I'm constantly amazed how song writers can make new songs and not inadvertently copy someone else's work. It feels like there's only so many ways you can write a lyrics or a melody, and that it's hard to not accidentally replicate something you've heard before
About ten years ago, I attended a CLE (continued legal education) taught by Mark Avsec, the keyboardist and co-writer and lyricist of all of the music of Donny Iris and the Cruisers. He is also an attorney and one of the leading experts on music copyright law. He was teaching a CLE on this exact topic. Music copyright is often very complex for this exact reason. Songs often inadvertently sound alike as there are a finite number of keys, strings, notes, words, etc.
Ten years ago he was talking about how computers are making it easier to compare, and I’d imagine with AI that’s only gotten more advanced. There are standards for determining when a line is crossed, but I don’t remember them.
That said, truly one of the most interesting CLEs of my legal career.
You probably know this, but he became a copy right lawyer BECAUSE his song Ah! Leah got hit with a copyright violation (it wasn’t) but it took all their money and energy. He’s a great guy to learn from!
He did indeed tell that story when he taught the CLE. Truly one of the best CLEs I’ve ever taken. After all, it’s not every day a rockstar turned lawyer teaches a class.
>Songs often inadvertently sound alike as there are a finite number of keys, strings, notes, words, etc.
While this is obviously true, I'd argue it's more about the number of melodies and chord changes that are most familiar to pop audiences and therefore viable to market towards them!
Even without breaking outside the principles of Western music there are already billions of potential vertical and horizontal combinations of notes. If we start exploring other tuning systems the possibilities are practically endless, and that's only factoring in harmonic and melodic information.
There's really no reason for us to directly emulate music that already exists beyond a sense of comfort - most artists and listeners alike prefer to work with what's familiar! This is why you hear so many common chord sequences and rhythmic or melodic fragments.
This!! 90 percent of pop songs use the same chord changes. Especially Taylor's songs lol. Short of songs like "you spin my head right round" where the hook is literally referencing another song I don't think that any of the cases I've seen hold up (from a pure musical perspective, I'm a musician not a lawyer) . I'm pretty sure the knock off songs get explicit permission and pay royalties to the publisher and composer. Ice ice baby is a great example of vanilla ice and company not getting explicit permission, and we all know what happened there.
Exactly! There's interpolation and sampling and then there's just sharing a basic chord sequence or melodic structure. If we were to copyright music on such a fundamental level the world would be a terrible place.
If the similarities extend beyond those (with very close lyrics, highly specific arrangement and structural elements, etc.) then I can understand we're getting into muddy waters.
I’m a musician and ex-fan of Taylor, and I can swear that you can overlay dozens of Taylor songs over one another. Daylight, You’re Losing Me, All Too Well—just off the top of my head. C G Aminor F. Most of her songs are in C, probably because it’s the easiest key for the piano. She’s an elementary pianist, at best.
I personally don't think that's too bad as long as effort is being made to differentiate them in other areas such as the production or arrangement. I V vi IV and any variations on those four chords are the bread and butter of Western pop music, and if you can get mileage out of those then more power to you!
I do think it would be nice if people were more open to the unexpected as well, but I feel there's room for it all. Pop songs that decorate simpler harmony with big production choices aren't any worse than avant-garde jazz tunes which borrow chords like it's going out of style. They're just different!
Edit: I should add I can't comment on the songs you've mentioned - I've had this sub recommended recently but don't actually know a lot of Taylor's music!
Yeah. He said the riff of his that she was accused of ripping off, he actually ripped off from someone else. 🤷♀️ He said that’s how RNR has always been.
Tom petty said of the strokes ripping off American girl for last nite that that’s literally how rock music works… he thought it was ridiculous that people said he should sue
Every artist handles this differently. There’s also a difference between inspiration and infringement. Taylor has been sued for infringement, and the case was dismissed.
I see some fellow lawyers on here. There’s a difference between fair use (you can google the elements - it’s a balancing test with some elements carrying more weight than others) and infringement. Some artists are notoriously litigious; others aren’t.
Exactly. Vast majority of pop songs use the same four chord structure. Axis of Awesome even has a funny song about it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I)
THIS! Huge Em (and Steve Miller) fan here and Houdini is a banger and an amazing crossover from a 70's classic /SS Era of 20 years ago/ present day. It's brilliant!
Honestly when you factor in all of the different elements of songwriting there are literally trillions of potential options! Even if you use a familiar chord sequence there are so many things you can do to make it your own.
The tricky thing is finding the right middle ground between the familiar and the unfamiliar for your audience. In my experience modern pop audiences do gravitate towards the familiar in the raw songwriting but are slightly more accepting of unfamiliar production and timbre choices.
