bosses, leading to his firing. They were both found not liable as well.

Swift has said that she plans on donating to organizations that aid women who have suffered from sexual assault. And she acknowledged that as one of the most recognizable pop stars in the world, she has a unique ability to be a role model for young women, as did her lawyer, Doug Baldridge. He stated during closing arguments: “By returning a verdict on Ms. Swift’s counterclaim for a single symbolic dollar, the value of which is immeasurable to all women in this situation…You will tell every woman…that no means no.”

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taylor Swift Vindicated With Groping Lawsuit Win appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Takes on McConnell

In his seemingly never-ending quest to pick a fight with pretty much everyone in Washington, President Donald Trump has continued his spat with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell by tweeting about him this morning.

Can you believe that Mitch McConnell, who has screamed Repeal & Replace for 7 years, couldn’t get it done. Must Repeal & Replace ObamaCare!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 10, 2017

Trump and McConnell have been exchanging words publicly since the Senate failed to pass a bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act a few weeks ago. On Tuesday, McConnell claimed that Trump had “excessive expectations” about what Congress could accomplish in a short period of time. On Wednesday, Trump responded to that criticism, also through Twitter:

Senator Mitch McConnell said I had “excessive expectations,” but I don’t think so. After 7 years of hearing Repeal & Replace, why not done?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 9, 2017

But if Trump actually wants any of his agenda to make it through Congress–take, for example, funding for the border wall–he can’t really afford to alienate McConnell. This latest fight is seen by many as indicative of deepening tensions between the White House and Congress.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 10, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Former CNN Commentator Made a Pro-Trump “Real News” Video

Last weekend, political commentator Kayleigh McEnany left her position at CNN and by Sunday, she hosted a news segment about President Donald Trump that was posted on his Facebook page. It claimed to be the “real news,” but it looks more like state-run media in countries that have limited press freedom–like Russia or China. “Thank you for joining us as we provide the news of the week from Trump Tower here in New York,” McEnany said at the start of the segment. She went on to list some statistics about the Trump Administration, like the recent unemployment numbers and what Trump has done for veterans. She also claimed that Trump should be credited with creating more than 1 million jobs since taking office; however, she failed to note that recent job growth mirrors the same trend that existed in the last six months of the Obama presidency.

Wow. Feels eerily like so many state-owned channels I’ve watched in other countries https://t.co/dqsLEfuLj8

— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) August 6, 2017

The video segment was filmed in front of a wall with the Trump campaign logo and most people thought it was pretty creepy. McEnany has also been named the new spokesperson for the Republican National Committee.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 8, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

With great fame comes great…er chances of being sued. Nobody knows this fact better than celebrities, and 2016 was no different. This past year we saw some of our most beloved stars entangled in celebrity court battles ranging from the bizarre to the just plain wrong. For the sake of nostalgia, here are our picks for the top celebrity legal battles of 2016!

10. Lindsey Lohan Loses to Grand Theft Auto

Lindsey Lohan suing @RockstarGames over Grand Theft Auto 5 character pic.twitter.com/5TPQpDnVRL

— RushLimpCall (@rushlimpcall) October 11, 2014

Actress Lindsey Lohan was convinced Grand Theft Auto V illegally used her likeness when creating its infamous red bikini girl, Lacey Jonas. As a result, she sued the game’s makers back in 2014, but it wasn’t until 2016 that her case was eventually dismissed. The overall judgement concluded:

[They are depictions] not of Lohan herself, but merely the avatar in the game that Lohan claims is a depiction of her.

Even if we accept plaintiffs’ contentions that the video game depictions are close enough to be considered representations of the respective plaintiffs, plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed because this video game does not fall under the statutory definitions of ‘advertising’ or ‘trade’.

Better luck next time LiLo.

Read: Lindsay Lohan’s Lawsuit Against “Grand Theft Auto V” Will Proceed

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Celebrity Legal Battles of 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Taylor Swift’s reason for missing MTV’s Video Music Awards Sunday wasn’t because she was snubbed or because she was avoiding Kim and Kanye. Actually, Swift had a pretty civic excuse–she was called in for jury duty.

The pop superstar appeared in a Nashville, Tennessee court room Monday after being selected as a potential juror in an aggravated rape and kidnapping case. However, she was quickly dismissed by the judge due to a different pending sexual assault lawsuit.

Davidson County District Attorney General’s Office spokesman Ken Whitehouse explained, “She asked to be left off out of concern for an upcoming trial in Denver where she was–she used the term ‘groped’–by a fan at a meet-and-greet.”

The “fan” refers to Colorado DJ David Mueller, who filed a lawsuit first against Swift, alleging that he was wrongfully terminated from his job at 98.5 KYGO over false allegations that he grabbed Swift’s butt while taking a photo.

Swift’s lawyers countersued, claiming, “Mueller did not merely brush his hand against Ms. Swift while posing for the photograph. He lifted her skirt and groped her.”

Because of this pending legal matter, Swift successfully argued that she couldn’t be impartial in the rape case. According to Whitehouse, Swift told the judge she would be more than willing to serve on a jury in any other type of case.

Before leaving the courtroom, Swift was nice enough to pose for pictures with fans, even filming a video message for one fan’s loved ones.

Taylor is doing Jury Duty in Nashville today. She took some pictures with fans. pic.twitter.com/jQunn8HcNT

— Taylor Swift Updates (@TSwiftPR) August 29, 2016

Taylor inside doing Jury Duty in Nashville earlier today. pic.twitter.com/OV0govxfEr

— Taylor Swift Updates (@TSwiftPR) August 29, 2016

Even though Swift was absent from Sunday’s award show, she definitely wasn’t forgotten. Kanye West name dropped Swift during his speech, which came before he premiered his new Flashdance-esque “Fade” music video.  West once again reiterated that he gave Taylor a courtesy call about his song “Famous,” alluding to their most current feud.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taylor Swift Excused From Nashville Jury Duty Due to Pending ‘Grope’ Case appeared first on Law Street.

The battle between Taylor Swift and Kanye West over his song “Famous” may become a legal one thanks to newly-leaked footage from West’s wife, Kim Kardashian West.

After Kim accused Swift of continuing to “play the victim” on Sunday night’s episode of “Keeping Up With The Kardashians,” she backed up her claims by finally leaking the videotaped telephone conversation between Kanye and Swift on Snapchat. The footage proves that not only did the “Bad Blood” singer  know about the song before its release, but she approved of its lyrics. However, Kimye may want to hold off celebrating, because that recorded phone call may actually be illegal.

But before we get to all that I’ll do my best to catch up all of you who are struggling to follow along because either (a) you don’t religiously follow all of the Kardashians on social media like me or (b) you somehow forgot about that awkward MTV VMAs seven years ago. Here’s a timeline of the drama:

• September 13, 2009: Feud begins after Kanye grabs the mic from Taylor during her MTV VMA acceptance speech for Best Female Video, declaring Beyonce’s “Single Ladies” should have won.
• 2010-2014: Kanye apologizes, then takes back said apology.
• August 30, 2015: Kanye apologizes for real this time after Taylor presents Kanye with Video Vanguard Award at the VMAs.
• February 11, 2016: Kanye releases a song titled “Famous,” in which he referenced the feud rapping: “For all my Southside n***as that know me best/I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex/Why? I made that bitch famous.”
• February 15, 2016: Taylor throws shade at Kanye during her Grammy acceptance speech for Album of the Year saying: “As the first woman to win Album of the Year at the Grammys twice, I want to say to all the young women out there: there are going to be people along the way who will try to undercut your success or take credit for your accomplishments or your fame.”
• February 17, 2016: Kanye flips out on Taylor’s “fake ass” backstage at SNL.
• June 16, 2016: Kim defends her husband in an interview for GQ, revealing that Kanye called Taylor before the song’s release and discussed it with her. Taylor “thought it was funny” and “gave her blessing.” Kim also claims the whole conversation is on tape thanks to Kanye’s videographers. Yet, in the same article a spokesperson for Taylor denies West’s claim, stating Kanye only called to ask Taylor to promote the song on her Twitter account. Taylor’s lawyers also apparently sent a letter demanding they destroy the footage.
• June 24, 2016: Kanye debuts the music video for “Famous,” which consists of a nude Kim and Kanye in bed, surrounded by nude replicas of several celebrities–with a topless Taylor on Kanye’s right.
• July 17, 2016: After venting about the drama on KUWTK, Kim takes to snapchat to release the footage of Kanye and Taylor’s phone conversation, proving the pair was telling the truth. #KimExposedTaylorParty starts trending on Twitter. Here’s the footage:

PART 1: Kanye calling Taylor Swift to tell her about the #FAMOUS lyrics. Courtesy of KKW. pic.twitter.com/TIiqxxzLUh

— TeamKanyeDaily (@TeamKanyeDaily) July 18, 2016

PART 2: Taylor agreeing to tell the media she was in on the #FAMOUS lyrics from the beginning. : KKW. pic.twitter.com/PbXUnGreas

— TeamKanyeDaily (@TeamKanyeDaily) July 18, 2016

• July 18, 2016: Swift responded to the videos with this note on Twitter:

That moment when Kanye West secretly records your phone call, then Kim posts it on the Internet. pic.twitter.com/4GJqdyykQu

— Taylor Swift (@taylorswift13) July 18, 2016

Now that you’re all caught up, here’s where the legality of the footage comes in. Did Kanye break the law by filming his conversation with Swift? It depends on the state.