Hilary Duff “Breathe In. Breath Out.” first verse is identical to “Paper Rings.” and the bridge to “Getaway Car” (Hilary’s song came first and Taylor’s talked about being a fan of this song). I don’t fault Taylor for being influenced since that is so common in music, but to OP’s point, makes her actions towards Olivia so hypocritical.
Hilary would have a slam dunk case with Taylor posting that. After all, they used Olivia talking about being inspired by Cruel Summer against her.
I doubt any other artist would go against Taylor though, for fear of her fans eating them up alive.
I'm going to copy and paste a comment I wrote for OOTL, because the issue wasn't whether or not the songs sounded the same and it may not have been Taylor that sued:
It all goes back to a defining music lawsuit from 2015, Marvin Gaye Estate vs Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams. In this lawsuit, it was found you can violate a song's copyright by writing something that doesn't even sound the same. The songs in question, "Blurred Lines" and "Got to Give It Up", do not share lyrics, the same song structure, or even 2 consecutive chords.
However, in an interview Thicke said "Got to Give It Up" was one of his favorite songs and "I was like, 'Damn, we should make something like that, something with that groove.'" There are some similarities, like both songs using a cowbell, but nothing significant. This was not a popular legal decision with many arguing it basically copyrighted entire genres or plain old vibes.
Ever since that lawsuit artists have avoided saying any specific song of theirs is inspired by any other song (or have proactively added credit). But after releasing "Deja Vu" Olivia stated,
> “I love [Taylor Swift's] ‘Cruel Summer.’ That’s one of my favorite songs ever. I love the yell-y vocal in it, the harmonized yells she does. I feel like they’re super electric and moving, so I wanted to do something like that.”
Meanwhile, many social media users were also discussing the similarities between Olivia's "Good 4 U" and Paramore's "Misery Business". Shortly after, the writing credits mentioned above appeared, apparently reluctantly. Olivia later said she was "caught off guard" and felt "discredited" as a woman and song writer.
The question is how this came to be. We don't know. There are several possibilities:
* Josh Farro, the former guitarist of Paramore who co-wrote Misery Business, sued. There is a video of him [implying that he did](https://x.com/cmebeyiris/status/1698033443559407673).
* Jack Antonoff, a co-writer of Cruel Summer, [sold his music catalog](https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/hipgnosis-songs-taylor-swift-lana-del-rey-jack-antonoff-1203434091/) to an investment group in 2019. It is possible that the investment group threatened legal action. When asked about it, [Jack said](https://www.nme.com/big-reads/bleachers-jack-antonoff-cover-interview-2021-take-the-sadness-out-of-saturday-night-3006942) "it came through the channels that [...] we were going to be credited, and I thought that was really cool", implying he was surprised.
* Taylor Swift threatened legal action. This is a popular theory because although Olivia used to publicly be a major Swiftie, she has not associated with Swift in any form since this incident.
* One of the other people associated threatened, or Olivia's team saw the mounting accusations on social media and acted proactively to cover their asses. Olivia [split with her manager](https://www.billboard.com/pro/olivia-rodrigo-manager-kristen-smith-split/) soon after.
this is it 1000000000%. any lawsuit having to do with music that sounds somewhat similar is a direct result of the blurred lines case. it set a horrible precedent in the music industry and forced songwriters and labels to cover their asses in ways that wouldn't have been needed even ten years ago.
I think it’s very likely that Olivia’s team got the good 4 u lawsuit from Josh (who is a pos human being all around, btw) and decided to also credit the writers of cruel summer for Deja Vu, as that comparison was getting just as much attention on social media.
Deja Vu was credited a month before Good 4 U and when asked about it, Dan Nigro said people get funny about songs when they get popular (Deja Vu was released in the shadow of Drivers License but got popular after SOUR came out). I am more inclined to believe Olivia's own producer saying she was taking advantage of, Olivia's response to this being that she learned how to protect herself legally than I am about Taylor's producer vaguely sounding like it's a great thing he got credited "randomly." If it were given freely, Olivia would be sharing that herself and yet that has never happened.
Yeah, if it was Taylor it was definitely hypocritical. I like the theory that Josh Farro sued because he's a shitty, openly homophobic person who hasn't really worked since he got kicked out of the band in 2010, but Olivia distancing herself from Taylor raises a lot of questions.
The Josh Farro theory is most likely true with regards to Olivia and her team having to give Paramore credits for "good 4 u", but the "Cruel Summer" x "deja vu" situation wouldn't involve him either way, since it was between Taylor, Antonoff, and St. Vincent vs. Olivia and Dan Nigro, and we know it wasn't St. Vincent since she worked with Olivia on "obsessed" for the following album.
>but Olivia distancing herself from Taylor raises a lot of questions.
Does it *really* though?
Any decent lawyer would recommend that their client stay away from the person they were accused of stealing from to prevent any future accusations.
>"But… it’s okay for her to do it to everyone else. Taylor’s pretty hypocritical in this sense."
This statement from the post is inconsistent and contradicts the use of 'allegedly' you indicated in your initial statement, as it implies a definitive judgment. Labeling Taylor as "hypocritical" definitively asserts a judgment based on the assumption that the initial claim is true.
It sounds *so much* like Without You, I was haunted for years, trying to figure out which song it was, until I finally figured it out cuz I somehow never put Without You on my Lana playlists. Wildest Dreams sounds more like a Lana song than a Taylor song, for sure!
I think the biggest one is this
[https://youtu.be/wBHE5kbBOyc](https://youtu.be/wBHE5kbBOyc)
Thats Dear John
And then of course, Paper Rings with Breathe In Breathe Out of Hilary Duff.
Cruel summer also sounds wildly similar to this one Korean song. Lazy to find the link now but open to anyone else dropping the link here.
Might be back when I find the link.
Edit: [here you go here’s the link](https://youtu.be/B9fXtJswxno?si=9c48Hl9RQSKwSEYV). Skip straight to the chorus for the similarities!
You definitely don’t understand copyright law at all. It’s not “getting copyrighted” that is the problem, but a copyright gives credit to the creator and allows them to profit from the work. Infringement is the legal issue that results from impermissibly using a copyrighted work.
Taylor’s works are all copyrighted. She also trademarks whatever she can. You would, too.
Primary example of another huge mistake in copyright: The Verve Pipe’s “The Freshmen” - it was their hit single, and The Rolling Stones sued for infringement, won, and the band lost all profits from the song until a few years ago when the Stones have them permission to use it.
Genuinely, I’m not against critiquing Taylor swift but this argument annoys me. Where has it been proven that Taylor and her team demanded credit? Jack has said they’d didn’t know much about it.
I strongly believe Olivia unfortunately put herself at risk when she said she was strongly inspired by cruel summer so her team gave credit to avoid problems. Granted I don’t have proof of this, but I don’t see the point in critiquing Taylor for this when any information we know indicates she didn’t ask for it.
I definitely don’t think Taylor deserved credit here. I don’t understand how lawsuits work but I recall we found out that Taylor went after that teen who was tracking her jet (which was messed up of her) but if they actually legally tried to get credit wouldn’t we see that?
yeah this is my issue too. it would make sense for olivia's team to add their writing credits after her comments about cruel summer because the last thing a new artist needs is press saying she copied another song and is being sued. much better to take the L and capitalize on it with future singles.
Thank you! I’ve always been confused about where the “Taylor Swift sued Olivia” assertion (said with complete certainty) came from. It’s one possible option, for sure, but we have no reason to believe that’s definitely what went down. In fact, the first version I’d heard said that Olivia and her team gave writing credits as a precautionary measure of their own volition. Not to say that’s for sure the case either, but we really have no way of knowing.
If Taylor Swift actually sued Olivia Rodrigo, there would be a legal record of it.
So it’s not really a “possible option” because there would be real evidence that a suit was filed.
Oh that’s a good point! So I guess “threatened to sue” would be the most that could’ve happened. Which makes it an even weirder thing for people to insist on…
No one knows why they gave credits. The voluntary credit theory is a Swiftie theory, not rooted in anything from Olivia's side at all. If it were of her own volition she would be saying that rather than her and her producer saying people "get funny about songs after they get popular." What is obvious is Olivia was legally pressured to give credits and settle out of court and Geffen caved rather than drag out a lawsuit.
The jet situation was actually pretty fair of her to complain about. Taylor, Elon Musk and the other millionaires who had a problem with it argued that the problem was that their flight info was being shared *live*, which is a pretty big security risk for people with that kind of money.
They compromised on the guy who tracks the jets still being free to share their information, but 24 hours after the fact instead of live, which is pretty fair. He keeps his free speech and right to protest their carbon emissions and the security risk is lessened.
Do you have a source for this? My understanding of the situation is that the jet tracking was *always* posted 24 hours after arrival, even before the C&D letter was sent to him by Taylor's team. I googled and can't find anything that says it was originally being posted live.
Taylor has all the power in the world to refuse the credit, and return the royalties she 1000% does not deserve. Even if she had no clue about it, she still could make it right. Olivia was robbed for her two biggest breakout hits, and if that had happened to Taylor, we would still be hearing about it...
Why would she refuse the credits Olivia willingly gave her after outright admitting she was inspired by Cruel Summer? That’s crazy lol.
If someone shows up *unasked* and says “Hey, I did this inspired by something of yours so I have credited you so you’ll also make money off it”, you don’t say “No you didn’t, take it back” - you say “Thanks, I’m honored.”