Federal law “permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties.” This is commonly referred to as “one-party consent.” However, some states require all parties to consent to the recording. These states include: California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

This is where it gets tricky. It’s unclear if Kim and Kanye were in a New York (a one-party consent state) or California (a two-party consent state,) or if Taylor was in Tennessee (a one-party consent state) or somewhere else altogether. In the video Kanye references a Nashville number, but they could simply be talking about an area code.

If two parties are in two different states, the laws in either state, or even federal law, may apply–and California law is strict. Under the California Penal Code, a first-offense for illegal telephone recording can carry a fine of $2,500 or even imprisonment for up to one year.

The California Supreme Court also established a precedent in 2006, ruling in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc. that if a caller in a one-party state records a conversation with someone in California, that one-party state caller is subject to the stricter of the laws and must have consent from all callers.

So in other words, it’s unclear whether or not Kanye could face face legal charges for recording the call, or if Kim could be on the hook for distributing the recording. It will be interesting to see whether or not Taylor’s team chooses to pursue legal action.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Kanye Break the Law By Recording Taylor Swift’s Phone Call? appeared first on Law Street.

Kesha’s contract dispute with Sony Entertainment is off to a rough start after a New York judge denied a preliminary injunction against her alleged rapist and music producer Dr. Luke on Friday. This is inevitably a huge blow for the “Timber” pop star, whose career has been on an indefinite hiatus while she’s battled to be released from her recording contract with Sony and Luke’s Kemosabe Records.

New York Supreme Court Justice Shirley Kornreich sided with Dr. Luke, born Luke Gottwald, and Sony stating, “You’re asking the court to decimate a contract that was heavily negotiated and typical for the industry.” Even though Kesha claims Dr. Luke drugged, raped, and verbally and physically abused her for 10 years, the judge determined there wasn’t sufficient evidence present to support her claims, or release her immediately from the contracts.

During the proceedings Sony stated that, contrary to belief, it has offered to let Kesha work with other producers in order to fulfill her contractual duties, but the singer refused the option saying she feared the label wouldn’t promote her music as heavily if she wasn’t working with their biggest hitmaker, Gottwald. However, it’s highly unlikely that Sony would intentionally sabotage its $60 million investment in Kesha’s career by refusing to promote her work.

Dr. Luke, who has been relatively silent over the scandal, finally broke his silence and publicly denied Kesha’s sexual assault allegations Monday on Twitter.

Imagine if you or somebody you loved was publicly accused of a rape you knew they didn’t do. Imagine that.

— Dr. Luke Doctor Luke (@TheDoctorLuke) February 22, 2016

Kesha and I made a lot of songs together and it was often good but there were creative differences at times. — Dr. Luke Doctor Luke (@TheDoctorLuke) February 22, 2016

But I feel confident when this is over the lies will be exposed and the truth will prevail.. — Dr. Luke Doctor Luke (@TheDoctorLuke) February 22, 2016

Even if Kesha’s case isn’t off to a good start in court, she’s already winning in the court of public opinion. Several singers and celebrities, including Lena Dunham, Demi Lovato, Lady Gaga, and Taylor Swift have already begun to come to the singer’s defense and lend their support. Swift even donated $250,000 to Kesha to help with her legal fees, but was later criticized by Lovato who argued that speaking out on the issue would have had more of an impact.

Even though Kesha lost the preliminary injunction hearing, the case is hardly over–in fact it’s just starting. Kesha is still free to try her case in court. If she does end up losing the case she will have to continue recording with Sony, but if the association with Dr. Luke is still too much, her only option may be to buy herself out of her contract.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dr. Luke Breaks Silence, Denies Ever Sexually Assaulting Kesha appeared first on Law Street.

There was a lot of variety in the top stories on Law Street last week. A Kentucky representative’s ironic attempt to curb Viagra use took the top spot, followed by Taylor Swift’s feminist Grammy speech that called out Kanye West. The last spot went to an issue brief analyzing Justice Antonin Scalia’s death and the potential impacts on the Supreme Court. Check out each of these top stories below:

1. Permission Slips for Viagra? Kentucky Rep. Gives Men a Taste of Their Own Medicine

In an attempt to match some of the sexist legislation that’s been passed in state legislatures lately, a Kentucky state representative has drafted a bill to create several new hoops for men to jump through in order to purchase drugs that treat erectile dysfunction. .

2. Taylor Swift Takes Feminist Stance Against Kanye West

It would be easy to brush all this off as a publicity stunt to draw attention to his album release, but this is not the first time Kanye has attempted to undermine Taylor Swift’s success. Read the full article here.

3. What Does Antonin Scalia’s Death Mean for the Supreme Court?

The world was rocked by the death of 79-year-old Justice Antonin Scalia on Saturday, February 13, 2016. Scalia, the longest-serving justice on the current bench, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan on June 17, 1986 following the resignation of Chief Justice Warren E. Burger. His three decades on the Court have proven to be legendary and exceptionally influential in the interpretation of law and the Constitution. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Anyone who has been on social media during the past couple of weeks has seen the slow descent of Kanye West into what we can only call apparent madness. From his eloquent assertion that Bill Cosby is, in fact, innocent (despite over 50 public accusations of sexual assault):

BILL COSBY INNOCENT !!!!!!!!!!

— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 9, 2016

To his admission that he is millions of dollars in debt, and the request that billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg bail him out:

I write this to you my brothers while still 53 million dollars in personal debt… Please pray we overcome… This is my true heart…

— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 14, 2016

Mark Zuckerberg invest 1 billion dollars into Kanye West ideas

— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 14, 2016

Then, of course, we have the lyrics in one of his songs on the newly released album “The Life of Pablo,” which are allegedly about Taylor Swift: “I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex / I made that bitch famous.”

It would be easy to brush all this off as a publicity stunt to draw attention to his album release, but this is not the first time Kanye has attempted to undermine Taylor Swift’s success. Let’s all flashback to the 2009 VMAs when he interrupted Taylor’s acceptance speech to tell the audience that Beyonce probably should have won.

T-Swift has reacted with humor and grace to most of Kanye’s gaffes, but even she had to take a stand against the misogynistic and disrespectful tone of this last attack. A representative of Swift said she was unaware of the lyric before the song was released, and did not by any means approve it.

While friends and supporters of Swift took to social media with their criticisms of Kanye’s misogyny, Swift used her Album of the Year Grammy win as a platform to call out Kanye, and on a broader scale, anyone who has attempted to minimize female success.

As the first woman to win Album of the Year at the Grammys twice, I want to say to all the young women out there, there will be people along the way who will try to undercut your success, or take credit for your accomplishments or your fame. But if you just focus on the work … you will look around and you will know that it was you and the people who love you that put you there. That will be the greatest moment.

This is not an unusual statement for the feminist artist, who has promoted self-acceptance and gender equality more than once on award ceremony stages. This particular feminist speech just has the bonus of shutting down the Cosby-supporting Kanye.

Keep being a fabulous feminist, Taylor.

Watch the moment below:

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taylor Swift Takes Feminist Stance Against Kanye West appeared first on Law Street.

This 2016, Spotify should make a New Year’s resolution to not get slammed with any more lawsuits. The digital streaming network finished off 2015 with 75 millions users worldwide, over 25 million who pay for premium services, and a $150 million dollar lawsuit. David Lowery of the bands Cracker and Camper van Beethoven recently issued a class action lawsuit against Spotify for failure to properly pay royalties to its artists.