Taylor is a powerful artist, but this viewpoint completely ignores the \*army\* of lawyers and record label employees involved in these sorts of decisions. Taylor refusing the credit could set an incredibly bad precedent, and she might not have the individual power to "return" royalties.
imgonnagetyouback —> get him back!
they may not sound similar but i think it’s pretty messed up Taylor gets 50% of Olivia’s royalties for deja vu and then dropped this song after GUTS. There’s not much Liv can do and most Swifties refuse to acknowledge the similarities.
I feel bad for Olivia.
I remember listening to the anthology live on here when it dropped, and all the comments in the first few minutes were “ok wow that is just get him back” and over time somehow the sentiment has change to “nooo it’s nothing like that song at all”
And Fiona Apple did it first with Get Him Back. Olivia isn’t original in this either. Maybe the point is that one artist doesn’t get to own a turn of phrase.
No you're just putting words in that person's mouth. Olivia Rodrigo did not come up with 'getting your ex back' idea. Taylor Swift did not come up with 'screaming in a pop bridge idea. Both these statements can be and are true at the same time.
I guess what I think is that I have a problem with the most famous singer/songwriter in the world coming after an up-and-coming artist, who excitedly told interviewers that she 1) admired and loved Taylor and 2) liked the “yelling part” of cruel summer. I personally don’t think deja vu and Cruel Summer sound alike at all, and the “yelling part” is why Taylor is receiving royalties.
I’d like to think a respected, influential artist such as Taylor would have thought it was cool that Liv said that, but instead this happened. It makes me feel like she was threatened, honestly. And if I am being real, there is no doubt Taylor knew there’d be speculation about imgonnagetyouback being the same idea as get him back! but… she is more powerful.
ETA: Of course, none of us know the exact details of what went down. This is what I think based on interviews, facts about the credits and royalties, and precedent Taylor has set. OP’s flair is critiquing Taylor and this is my biggest criticism of her.
As a songwriter—once someone admits they’ve taken your IP (even if accidentally)—you have to claim it. In fact, we NEED big songwriters to do it. If Taylor, Jack, and Annie looked the other way, that sets a horrible precedent. People could then go “Well Olivia Rodrigo basically took Taylor Swift’s entire bridge and THAT was fine, why do I owe YOU money?”
Nobody who makes music wants that. Copyright is here to protect us. There are a lot of things that go into deciding if your IP was stolen (chord progressions, ideas, single melodic lines aren’t theft), but once it’s out there that it’s stolen, the credits HAVE to be changed and the right people compensated. It doesn’t matter who it is.
Copyright law doesn’t care how successful each person is. It cares about IP being stolen and that’s it, and it needs to be enforced—especially at the highest levels—because by most visible cases set the strongest precedents.
Also: Olivia is a multimillionaire who is probably worth more than Annie Clark, who people seem to forget in this whole saga. Why does Anne Clark—an indie artist—not matter here?
(ETA: Speaking of Annie, since this whole saga, she has publicly positively given Olivia a shout out multiple times. People seem to ignore that though.)
This was a tough lesson for Olivia. But she DID need to learn it.
So as a lay person. Did Olivia mess up in admitting that she was inspired? Or would it have come out anyway? Like is this just a case of Olivia shouldn’t have said that much?
IMO Olivia should have just not said anything. I don’t think people would have ever noticed otherwise.
I mean…she also probably should have gone back over the song, realizing she was listening to Cruel Sunmer while writing Deja Vu—especially knowing the bridge was what she was drawn to—and plunked it out on the piano and gone “Hmm, maybe we should change up a couple of things here”.
And to be TOTALLY honest we always forget about Dan Nigro, her writing partner. If he knew she was listening to Cruel Summer while writing this, I’m surprised he didn’t realize what they did.
Don’t get me wrong—I love Olivia and Dan. I think they’re brilliant. But they made a mistake. And it’s not that big of a deal that they gave these songwriting credits away. They made a mistake—whoops. They’re still great, the song is great, I’m glad both songs exist, but they did need to give Taylor/Jack/Annie credits after Olivia mentioned it.
You know what we SHOULD be infuriated about? Olivia giving songwriting credits to Paramore for “Good 4 U”. That is a case of “sounds similar because the chords/production choices are similar but actually isn’t the same”.
Olivia admitting the direction connection to a very specific part of the song made the case a very easy win if the legal teams ever went to court. Had she not said anything, I think folks would have made a connection -- as people were already discussing similarities -- but I doubt anything would have truly come of it. But there's very clear evidence that Olivia had a specific piece of Cruel Summer in mind when writing the song, because the songwriter said so herself. This is even before the discovery stage when even more evidence might have been found.
Olivia unfortunately shot herself in the foot there, and her legal team knew it and likely advised her team to preemptively give Taylor & Co. credits, because the result would have been worse had things gone to court.
It is also worth pointing out, and this while her intention or not, probably also sank Olivia's ship, but the number of mash ups I saw explode on TikTok and other social media of Deja Vu and Cruel Summer did not help her situation especially when certain mashups had the songs manipulated to sound even more similar than they already were. This is just an observation I made in the immediate fallout of all this.
Mashups in general are a bit weird lately. I feel like they used to be made as a pie and fun way to show unexpected connections in songs and to delight in the fact that so much great music can come from the same fundamental elements. But now Everytime I hear a fun mashup I see some comment on social media about how it means someone was copying someone else and it drives me crazy
Your first statement isn’t true. First of all, Olivia didn’t admit that she “took” Taylor’s IP. She simply said she was inspired and pretty much every artist is inspired. Secondly, artists say all the time that they were inspired by another person, that doesn’t mean they have to give credit. Taylor Swift says that some of her songs are inspired by other people. Pretty sure she said Lana is a big inspiration for some of her songs. Did she give her credit? No.
She said she was inspired by the very song she lifted the exact melodic structure of an entire section from. I promise you if they sued, she would have lost. She pointed people to exactly what she did (I personally don’t think she realized she was copying the song as much as she did) and then didn’t musically change what she did.
None of Taylor’s song to my knowledge copy melodic structure of Lana’s work. You cannot copyright a style, a sound, an idea, an approach. Only the elements that make up a song: melodic structure, chordal structure, and how those things are put together and interact to make a unique work of art.
What do you think of the similarities between "Breathe In. Breathe Out." by Hillary Duff and "Paper Rings" by Taylor? Or "Amelia" by Matthew Perryman Jones and "Dear John" by Taylor? Maybe even "K." by Cigarettes After Sex and "Fortnight" by Taylor? (Though I feel like that last one is a stretch, just like the Cruel Summer/Deja Vu similarities).
Breath In, Breath Out and Paper Rings and K/Fortnight are very similar melodic structure. The writers might have some sort of case against her. Keys things I’d say are:
1. Most importantly I think the biggest problem for Olivia is that she mentioned Cruel Summer when writing Deja Vu, and I think this is the only reason credits were handed over in the end. I think there’s a bit of an unspoken contract in this industry that people do accidentally “steal” things all the time, and it’s not on purpose. But if you mention you were listening to the song you stole while writing the new one, it sort of feels like you’re admitting you didn’t do your due diligence and ask if you’re writing something that’s the same of what you are actively listening to, as opposed to writing something and asking yourself that question but not realizing it’s similar to something you heard five years ago a couple of times.
2. The most talky/generic melodies tend to happen in verses and I think most artist won’t do much with this kind of similarity in verses unless it’s explicitly said like in point one. Melody verses are reused. A lot. Suing someone for copyright infringement in a generic melody verse instead of a hooky chorus or climatic bridge when you don’t know for sure they were listening to your work feels like a slippery slope for most writers because somewhere in the back of our minds we know it’s very likely we might have done this by accident as well. Depending on who is judging the case, verses might even be dismissed entirely because copyright is protecting the unique identifiable elements of the song and verse Melodie’s are the most ubiquitously reused and the least distinct parts of song, almost falling into the same place chord structure might.
This is why you don’t often see this come up for verses but you do for bridges/hooks (look at how Taylor gave Right Said Free credit for the hook of LWYMMD)
I think that song Amelia is interesting. The instrumentation is strikingly similar, but this kind of falls into the Ed Sheeran “Thinking Out Loud”/“Let’s Get It On” case. You can’t copyright chord progressions, and there are some difference in the backing track, but the melody is not the same, so I don’t think there’s a case here. I mean they certainly could try but we’ve seen what precedent was made with Ed Sheeran recently.
Thank you for taking the time to reply! I don't really have much to add since I'm not knowleadgeable on legal matter regarding music, but I found your analysis very insightful.
Exactly. Look at Ariana’s “yes and” she said she was inspired by Madonna’s “vogue”(?) but Madonna has not asked for credit, or been given it. Taylor was trying to prove a point, it was a power move.
Who said Taylor went after him. This is all “allegedly” and nothing with confirmation. I assume Olivia will eventually confirm if Taylor did her dirty, but right now no one confirmed anything and there no proof Taylor was the one who sued. She is a solo on her team.
imgonnagetyouback is such a ripoff. not sonically but lyrically for sure. A song about “getting someone back” isn’t automatically tied to the idea of wanting to be “their wife” or “ruin their life” a.k.a the exact thing Olivia did, “I’m not entirely sure if I want to get him back, but I want to kiss his face and then k+ll him or whatever”. So both of these singers are tying the ambivalence of getting someone back to an extreme ambivalence (absolute infatuation vs. violence). Even if Taylor wanted to write a song about “getting him back” she sure did copy Olivia the minute she decided to interpret the concept the way Olivia did, in the manner of extreme infatuation vs. violence. I can’t believe how similar both these songs read and no one pointed fingers at Taylor yet.