NPR posted the court filing from Lowery, which states,

Spotify’s egregious and willful violations of Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ rights are highlighted in Spotify’s recent admissions regarding its failure to: (1) obtain licenses for the musical works it distributes and reproduces (thereby infringing multiple copyrighted works); and (2) compensate copyright owners for its use of their Works.

This lawsuit is just one battle in an ongoing debate between music publishers and streaming services., and the digital age may be transforming our music consumption too quickly for the law to keep up. There are usually two different types of copyright owners for every song streamed. The owner of the song is one, so usually the artist or the record company, and the other is the person who wrote the song or has rights as the publisher of the song. Undeniably, streaming services lack transparency as royalties get passed along to several middleman, then hopefully find their way into the hands of these different owners. Streaming services continue to strive for transparency however, citing most of their issues as the difficulties of obtaining rights.

David Lowery. Image courtesy of [Zopheus via Wikimedia]

Spotify openly admits to potential challenges in its royalty payment system. The company sets aside royalty funds for when a user streams a song and Spotify cannot immediately identify the rights holder. The suit argues that the retroactive compensation from the fund clearly shows Spotify’s negligence in obtaining proper license agreement and authorization prior to streaming songs. However, Spotify does make the claim that in the United States, “the data necessary to confirm the appropriate rightsholder is often missing, wrong, or incomplete” for songwriters.

In the U.S, the legal framework for songwriters has been around since 1941. Songwriters license their work to Performance Rights Organizations (BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC), who collect and negotiate songwriting royalties under a consent decree in a special rate court. Spotify seemingly does not have to negotiate with songwriters because the government sets the rates, but the framework is still admittedly complicated.

Lowery isn’t the first to have an issue with Spotify–in previous years, artists like Taylor Swift have taken the measure to remove their work from Spotify in protest of royalties. On Spoitfy’s Artists website, the streaming service explains its artist payout formula, which includes Spotify’s monthly revenue, artist and total Spotify streams, publishing owners, and royalty rate. The artists still have other deals they’ve agreed to with the record label, so they’re ok taking down their music from Spotify.

The payment of royalties admittedly is complicated. Maybe it is time for the court to modify the legal framework behind licensing music. The David Lowery case will undoubtedly reveal more about the future of music streaming as the ownership of music continues to change.

Read More: Streaming Music: Good Business or an Attack on Artists

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Spotify Faces a Class Action Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement appeared first on Law Street.

In case you missed them, the best stories of last week included an exploration of music copyright, scandal at SeaWorld, and a look at the hashtag #ThxBirthControl. Check out Law Street’s weekly installment of ICYMI it below:

#1 Copyrights, Sampling and Rock ‘n’ Roll: Intellectual Property in the Music Industry

America’s favorite (or least favorite, depending on who you ask) blonde is back in the headlines this week: Taylor Swift is being sued by musician Jessie Braham over the lyrics to her song “Shake it Off.” Even though neither the lyrics nor the melody of Braham’s song are identical to Swift’s song, he has launched a lawsuit worth $42 million, and has also demanded he receive writing credit on Swift’s song. Braham’s case seems less than credible and with the massive legal resources at her disposal, it is almost inevitable that Swift will never pay him a cent–yet Swift’s case is only the latest in a string of high profile intellectual property lawsuits involving pop stars. Copyright lawsuits against singers and songwriters are nothing new–but what are the legal bases for these kinds of suits? Click here to learn about the history of copyrights in music and the current cases in play.

#2 Post Blackfish: A Push to Change SeaWorld’s Practices

After the documentary “Blackfish” made waves, there was substantial outcry about SeaWorld’s actions, particularly as they related to orcas. Now, federal lawmakers are working to end some of SeaWorld’s most predatory practices. Representative Adam Schiff (D-California) announced a bill, the Orca Responsibility and Care Advancement Act (ORCA), on Friday that would prohibit the breeding of captive orcas, as well as prevent the wild capture of the animals for exhibit purposes. This would essentially lead to a phase-out of Orcas being used for show at SeaWorld parks. Read the full story here.

#3 #ThxBirthControl Empowers Women’s Right to Control Their Ovaries

Yesterday the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy celebrated National Thanks Birth Control Day, where women everywhere were encouraged to share the reasons why they love birth control on social media. The campaign aimed to dispel myths and raise awareness of all of the benefits of contraceptives, which makes perfect sense because birth control is pretty amazing. Read the full story here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

A $42 million lawsuit against Taylor Swift officially failed in court on Tuesday, as a California Central District Court Judge artfully put the case to bed. At the end, what began as multi-million dollar lawsuit ended with a judge quoting Taylor Swift lyrics in her dismissal of the case.

Jessie Graham, whose real name is Jessie Braham, sued Swift for copyright infringement, alleging that her song “Shake it Off” is a rip-off of his song “Haters Gone Hate.” Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish disagreed, saying in her dismissal, “At least for the moment, Defendants [Swift and her record label] have shaken off this lawsuit.”

Before we get into the details, it’s important to recognize just how ridiculous Graham’s arguments are. He claimed that Taylor Swift copied lyrics from his song “Haters Gone Hate.” You can listen to the song for yourself to see how similar it is:

In her dismissal, Judge Standish says that she could only find two or maybe three similarities between the two songs–the phrase “haters gone/gonna hate,” the phrase “Players/playas gone/gonna play,” and “some lyrics referring to fakers faking people.” But simply having the same words or phrases is not enough to win a copyright claim. More importantly, such a claim requires the plaintiff to actually demonstrate that the work was originally his. In the dismissal, Judge Standish shows how these phrases were used prior to when Braham’s song was written in 2013. I’m not kidding, she actually goes through the history of “haters gonna hate” and “players gonna play”–from 3LW to popular memes, which she also defines.

To sucessfully show that Swift copied his work, Braham would need to somehow prove that “Shake it Off” would not have been created without his song “Haters Gone Hate.” Doing so would entail proving that Swift had access to his song and that her work is “substantially similar” to his–and if you’ve listened to both songs it’s pretty clear that is not the case.

Judge Standish’ true colors, and quiet possibly her Taylor Swift fanhood, come out in the dismissal’s conclusion. She wraps it up saying:

At present, the Court is not saying that Braham can never, ever, ever get his case back in court. But, for now, we have got problems, and the Court is not sure Braham can solve them. As currently drafted, the Complaint has a blank space— one that requires Braham to do more than write his name. And, upon considerationof the Court’s explanation in Part II, Braham may discover that mere pleading Band-Aids will not fix the bullet holes in his case. At least for the moment, Defendants have shaken off this lawsuit.

Well played Judge Standish, well played.

See More: Copyrights, Sampling and Rock ‘n’ Roll: Intellectual Property in the Music Industry

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Shakes Off Suit Against Taylor Swift Using Her Lyrics appeared first on Law Street.

America’s favorite (or least favorite, depending on who you ask) blonde is back in the headlines this week: Taylor Swift is being sued by musician Jessie Braham over the lyrics to her song “Shake it Off.” Even though neither the lyrics nor the melody of Braham’s song are identical to Swift’s song, he has launched a lawsuit worth $42 million, and has also demanded he receive writing credit on Swift’s song. Braham’s case seems less than credible and with the massive legal resources at her disposal, it is almost inevitable that Swift will never pay him a cent–yet Swift’s case is only the latest in a string of high profile intellectual property lawsuits involving pop stars.

Earlier this month, Jay-Z and Timbaland defeated a lawsuit brought against them by Osama Ahmed Fahmy, who claimed the duo’s song “Big Pimpin'” had infringed upon the copyright of his uncle Baligh Hamdi’s song “Khosara Khosara.” Timbaland had already paid $100,000 in 2001 to secure the usage of the flutes from Hamdi’s song as a sample for the track, but Fahmy argued that the rights to the sample were invalid. After testimony from both Jay-Z and Timbaland, the judge threw the case out. Fahmy’s lawyer announced plans to appeal the decision, but with the massive legal power behind the hip-hop duo, Fahmy is fighting an uphill battle.

Copyright lawsuits against singers and songwriters are nothing new–but what are the legal bases for these kinds of suits? Read on to learn about the history of copyrights in music and the current cases in play.

The Complexities of a Copyright Case

A copyright:

Protects a literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pictoral or graphic, audiovisual, or architectural work, or a sound recording, from being reproduced without the permision of the copyright owner…the author(s) may transfer the copyright to any other party if she(they) choose(s) to do so. Subject to certain limitations, the owner of a copyright has the sole right to authorize reproduction of the work, creation of a work derived from the work, distribution of copies of the work, or public performance or display of the work. This right lasts for the life of the author plus fifty years; or in the case of a copyright held by an entity, for seventy-five years.

Copyright law is well-defined and there is a substantial legal precedent in the U.S. that protects authors from losing the rights to their content. However, modern music relies heavily on multiple producers and record labels, instead of a single artist recording and copyrighting their work. Increasing the number of “authors” increases the complexity of the copyright and leaves more openings for copyright infringement suits in the future.

Music has also been transformed by the introduction of sampling–taking pieces from a pre-existing song and incorporating them into the melody of a new song. Sampling in modern American music was born in the 1970s, as hip hop DJs experimenting with multiple turntables mixed samples from older songs with newer hip hop records. The 1980s created a new variety of dance and pop music, and sampling spread quickly from the alternative world of hip hop into the mainstream. When so many hit songs are reliant on samples, it is difficult to discern where sampling ends and copyright infringement begins. Most artists pay for the rights to sample a given track, but there are many pieces that are considered part of the public domain or that are old enough that artists assume that the copyright has expired on them, making them fair game for an unlicensed sample. There is also a “50 second/5 second, 8 bar/1 bar” myth in the music industry that informs artists that if they use brief enough clips of another song, it does not technically count as a sample and they do not need to file for the privilege to use that song. In reality, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2004 that:

The use of a two-second sample was an infringement of the sound recording copyright. The court went further stating that when it came to sound recording there was no permissible minimum sanctioned under copyright law.

Major pop artists who have to promote albums and perform in the public eye should be less likely to commit copyright infringement. They are signed to major labels that have impressive legal departments, are surrounded by handlers who vet all of their songs and work with production teams that are familiar with the intricacies of copyright law.  Yet prominent members of the music world still violate copyright law, both on purpose and unintentionally. The “Blurred Lines” case of 2015, which resulted in Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams paying $5.4 million in damages to Marvin Gaye’s family, represents the ambiguous nature of copyright law in pop music. Thicke and Williams did not directly sample Gaye’s hit “Got to Give it Up” but they claimed that they were “inspired” by Gaye’s work. It is not up to the legal system to police what inspires an artist, but that word can cover all manner of sins. Let’s examine the 1950s and 1960s as a case study of what happens when musicians are “inspired” by their contemporaries–and disregard copyright law on their way to the recording booth:

Copyright Conflict and Rock and Roll 

Copyright infringement is by no means a recent trend in the music world. In the 1950s, copyright law was hardly the organized mechanism that it is today and it was not applied to protect all races and genders equally. Well-publicized lawsuits regarding copyright infringement may seem like a recent development, but the theft of intellectual property has been thriving for decades in the music industry. One of the most infamous cases of plagiarism in American musical history involves black jazz and blues musicians of hte 1950s. Examine, for example, Chess Records, the Chicago-based record label that launched Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, Etta James, Little Walter and Howlin’ Wolf. The artists signed to the Chess Records label were pioneers of blues and rock and roll, influencing countless musicians, including the Rolling Stones, who named their band after one of Muddy Waters’ original songs. Although Chess Records’ musicians were legends in their own time, they were often denied paychecks or paid significantly less than their white contemporaries. Furthermore, some musicians blatantly stole content from the Chess Records stable. Both Willie Dixon and Chuck Berry filed suit against multiple artists for stealing their melodies and lyrics–the most famous of these lawsuits was leveled against the Beach Boys for their unlicensed use of the melody from Berry’s “Sweet Little Sixteen” in their song “Surfin’ USA.”

Then there is the problematic nature of Elvis Presley’s success. It is obvious that Elvis was an incredible talent who shaped modern music, yet his success also relied greatly on black rock and roll music. The famous song “Hound Dog” was in fact originally recorded by “Big Mama” Thornton and Elvis’ version was intended to be a cover, yet history has painted his rendition as the original. Presley openly acknowledged that his music was inspired by black pioneers yet he has consistently received a far greater share of the credit for the rock and roll revolution than any of his black contemporaries. Elvis did not invent the style in which he sang and danced, he simply made it popular with white audiences. Elvis did not directly infringe upon the lyrics or melodies of other artists, but imagine if he was singing on stages across the country today. Would Thicke and William’s “inspiration” argument apply to his music or would he be taken to court? If music is a medium that incorporates the most exciting aspects of our predecessors’ lyrical and melodic abilities, their stage presence and public personas, where do we draw the line between a heartfelt tribute and plagiarism? These are still questions we struggle to answer today.

Modern Copyright Laws

Modern copyright legislation has expanded and adapted to protect authors regardless of race or record label.  Beginning in the 1990s, the Supreme Court and host of other appellate and circuit courts ruled on various intellectual property cases in the music industry, largely coming down on the side of the authors. In 2012, the introduction of SOPA and PIPA represented a conscious legislative shift towards protecting intellectual property in the Internet age. In 2015 alone, ten bills have been proposed to expand copyright holders’ privileges and protections. However, despite this extended legislative protection, authors may still struggle to receive damages in a lawsuit. The Blurred Lines case was exceptional because it is one of only a handful of music copyright infringement cases in the past decade in which significant damages were awarded to the defendant. The defendants (Marvin Gaye’s family) had access to a powerhouse of a legal team, but not every author has access to such representation. Without sufficient funds and skilled legal representatives, many authors may not be able to pursue a lengthy and bureaucratic court battle.

Conclusion

Copyright lawsuits are not a novel phenomenon in American music. While the spike in high-profile musical lawsuits in the past two years may suggest that litigation is becoming more popular in the music industry, it is less the lawsuits themselves that are garnering our attention than the artists. When major pop stars are put on trial for copyright infringement, the spotlight is thrown onto the complex and unpredictable nature of intellectual property law. However, that focus only stays on the issue for as long as the pop star takes the stand–the minute they are acquitted, we lose interest in their copyright compliance. Many cases of copyright infringement are flimsy or invalid, but it is important to treat them with respect.  Our favorite musicians may make us dance and cry and air guitar, but they don’t have the right to profit off of other’s hard work.

Resources

Betsy Rosenblatt: Copyright Basics

Thomas Kennedy: The History of Sampling

CNN: Haters gonna sue: Taylor Swift hit with copyright infringement lawsuit

Manatt Phelps and Philllips LLP: Blurred Lines-The Sequel: Post-Trial Rulings Edition

Time: Elvis Rocks. But He’s Not the First

The Atlantic: Getting Elvis’s Legacy Right

Michelle Fabio: 8 Basic Facts Every Musician Should Know About Copyright Law

USA Today: Jay Z Prevails in Major Copyright Case

Mita Carriman: 4 Music Law Myths That Indie Musicians Need To Unlearn

Stanford University Libraries: Copyright Law Changes that May Affect You

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Copyrights, Sampling and Rock ‘n’ Roll: Intellectual Property in the Music Industry appeared first on Law Street.

Last night’s MTV Video Music Awards went much like you’d expect. Miley attempted to shock viewers with nipple skimming outfits and weed references, none of the jokes were funny, Taylor Swift won most of the awards, and Kanye managed to steal the show–but this time without stealing a mic from Swift.

During a bizarre 11-minute-long acceptance speech for the Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award, Yeezy talked about everything from how fatherhood changed him to fighting for artists…and a possible presidential run in 2020?

After rambling about “dying for the art” and “millennials’ new mentality” West said,

I don’t know what I finna lose after this. It don’t matter, though; It’s not about me. It’s about ideas. New ideas. People with ideas. People who believe in truth.

And yes, as you probably could’ve guessed by this moment, I have decided in 2020 to run for president.

**[Literally Drops Mic]**

Kanye hasn’t made it clear whether or not he was joking about the potential run, but he did make the announcement after admitting he “rolled up a little something” to knock the edge off before the show.

Watch Kanye’s full speech below:

Regardless of how serious he was, the Kardashian sisters were quick to jump on the “Kanye for President” bandwagon, posting their support on social media.

A photo posted by King Kylie (@kyliejenner) on Aug 30, 2015 at 8:00pm PDT

Mr West!!! pic.twitter.com/NuLlx9MnYT — Khloé (@khloekardashian) August 31, 2015

But Kourtney’s tweet was hands down the best.

pic.twitter.com/OdPQ9JlfYD — Kourtney Kardashian (@kourtneykardash) August 31, 2015

For those of you wondering why 2020, it may be because he and his wife have already endorsed their candidate for 2016.