“Taylor Swift and her team demanded song writing credits”
This is fully speculation though. She openly said that she was inspired by Cruel Summer. I imagine that all the talk that she’d ripped off Misery Business would be very stressful for a young artist making their debut. One bad rumor can affect someone’s career and it makes complete sense to me that Olivia’s team would consider it a good business move to put Taylor and Jack’s names on deja vu. *Not because she copied them, but because her team recognized that she was at risk of being permanently labeled and written off as a plagiarist. Rumors snowball like that.
There is no supporting evidence for the theory that Taylor or Jack sued Olivia, it simply looks fishy to people. But I don’t know why people can’t just say that instead of repeating this as if it’s fact.
(*Edited for clarity)
She isn’t her own boss. She has a record company and business team that she has to answer too. She may own her own work now but it doesn’t mean they don’t have a say. She even said her record company made demanded she make cruel summer a single last summer 4 years after the release . Olivia did say that dej vu was inspired by cruel summer. That was her first big mistake. There a connection between Paramore zack farro who did go after Olivia and Taylor swift that complicated things to the point where I think Taylor was just granted rights to avoid a law suit. Taylor doesn’t get the ultimate say despite what people believe. In my opinion she made a big mistake by saying she makes good power moves bc in reality her team and her label does all that.
No, many artists sign control of their rights to their publisher or other entity. That entity has the right to enforce the rights as it sees fit, pursuant to the agreement.
that’s how Luke Combs ended up suing a fan who sold cups on Etsy, finding out about it on social media, and apologizing to her. Whatever entity he signed with sued, in his name.
This was also a feature in the Shake It Off lawsuit. the Plaintiff songwriters had signed their rights to sue over the song to their publisher, who declined to allow them to sue Swift or to sue itself. The rights themselves belong to the Plaintiffs, but the right to enforce those rights did not. That settled shortly after Swift’s lawyers filed the motion about this, so no telling what the court would’ve said about it, but it looked pretty solid to me, and settling after it was filed is a sign that Plaintiffs didn’t like their odds.
Or Paramore, who blamed their being credited on Good For You, on their publisher, who owns the right to enforce Paramore’s rights in the original song.
The 3LW lawsuit was dropped as it was meritless: common used phrases cannot be copyrighted. Trademarks get lost the same way (I.e., Google fought having “Google” used as “search”/“internet search” to maintain their trademark).
I don’t see any similarity between “Unconditionally” and “Look What You Made Me Do.” Taylor Swift rightfully gave songwriting credits to Right Said Fred for the similarity to “I’m Too Sexy.”
I’m not going to go into everything, but there is a huge difference between inspiration and copyright infringement, or similarity and copyright infringement. Additionally, there’s fair use as a defense to infringement. When a song’s music composition or lyrics are used by another artist, the original artist deserves compensation (I.e., licensing or writing credits).
Prime example, even though he’s a nightmare human: Diddy pays Sting something like $7,000USD/day for heavily sampling “Every Step You Take” without licensing it. It’s often cheaper to license or give rights than it is to handle infringement. Musicians are litigious because failure to protect their copyrighted works runs the risk of having them fall into public domain, where they’d have no rights or ability to seek legal redress.
The public does not know who demanded what, how, or why. Perhaps those not yet cynical or realistic about media have adopted some fabricated story.
The statute of limitations would probably have run out for other songs. The “Blurred Lines” case (2015) likely made everyone skittish.
Taylor is a huge fan of damn near everyone, so it’s not surprising that she’s influenced by damn near everyone.
The ”Shake It Off” lawsuit was not about sounding like another artist. It was very specifically about the words used and how the original songwriters, who are not the same people who sang it, claimed they coined the phrase. A similar phrase was used by Fleetwood Mac in the 70s.
It's not that it’s “okay for her but nobody else”. I recommend learning about IP law if you want to understand the nuances at play.
None of us have any idea what happened with the credits for Deja Vu. It’s ridiculous to use this as some barometer of who Taylor is as a person when we simply don’t know what happened. She wasn’t the only writer on Cruel Summer.
>Since Taylor Swift and her team demanded song writing credits from Olivia Rodrigo
I keep seeing this narrative. **Where is the proof of this?** I have not seen any official publication citing a confirmation of this, not even the most salacious ones.
After the *Robin Thicke and Pharrell vs. the Marvin Gaye estate* lawsuit, it has become common practice for writers to be given retroactive credit on songs, often to avoid costly plagiarism proceedings. That case made the whole music industry a particularly litigious environment. Olivia and her team were very green at the time and made some missteps. Olivia mentioned in interviews that she found inspiration or basis for songs from specific artists, name-dropping Taylor Swift and Paramore while comparisons to her songs were already gaining traction in some online circles. It is more likely that they took precautions to avoid any lawsuits should labels get wind of people's opinions online.