I got my selfie!!! I really loved hearing her speak & hearing her goals for our country! #HillaryForPresident pic.twitter.com/zGpdcGSZBD — Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) August 7, 2015

But if for some reason he did choose to run this year, I bet Deez Nuts would happily sign on to be his running mate!

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Kanye West Really Running For President? appeared first on Law Street.

Taylor Swift recently wrote a controversial open letter to Apple Music about its new music streaming feature. Apple Music was offering a free three month trial as one of the new streaming site’s hottest features, but during that period artists and record companies would not be paid. That policy sparked Swift’s wrath, and opened up a conversation about the ethics of streaming sites.

Swift said on her personal Tumblr account:

I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service.

I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.

Apple acquired Beats Electronics last year for $3 billion, and on June 8 it announced details about its new streaming music service and radio station at the Worldwide Developers Conference. 

One day after Swift’s letter, Apple’s Senior Vice President of Internet Software and Services, Eddy Cue, tweeted a response that Apple will change its royalty policy. 

#AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming, even during customer’s free trial period

— Eddy Cue (@cue) June 22, 2015

We hear you @taylorswift13 and indie artists. Love, Apple

— Eddy Cue (@cue) June 22, 2015

Swift responded in  kind to the policy change:

I am elated and relieved. Thank you for your words of support today. They listened to us.

— Taylor Swift (@taylorswift13) June 22, 2015

While Swift and Apple Music got rid of their “Bad Blood” pretty quickly, this isn’t the first time that she has challenged streaming services. Back in November 2014, Swift famously pulled her music from Spotify and kept “1989” off of steaming services.

I’m all for making money and handling it in whatever way you want, but to me, Swift seems a little selfish. She’s one of the most prominent artists to remove her music from Spotify, and certainly one of the richest. Her letter went so far as to say,

This is not about me. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success.

But Swift may be in the wrong with that argument. When the issue between Swift and Spotify arose, Spotify stated that the purpose of its streaming site was to prevent music lovers from downloading music illegally. Although artists aren’t being paid as much as they would if they were selling a song or album, they certainly receive more money through sites like Spotify than if their songs were pirated.

So, it’s easy to question whether Swift’s intent is truly so generous. Furthermore, it’s easy to imagine that she removed the music for her personal gain because she wasn’t making as much money–just because Apple played along and fixed the problem for everyone doesn’t absolve her. If she gets into any other arguments with streaming sites down the road, hopefully she uses her prominent status to benefit all artists involved, not just for her own personal gain.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taylor Swift: Continued “Bad Blood” With Streaming Sites appeared first on Law Street.

We live in a world where fan communities–fandoms–are becoming increasingly popular. Fandoms fixate on a particular television show, band, movie, musical, anime, or other pop culture subject. Creation of content based on these fandoms has also become ubiquitous. People of all ages gather together on any number of fanfiction websites, ranging from social media sites that post stories and art, like Tumblr and Live Journal, to websites designed for fanfiction, like Fanfiction.net and Archive of Our Own. Some fandoms have even developed websites devoted entirely to fanfiction for a particular couple or desired couple, known to many as a “ship.”

When using characters and worlds created by other people, however, there are quite a few potential copyright issues. Fan creations have become so popular that some fandoms are even branching out and making money from their fanfiction and fan art roots. Yet getting the “rights” to your own work is a nightmare when you’ve used a couple from your favorite television show. Though some fandoms have successfully made the switch from unoriginal characters to new creations, many struggle with it.

Fanfiction and fan art are always going to be a part of fandom communities because they bring people together in a way so few things really can. These fandoms have created large communities all over the internet. “Harry Potter,” for instance, is still hugely popular in the fanfiction world, even though J. K. Rowling and Warner Brothers have successfully fought against fan creations.

What exactly are your rights when you take to your computer and write or draw that missing scene from “Once Upon a Time?”

The Official Word

According to a University of San Francisco law blog, fanfiction “can be considered a copyright violation under the Copyright Act of 1976, ” because the holder of the copyright has the right to distribute any derivative works based on an original creation. This often includes sequels, prequels, and art work.

One of the most famous cases of a fan-fiction author is that of J. D. California who penned a sequel to J. D. Salinger’s “Catcher in the Rye” and called it “60 Years Later: Coming through the Rye.” During this case, it was found that characters were granted copyright protection–in this case, Holden Caulfield, an iconic character in Salinger’s novel.

Many would argue that fair use may actually protect fan creations like artwork and stories from being copyright infringement, but many authors have still successfully fought that claim. Legal challenges tend to come more from book authors than movie or television show creators for pretty pragmatic reasons–fandoms often boost the number of viewers for television shows.

So why are so many publishers now actively looking for fan-fiction authors? In part because these stories are sometimes better or more successful than the canonical source material. One cannot ignore the success of recent fanfiction-based novels like “50 Shades of Grey.” Rebecca E. Hoffman for Bloomberg describes how “50 Shades” got around the fan-fiction ties:

But before they became ‘real’ books, they were a Twilight fan fiction series called ‘Master of the Universe.’ ‘MotU’ appeared on fanfiction.net and–with Twilight references removed and character names changed–was later published as three e-books by an Australian company that specializes in fan fiction publishing. Vintage Books, a subdivision of Random House, which ultimately published the Fifty Shades trilogy, maintains that the material is original and no longer based on ‘Twilight.’

According to a Washington Post interview with Jennifer Bersgtrom, Vice President and Publisher of Gallery Books, fanfiction is simply becoming a way to recruit talented authors. She stated, “fanfiction has absolutely become part of the fiber of what we publish. This is changing at a time when traditional publishing needs it most.”

Most fanfiction is safe if it doesn’t criticize or parody the works in question. Even so, the Internet and Intellectual Policy Clinic at the University of San Francisco points out that the only way a person would get in trouble is if the person who holds the copyright ever sees the work:

It is clear though that the law surrounding fanfiction is highly dependent on the copyright owner actually enforcing their rights and prosecuting offenders of their copyright. In cases such as J.K. Rowling in which she is choosing particular pieces of work to prosecute while letting other works that violate her copyright be published, the law clearly sides with her.

The Legal Dos and Don’ts of Fanfiction

The Don’ts

The biggest rule you need to know to avoid getting into copyright hot water is to determine who exactly owns what you are writing about. Some authors simply do not like fanfiction and are very open about that fact. Vulture says that “some authors–George R.R. Martin, Anne Rice, and Diana Gabaldon, author of the Outlander series, among them–protest [fanfiction’s] appropriation of their creations and ask fans to refrain from writing it.” They mostly target websites based on the stories, but have targeted large forums as well.

Some fanfiction creators also have some problems in that they don’t know where to draw the line. Typically there are concerns about RPF or Real Person Fanfiction. Celebrities like Chris Colfer of “Glee” and Taylor Swift have said that they find fanfiction and fan art uncomfortable, especially when it is explicit in nature. Swift has even gone so far as to get fan creations taken off of Etsy, though that may be more of a business decision.

Read More: Taylor Swift vs. Etsy Vendors: Singer Trademarks Song Phrases

It isn’t always easy, however, as every writer, designer, and artist has the right to make the choice for themselves where they want the line drawn and whether or not to take legal action. It is then up to the forum and fandom at large to enforce that line as they see fit, an important thing to remember when dealing with fanfiction and fan art.

Nonetheless, as Hugh Howey told Desert News National: “Just as there have been independent filmmakers [who] enrich the film industry, there are and will be independent authors who experiment and write groundbreaking works.”

The Dos

If you truly love a fictional couple, a storyline, or a show, you might still want to write fanfiction or create fan art, and there is truly nothing wrong with that. However, you should take note of a few rules to keep yourself out of the limelight and out of trouble.

1. Follow the rules of the online forum: Most forums that post fanfiction and/or fanart have been around for a long time for a reason: they know how to skirt the line. Look at the rules and FAQs of a website before you upload your latest “Shameless” story.
2. When in doubt, go for public domain: The Daily Beast points out that there is a lot of Jane Austen fanfiction. Why? Her works are all part of the public domain, meaning you can use the characters however you see fit. According to Teaching Copyright, public domain occurs “70 years after the death of author, or, for corporate works, anonymous works, or works for hire, 95 years from the date of publication or 120 years from the date of creation, whichever expires first.” If you are using something a little more modern, use a disclaimer, meaning make sure that you state clearly that you don’t “own” whatever you are writing about.
3. Take it down if you need to: Online musical theater troupe Team StarKid famously took down A Very Potter Musical when they feared that Warner Brothers would sue them. They re-posted the material after some severe edits and a disclaimer on the video–and then went on to make two more and were invited to the screening of the final movie. Most creators or agents will start with a mailing or a polite request, and you should probably grant it.

4. Don’t make money from it: This might seem like a no-brainer, but do not make money from your work if it’s based on someone else’s creations. Don’t sell your art or stories, do not get sponsors, and don’t use advertisements. You are saving yourself a load of potential headaches from the people who own the content.

Conclusion

In the end, the best thing to remember about fanfiction, fan art, and anything derived in any other universe is this: it is typically an infringement of the copyright holder. With that said, it is usually done with the best of intentions by fans and it often continues and strengthens the importance of the story being told.

When creating within a fandom, use your head to make decisions about what is appropriate and what isn’t appropriate and you likely won’t find yourself in trouble. It’s also important to note that if you are creative enough to take pre-existing characters and create new stories, you are probably creative enough to make your own original characters.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Copyright Office: Duration of Copyright

Additional

Bloomberg BNA: It’s Never Black or White: Is Fanfiction Fair Use?

Desert News National: With Fanfiction, is Publishing Following in Hollywood’s Unoriginal Footsteps?

Teaching Copyright:  Public Domain Frequently Asked Questions

Washington Post: From ‘Fifty Shades’ to ‘After’: Why publishers Want Fanfiction to Go Mainstream

University of San Francisco Law Blog: Fanfiction and Copyright Law

Vulture: Fanfiction Guide

CNN: Lawsuit Targets ‘Rip-Off’ of ‘Catcher in the Rye’

Daily Beast: Why Fanfiction is the Future of Publishing

Geeky News: Unauthorized Starkid Production Brings Wrath

The New York Times: Rowling Wins Lawsuit Against Potter Lexicon

Fox News: How Harry Potter Superfans Won a Battle for Fair-trade Chocolate

People: Fifty Shades of Grey and Nine More Examples of When Fanfiction Became Blockbusters

USA Today: Must-Read Fanfiction From ‘Doctor Who,’ ‘Star Trek,’ ‘Farscape’

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Re-Writing the Classics: What Are Your Fanfiction Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

Copyright law took center stage last week as not one but two famous singers took vendors and fans to court over their intellectual property. The number one article of the week is from Anneliese Mahoney who brought us the case of Katy Perry versus the vendor who produced 3-D figures of the infamous “Left Shark” from Perry’s Superbowl halftime performance; the second most popular post was from writer Morgan McMurray who threw the flag on “50 Shades of Grey” and its abusive storyline; and the number three article, from writer Alexis Evans, details Taylor Swift’s legal action against Etsy vendors making a buck off her song lyrics. ICYMI, here is the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Katy Perry Claims Left Shark is Her Intellectual Property and Files Suit

Katy Perry’s halftime performance at last week’s Super Bowl was really great, but it wasn’t without its moments of humor. Unfortunately, one of those moments of humor has now sparked the pop star’s legal team to file a lawsuit. Read full article here.

#2 Fifty Shades of Grey and Abuse

You may have heard of a small erotic “novel” (I use the term loosely), which once started off as Twilight fan fiction and has become a worldwide, bestselling trilogy soon to be a major motion picture. I am of course referring to the phenomenon known as Fifty Shades of Grey by E.L. James, which follows the story of timid Anastasia Steele and her BDSM-loving boyfriend Christian Grey. Read full article here.

#3 Taylor Swift vs. Etsy Vendors: Singer Trademarks Song Phrases

America’s red-lipped singing sweetheart Taylor Swift is at the center of another intellectual property dispute, this time with vendors on Etsy. The dispute is over several items, including t-shirts using her likeness and candles adorned with her lyrics. Swift’s legal team sent several vendors on the online DIY marketplace cease and desist letters demanding the immediate removal of their trademark-infringing products. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

America’s red-lipped singing sweetheart Taylor Swift is at the center of another intellectual property dispute, this time with vendors on Etsy. The dispute is over several items, including t-shirts using her likeness and candles adorned with her lyrics. Swift’s legal team sent several vendors on the online DIY marketplace cease and desist letters demanding the immediate removal of their trademark-infringing products.

This takedown spree comes just one week after Swift registered phrases from her album “1989” with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The phrases include:

• “Party like it’s 1989”
• “This sick beat”
• “Nice to meet you, where you been?”
• “Could show you incredible things”
• “Cause we never go out of style”

If you’re wondering why her hit song’s title “Shake it off” didn’t make the list, that’s probably because it’s because the phrase was already trademarked by a diet company.

The singer already holds a slew of other trademarks related to her music, which she has been notoriously protective over. She made headlines back in November when she pulled all of her music from the popular music streaming website Spotify, claiming the site didn’t adequately compensate artists for their work. Swift’s label is also quick to have users on YouTube take down lyric videos because they can be converted into mp3s that violate copyrights.

The Etsy vendors who received the cease and desist letters were shocked to have been singled out by the singer’s camp for making what they thought were just fan items. One anonymous vender told Buzzfeed:

We originally made the item for fun, we love Taylor and we had friends that love Taylor. We never intended for it to be a profit making item. The cost of the item covered shipping costs, and production costs with very little left over.

When we got the e-mail that the trademark infringement occurred, we were pretty shocked because while our item was popular we didn’t feel as if it had become popular enough to cause harm to Taylor Swift’s empire. We were shocked. And we were scared. We didn’t even make enough money for a lawyer and this had seemed like such a harmless and fun idea.

If you’re a T-Swift fan don’t fret, there’s still plenty of other merchandise with “1989” lyrics being sold on the site that Swift has yet to legally claim, like this classic coffee mug.

Taylor Swift is trademarking lyrics, but you can still buy plenty of T-Swift garbage on Etsy: http://t.co/pjAq73NDy0pic.twitter.com/9CLOSY94yE

— Fusion (@ThisIsFusion) January 29, 2015

Many are wondering how it’s even possible for Swift to trademark popular phrases like “Nice to meet you, where you been?” in the first place. Richard Rochford, a partner in New York’s intellectual property litigation group Haynes and Boone, explained to Billboard that unlike copyright law, trademark rights don’t require the phrases to be absolutely unique or for the applicant to have coined them personally. This makes it easy for artists like Swift to acquire rights to these phrases if they can prove that they’re profiting off of a phrase associated with their brand. Britney Spears attempted to do the same thing, trying to trademark her popular song title “Toxic,” as well as Beyonce with her alter ego “Sasha Fierce”.

Ultimately this is smart move by Swift, showing that the 25-year-old singer doesn’t want to messed with. By marking her territory now, she can ensure others won’t be able to profit off of her brand if and when she decides to produce her own merchandise using the phrases.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taylor Swift vs. Etsy Vendors: Singer Trademarks Song Phrases appeared first on Law Street.

Today music streaming sites like Spotify seem ubiquitous, but the truth is that they’re fairly recent innovations. As much as consumers appreciate streaming sites, they’re not always as beloved by artists and their collaborators. Read on to learn about music streaming sites, their history, and the legal foundation behind the popular products.

Where did streaming sites come from?

Since the mid-1990s and the era of Napster, the relationship between music and the internet has been rocky. Before most homes in America had a Wi-Fi connection, the only way to get a copy of a song or album was to go to a store and purchase a CD or cassette tape, or go through the painstaking process of recording the song off of the radio. As soon as more and more homes started getting access to the internet fans realized that sharing music with others could be an easy and cheap way to listen. File sharing networks were a dime a dozen, and anytime you wanted a song or an album, you could download the songs and burn them onto a recordable CD.

This obviously meant that many musicians, songwriters, and rightsholders lost money at an alarming rate, and record companies saw a decline in sales, profits, and even advertising. The response was abrupt: lawsuits against file sharers, program developers, and those who downloaded the songs. Lawsuits ranged anywhere from a few dollars and cents to millions of dollars. Of course, that led to bad PR from the general public and made people share music even more while being even sneakier about it. Eventually, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) stopped filing lawsuits and instead turned to internet service providers to monitor illegal usage.

All seemed to be going better, for at least a short time; however, streaming music came to the forefront of the industry and everyone started to get their music for free from websites like Pandora, then Gooveshark, Rdio, YouTube, and Spotify.

Streaming music sites are paid services–or sometimes free, as long as you’re okay with waiting through ads–that enable you to stream music. With Spotify, for example, you start the program, suggest your favorite artist or song, and then you listen to artists and songs that are similar. On some services, you can mix genres, so you can listen to the Broadcast Cast, Nicki Minaj, and Mozart combination radio station, if you really want. Every time someone listens to a song or an album, the artist gets paid by Spotify.