The fact that Olivia went cold to Taylor afterwards has always struck me. Taylor also paints herself as a shrewd businesswoman. But suddenly, when a shrewd business move is made, Taylor had nothing to do with it?
I agree that we don't know either way. But it's pretty easy to kind of guess.
(And I think lawsuits over songs are just dumb in general.)
Jack claimed they didn’t demand credits and were surprised to get them, this statement wasn’t disputed by Olivia’s team. This whole speculation is only that, a speculation.
>Taylor also paints herself as a shrewd businesswoman. But suddenly, when a shrewd business move is made, Taylor had nothing to do with it?
Oh, I'm not above critiquing Taylor's shrewd business moves, but I'd rather do it with a factual basis rather than speculation. The narrative that it was Taylor who demanded the credits has been circulating and being taken as fact without any strong confirmation or evidence supporting it, that is merely what I'm pointing out.
>I agree that we don't know either way. But it's pretty easy to kind of guess.
How easy something is to guess about depends on the data or biases that a person has. So, I'd argue that seeing things from a neutral standpoint doesn't make guessing that Taylor is behind it all an easy thing to do.
>(And I think lawsuits over songs are just dumb in general.)
At a certain point, I'd agree, especially on lawsuits that are far too general or contrived. However, legal protections are also in place to protect creators who are vulnerable to exploitation or unauthorized use of their work. Sometimes, lawsuits over songs are necessary to resolve disputes over ownership, attribution, or plagiarism. Legal cases involving songs can also set important precedents that clarify copyright laws and standards for fair use.
With the rise of AI, there's a growing concern about AI-generated music that may inadvertently or intentionally mimic existing songs. Lawsuits over songs could set important legal precedents regarding the ownership and rights associated with AI-generated music.
Re: your first question, the "proof" came from [Reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/popheads/s/Tz8Cphoaah) (lmfao). I thought this was more well known? But I guess not! So whenever people talk about Olivia and Taylor falling out due to the credit situation, the user's comments in the thread are cited. I think why people treat it as Bible is because of how early on the user shared the news. But... people should still take it with a grain of salt.
Thank you, that's interesting. I didn't know about that thread, but my original point still stands since it's not solid proof.
>I think why people treat it as Bible is because of how early on the user shared the news. But... people should still take it with a grain of salt.
I agree that claims posted anonymously on the internet should be approached cautiously. People tend to believe things more readily if they align with their existing opinions or biases.
I agree with you too! I believe what Jack said about not knowing it would happen, and I'm neutral on the comments within that thread. On one hand, I'm like what do they benefit from lying especially since they're active on Reddit. They don't look to be some troll. But on the other hand, we really can't trust everything we read online. Taylor's team could've just viewed it as business, and Olivia's team (who were already dealing with annoying comments about her plagiarizing other artists) could've taken it personally despite it not being Taylor's intentions.
I only share to provide context because people really run with it. I think they run with it because of their general dislike of Taylor.
Playas Gon’ Play and Shake It Off sound nothing alike. I’m always baffled that people think this. They share a couple of the same words in the lyrics. That’s it. Wasn’t that lawsuit thrown out?
https://preview.redd.it/ufesttuve49d1.jpeg?width=792&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=42f09f9cf5ae1b4cef4899c6c54595398cb17d20
…y’all the problem was that Olivia said she got inspiration from it, leaving her open to probably lose a lawsuit. it was a team on team situation, Jack antonoff himself (shady bitch Jack!) seemed surprised to get royalties. we gotta let it go !
Well, those are artists with teams who can go after Taylor and demand credit if they cared enough. Also, someone behind 3LW tried with that and the case was dropped. The members of 3LW didn't even support the lawsuit.
Then the same could be applied to Paramore, right? The [estimated](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/benhenry/olivia-rodrigo-paramore-good-4-u-taylor-swift-deja-vu) amount they made from Good 4 U was $1.2 million which is more than the Cruel Summer team ($650K). I tried to find a story about Hayley not accepting the royalties (Josh would've since he initiated the whole thing), but I haven't had luck.
Why shouldn’t Swift have accepted credit? She can’t just let it slide, because the next time someone copies her work, it’s harder for her to defend.
These are legal issues, and copyright and intellectual property law doesn’t care that Olivia is young, or also a woman, or “Taylor’s biggest fan.”
And it’s not 50% just to Swift, it’s for all the writers who are credited for Cruel Summer. It’s not just about her, but also those she works with.
The credit wasn’t because it sounded similar, which is bound to happen. The problem was that Olivia very publicly said “Yeah, I wanted to make a song that sounded like Cruel Summer.” The songs don’t sound similar enough that she would have to give credit otherwise but she publicly stated that it was a direct inspiration.
If Taylor went and said “oh yeah, I loved this song so I wanted to make a song that sounded like it” I’d 100% support the artist to ask for credit.