Musicians used to make money in a fairly simple model based off of album sales through record stores and online. It was convoluted at times, due to percentages and contracts, but at its core it was like any other retail endeavor–producers were paid for their product. Today, however, artists make money on everything from iTunes downloads to on-demand streaming to YouTube videos. Unfortunately, many of these methods generate little-to-no money for the actual artists.

Now these services have a responsibility to the artists and those working on the songs. The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) has just granted Spotify a license to stream more than 8.5 million musical works. Cloud-based music services, which Amazon, Google, and Apple have recently introduced, allow users to store music online and play back the music on any device.

In addition, there are fights among the bigger names in music. Entertainment giants like Disney have fought to extend copyright protection on some of their most popular and lucrative pieces of intellectual property, and musicians and songwriters would certainly love to have a longer period to milk royalties out of their creations before the tunes hit the public domain. With Disney leading the way, we might just see some big reforms on the horizon.

So, how do artists make money off streaming?

There are a few different ways musicians make money. If listeners don’t pay for their subscriptions, they get money from the ads that play every few songs. That revenue goes to the streaming site, which then pays the artists their share. Some users get annoyed with the ads, so then they purchase a premium subscription. According to Spotify, this means that the average user now spends $9.99 a month instead of the $5 a month they would spend without it. This chart from Spotify shows the relationship between money earned and music sales in the digital and physical formats. Spotify says that it “pay(s) out nearly 70 percent of (its) total revenue to rights holders.“

Artists no longer make money from the sale of albums or singles, but rather the play of songs. Many people think that this is making artists “up their game” and make albums with better songs, while many artists view it as not being paid for their art. Here is the official description of how they figure out what “per stream” means, right from Spotify’s website:

An artist’s royalty payments depend on the following variables, among others:

• In which country people are streaming an artist’s music

• Spotify’s # of paid users as a % of total users; higher % paid, higher “per stream” rate

• Relative premium pricing and currency value in different countries

• An artist’s royalty rate

Recently, these variables have led to an average “per stream” payout to rights holders of between $0.006 and $0.0084. This combines activity across our tiers of service. The effective average “per stream” payout generated by our Premium subscribers is considerably higher.

So while artists do get compensated when a streaming site uses their work, it’s not as dependable or as lucrative as brick-and-mortar album sales used to be.

Current Debates

When Spotify streams music, it of course takes a cut so that it can stay in business and pay employees. Everyone is happy, right?

Not so fast. It still doesn’t stop illegal download of music, nor does it stop people from piling on the same account, much like people do with Netflix. There has also been some backlash from the musicians themselves. The most notable is Taylor Swift, who refuses to let her album 1989 be played on the service, but also includes Garth Brooks, The Black Keys, AC/DC, The Beatles, and Led Zeppelin. Bette Midler, in particular, is against the services, with Billboard claiming she gets “microscopic micropayment of .00002733076 cents per track.”

Courtesy of Bette Midler/Twitter.

Pandora responded to the Billboard story, saying:

We love Bette’s music and certainly respect her advocacy for fair compensation for artists. But we must clarify an important fact: Pandora paid more than $6,400 for those 4+ million plays, based on our 2014 rates which are published publicly. In terms of compensation to the creative community Pandora remains by far the highest paying form of radio. Pandora pays songwriters a greater percentage of revenue than terrestrial radio. And Pandora paid 48% of our revenue in performance royalties to rights-holders in 2013 – more than $300 million – while terrestrial radio was required to pay nothing.

Of course, Bette Midler probably has enough money to last her, as do many of the other artists mentioned above, but what about artists who do not have as much commercial success? They may not be able to get by on such low payments.

Taylor Swift wrote an Op-Ed on the matter and defended her opinion to Time, saying to those who criticized her choice:

Well, they can still listen to my music if they get it on iTunes. I’m always up for trying something. And I tried it and I didn’t like the way it felt. I think there should be an inherent value placed on art. I didn’t see that happening, perception-wise, when I put my music on Spotify. Everybody’s complaining about how music sales are shrinking, but nobody’s changing the way they’re doing things. They keep running towards streaming, which is, for the most part, what has been shrinking the numbers of paid album sales.

Some musicians are defending the services, however. Bono recently said:

I see streaming services as quite exciting ways to get to people. In the end, that’s what we want for U2 songs. The real enemy is not between digital downloads or streaming. The real enemy, the real fight is between opacity and transparency. The music business has historically involved itself in quite considerable deceit.

Essentially, artists want a fair price for their music. But in a world where almost no one pays full “iTunes” prices for their music, is it worth it for those celebrities to take a stand? As long as there are only a few artists standing against streaming services, it will probably be a losing battle.

Trickle Down Effect?

Swift also defends her choice because she sees her music as an “art.” This begs the question, if the stars are complaining about what they get, what does that mean for everyone else? Alex Anders, a music producer and engineer who has worked with many artists, including the cast of Glee (which charts multiple songs on iTunes and Spotify when the show is in season), had this to say:

@NoelDiem It is the songwriters, engineers, producers, and studios, etc that are paying the price with their livelihood. They can’t tour!

— Alex Anders (@alxanders) January 14, 2015

So who is missing out on money when it comes to streaming? Those who fall into the “other” category, and they have to share a small piece of the puzzle. The Songwriter writes the actual melody and lyrics of the song; the Publisher pays for the music to be recorded; and the Engineer sets up and mixes the music.

The move away from a traditional model of selling music means that these people are sometimes cut out of the equation, or don’t receive as much money as they used to. Can this problem be solved with a restructuring of the music business? Maybe. But it will take artists working together with record labels, streaming services, and internet providers to make a real change.

Conclusion

Streaming music is still in its relative infancy, so it has the potential to improve for everyone in the equation. There have already been many changes in just the last few years. Apple is still in its first year of streaming, and more and more artists are paying attention to cash flow. Is it perfect yet? Hardly. Not by a long shot. But it is a much better alternative than the era of pirated music and zero artist compensation.

Sources

 Primary

Spotify: Spotify for Artists 

Pandora: Artist Support

Additional

Billboard: Bette Midler Disparages Pandora, Spotify Over Artist Compensation

Independent: Music Streaming: The End for iPods?

Time: Taylor Swift on 1989, Spotify, Her Next Tour and Female Role Models

Reuters: U2’s Bono Defends Under-Fire Music Streaming Services

Independent: Why Musicians Hate Spotify

Wall Street Journal: For Taylor Swift, the Future of Music is a Love Story

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Streaming Music: Good Business or an Attack on Artists? appeared first on Law Street.

Happy New Year! Get ready for a full day of listening to your friends, family, and every D-lister on the morning shows drone on and on about their 2015 resolutions. Diets, new jobs, and all the usual suspects will make the rounds no matter who you talk to, but here are some resolutions celebrities and politicians should be making if they were really being honest with themselves.

Rep. Michael Grimm

Start paying taxes; stop threatening to throw reporters off balconies.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Sony Co-Chair Amy Pascal

Leave racially insensitive comments to unfiltered grandparents during the holidays and not in emails to colleagues.

Latest Sony email hack shows Scott Rudin and Amy Pascal making racist jokes about Obama http://t.co/RrNLdhplvR

— NY Daily News Gossip (@NYDNgossip) December 11, 2014

Justin Bieber

Start the Justin Bieber “Center for Kids Who Can’t Give Depositions Good and Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too.” Also, avoid Interpol.  

President Obama

Figure out a way to differentiate the Baltimore Ravens roster from the Freaks and Geeks cast.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Kim Kardashian

Learn how the internet works; determine whether or not it’s actually “breakable.”

The 10 most popular stories of the year on http://t.co/M1Ru3U4Ixe http://t.co/SQUr0yv8JQ pic.twitter.com/OwzDevBv0Y — PAPER Magazine (@papermagazine) December 31, 2014

Zooey Deschanel

Don’t break any more horses.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Sen. Ted Cruz

Stop practicing puppy dog face in mirror. Face is beginning to get stuck that way.

Courtesy of Twitchy.com.

Taylor Swift

Bring back surprised face–people seem to miss it.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Shonda Rhimes

Take over ABC, rename Shondaland. Make sure all programming includes strong female lead with some flaws, an emotional kiss scene, and an improbable natural catasrophe.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Charlie Crist

Track down promised campaign donation from the United Fan Makers of America.

Hon. John Dingell

Keep being awesome.

Proud Michigan resident & dear friend @grahamdavis got a bulldog today and named it Dingell. I see no similarities. pic.twitter.com/aqKwGwMM9Y

— Rep. John Dingell (@john_dingell) October 19, 2014

Mama June Shannon

Take a break from dating.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Former Rep. Trey Radel

Stop throwing stones from glass house.

Ya give him a breathalyzer test every-time he votes…duh http://t.co/lX5ojfqnqu — starchy (@me_starchy) December 31, 2014

What other resolutions do you think they should make? Let us know in the comments.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Year’s Resolutions Celebs & Politicians Should Make for 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Okay, so it didn’t try to ban it as much as it suggested that it should be banned–in a poll asking readers to vote which word should be removed from the English language.

Which is still a problem.

TIME is kind of a big deal. I mean, it is nationally recognized for breaking news and excellent writing. So why would a high-brow publication imply that “feminist” is a bad word? And why in the world would it place it alongside words whose use absolutely should be forbidden like “bae” or “turnt”?

Apparently, TIME does not think feminism itself is bad. It just think the word is bad. Yes, let’s by all means quit using the word associated with such a fantastic movement. What would it have us do instead, telepathically communicate our feminist discussions? Keep fighting for feminism, but without talking about it?

The reasoning behind its inclusion on the list seems simple: “When did it become a thing that every celebrity had to state their position on whether this word applies to them, like some politician declaring a party? Let’s stick to the issues and quit throwing this label around like ticker tape at a Susan B. Anthony parade.”

LOL YOU’RE SO CLEVER, TIME.

Just because celebrities decide to discuss feminism does not mean it is any less important. Besides, celebrities discussing the movement keeps it in the news and in discussions. That is good! As for whether or not “this word applies to them,” doesn’t feminism apply to everyone with social or political views? As in you either agree with feminist ideals or you don’t?

To make its argument even more irrelevant, its cover girl this issue is Taylor Swift–a recently declared feminist–who even discusses her adoption of the title in her TIME interview. The inconsistency is astounding.

For awhile, “feminist” was the option that was ahead in the polls–thanks for the most part to troll factories like 4chan.com and 9gag.com, which have made news recently for targeting feminist celebrities by leaking their nude photographs.

Luckily, TIME editors came to their senses and discontinued the poll. Managing editor Nancy Gibbs even inserted a little note on the article:

TIME apologizes for the execution of this poll; the word ‘feminist’ should not have been included in a list of words to ban. While we meant to invite debate about some ways the word was used this year, that nuance was lost, and we regret that its inclusion has become a distraction from the important debate over equality and justice.

Thanks, Nancy, but maybe you should have caught on to the loss of its “nuance” before the poll was published. Instead of inviting a debate focused on feminism’s true meaning, you invited anti-feminists to exploit the polls and brought negative attention to the concept.

In response to TIME, I will conduct a poll of my own in which you vote on which word is worse than “feminist.” Tweet your vote to @TIME and be sure to include #wordsmoreannoyingthanfeminist. Here are your choices:

• Patriarchy
• Male dominance
• Rape
• Inequality
• Racism
• Bipartisan

Let TIME know what you think.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post TIME Ends Feminist-Banning Poll, But It’s Too Little Too Late appeared first on Law Street.

The midterms are finally over (thank God/the universe/Oprah) so now we can all go back to real life. Just kidding — it’s practically presidential election time. Your attention span and patience are ready for that, right? Well before you get into that, take a look at some of the top stores from Law Street last week that you might have missed in all the excitement. It was a clean sweep for writer Anneliese Mahoney who wrote all three of the top articles on Law Street last week. Number one is Mahoney’s take on Taylor Swift’s latest album and her decision to pull all her work from popular streaming music site Spotify; number two is an in-depth look at the three states with major marijuana legislation on last Tuesday’s ballots; and number three was a shout out who is generally accepted as the country’s youngest new elected official, Saira Blair of West Virginia. ICYMI, take a look at Law Street’s Best of the Week.

#1: Taylor Swift and Spotify: Never Ever, Ever Getting Back Together?

Taylor Swift made waves this week when she pulled all of her music from the popular streaming site Spotify. The 24-year-old singer-songwriter’s newest album, “1989,” was never put on the site, and her older music can no longer be found there. Read full article here.

#2: States to Watch Today: Marijuana on the Ballot in Oregon, Alaska, and DC

It’s been a truly whirlwind few years for marijuana legalization. In 2012, voters in Washington and Colorado voted to legalize marijuana use in those states. Others continue to decriminalize marijuana and allow its use for medical purposes. Today Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia will vote on whether or not to legalize marijuana. How do these laws stack up? Read full article here.

#3: Saira Blair Youngest Elected Official in America: Snaps for Her

Saira Blair is an 18-year-old West Virginia University freshman majoring in economics. She’s also believed to be the youngest elected lawmaker in the United States. At 17, Blair actually beat a 66-year-old Republican incumbent in a primary, and on Tuesday she beat a 44-year-old Attorney, Democrat Layne Diehl. She will represent a district of just under 20,000 people located in the West Virginia panhandle, close to Maryland, as one of 100 members of the Virginia House of Delegates. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Taylor Swift made waves this week when she pulled all of her music from the popular streaming site Spotify. The 24-year-old singer-songwriter’s newest album, “1989,” was never put on the site, and her older music can no longer be found there.

Spotify is a music streaming site that was launched in the United Kingdom in 2008, and has been in the United States since 2011. It is able to stream music so effectively because of deals it has worked out with various record labels. Labels and artists are compensated for Spotify’s use, although to be fair probably not as much as they would if they had actually sold the songs or albums; however, as Spotify explains it, there is tangible benefit for the artists. Spotify provides a service that’s convenient, relatively cost-effective, and easy to use. It hopes to divert those who would otherwise pirate or get songs illegally. In Spotify’s eyes, artists are better joining up with them and making a little money than not making anything because of piracy. Spotify explains its success:

Spotify has already made considerable progress towards restoring the value lost to piracy and other less well monetized forms of music consumption. As of March 2013, Spotify had over 24 million global users. 18 million of them were using our free tier, wherein listeners pay for their consumption by viewing and listening to advertisements. At that time, as well, more than 6 million users were paying a $9.99 / £9.99 / €9.99 monthly subscription to use Spotify’s Premium tier.

However, if an artist or its label does not want to have music on Spotify, they can take their music down. T-Swift is by no means the first artist to do so, and others simply never allowed their music on the site in the first place. The Black Keys, Beyonce, and Radiohead are all good examples of other popular artists whose music is not available to stream through Spotify. The argument is that services like this are predatory and take advantage of artists. Swift has long been against services like what Spotify offers. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed this summer, she wrote:

Piracy, file sharing and streaming have shrunk the numbers of paid album sales drastically, and every artist has handled this blow differently. Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It’s my opinion that music should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists and their labels will someday decide what an album’s price point is.

To its credit, Spotify has handled this marvelously. It’s capitalized on Swift’s retreat from the site by using it as a social media marketing opportunity. The music streaming site tweeted at the singer with a pretty creative message:

We love @taylorswift13 as much as you do. Here's a message we hope brings her back http://t.co/yRm5bfNV23 #justsayyes pic.twitter.com/1lj2JB1SMI

— Spotify (@Spotify) November 3, 2014

It also got some fun and creative use out of one of T-Swift’s more famous songs, again on Twitter:

We were young when we first saw you but now there’s 40MM who say stay, stay, stay. It’s a love story baby #justsayyes pic.twitter.com/n6tHkG8GCq

— Spotify (@Spotify) November 3, 2014

Spotify’s actions on Twitter really kind of sum up what this debate is all about–the Internet has changed how we do all of this. From how we listen to music, to how we respond to scandals, to how we are able to interact with the public, technology has completely radicalized all of it. T-Swift and other artists’ dedication to their art is admirable, to be sure, but is it really the smartest course of action? Spotify, and all other streaming services, are on to something here. There will always be ways to find this stuff illegally; you’re better off getting people to pay a little for it than nothing at all.

Now, T-Swift is rich enough and has good enough brand recognition that my guess is that this is more of a political statement than a financial decision. It’s a decision that she can afford to make, but I don’t know that it will create any real change in the industry. While it’s a shame that the music industry is no longer what it once was, I highly doubt that it will end up going backward and we’ll all revert to purchasing music. T-Swift may just do better shaking it all off and going back to Spotify.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taylor Swift and Spotify: Never Ever, Ever Getting Back Together? appeared first on Law Street.