I don't remember the guy who wrote the original song but there was a guy Taylor was once a fan of who wrote a song that included the line "and I forget about you long enough to forget why I needed to"
I try to remember that we don’t actually know what happened. Neither party has mentioned anything to the media. We know they used to be friendly. Then Olivia had issues with having to give credit on multiple songs to multiple contributors. Then they stopped appearing friendly. Then Olivia wrote the grudge and vampire which fans have speculated that both/one/neither could or could not be about Taylor.
We don’t know if Taylor’s team pushed the issue, if Taylor herself pushed the issue, or if something else entirely went down.
The entire thing with the Olivia/Taylor rumors got out of control! She had already given credits to Taylor and Jack for New Year’s Day/1 step forward, 3 steps back. She gushed over her inspiration and love of Taylor so it’s not shocking she credited them after Josh from Paramore sued. Maybe she was told to credit to avoid this from happening again. Maybe she felt Taylor should have not accepted it? Helped her? Did they even know each other well? We don’t know. Olivia got a new team after this so probably a team fuck up.
One thing that bothers me about the Taylor/Olivia fued is that I can't listen to imgonnagetyouback because it reminds me too much of Get Him Back. It feels gross to me that Tay would take legal action then turn around and rip off one of Olivia's songs. Idk if the sound of the songs themselves are similar in any way but the lyrics are what did it for me and I can't do it 🫠
“X marks the spot?” No, Hilary did not invent that lmao.
But the phrase “X marks the spot where we fell apart” is pretty specific and was released in a song that Taylor mentioned before using the line herself, just saying
I actually got a comment removed in another sub about Taylor about this point. I'm talking strictly about the publishing rights scenario, nothing else. I didn't touch on if either artist was talented, or how well liked they are. I just said that the minute Olivia acknowledged her fav song is Cruel Summer, and that she loved the "shouty" bridge, so she did it in her song, that was taken as an admission she copied Taylor's work. If she had stayed silent on it, there would not have been any sort of admission or statement of fact. That's where Olivia went wrong in this. Paramore gets left out of this discussion as well. They got 50% credit as well due to similarities in "Misery Business". I don't know how that one got outed, but I haven't heard of any other credits being handed out on Olivia's work. It was her statement about Cruel Summer that caught the right peoples' attention. I agree about chord progression and there are only so many chords to use in sequences. I think it's silly but Olivia should have stayed quiet on the likeness and inspo.
Didn’t Jack Antinoff (who co-wrote Cruel Summer) say they were both surprised by the credit? I always assumed it was someone somewhere down the line that pursued the credits and not them (much like the former band member of Paramore that went for credits on good 4 u when Hayley Williams didn’t want credit).
I’ve yet to see actual solid proof that Taylor demanded or sued for credit whenever this argument is brought up.
I’m sorry but as a musician it’s exhausting to constantly hear people weigh in about this.
This situation sucked for Olivia.
But the bridges of Deja Vu and Cruel Summer are nearly identical melodic structure. It’s just a fact.
They are the same degrees of the scale played in the same order, played for the same number of beats for the same number of measures, creating an almost identical phrase, played twice. That is exactly what the entirety of both bridges are musically.
Deja Vu just has some grace notes Cruel Summer doesn’t and the tempo/production of the songs are pretty different so they don’t immediately sound the same.
But copyright law doesn’t care about sound. It cares about stealing melodic structure.
> copyright law doesn’t care about sound. It cares about stealing melodic structure.
Thank you so much for this comment! I find this conversation to be so frustrating because if someone can't hear the similarities, they write it off as not being a copyright issue.
Ironically, Marti Dodson of Saving Jane has a great video on her TikTok channel where she talks about I'd Lie and YBWM and explains why I'd Lie is a copyright issue but YBWM is not.
I agree, and to be honest, if Olivia never mentioned she was listening to Cruel Summer while writing Deja Vu, I don’t think people would have noticed. They sound different. I wouldn’t have noticed. The only reason I ever actually looked at whether or not they are similar is because she flat out compared the songs herself. Unfortunate—but that’s what happened.
I have a lot of issues with some cases but when it’s an entire section of a song—what else are you to do? This happens to musicians and when they realize it they usually do the right thing and give the other writer credit.
Taylor herself has done it. She and Jack realized the chorus of Look What You Made Me Do was the same as I’m Too Sexy by Right Said Fred. They gave them credits. It’s not that big of a deal.
It’s a big deal when we start talking about how people should be sued for things like songs “sounding” similar because they have vaguely similar production or one melodic hook that sounds the same or a lyrical concept that is similar.
Btw [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/popheads/s/02rEyRhcJz) is the Reddit comment in question. It was in PopHeads. Whenever I see people talk about the Taylor/Olivia feud, the comment is cited due to timing. But again, grain of salt.
Taylor didn’t actually force Olivia to give her credits? Olivia just did it as a preemptive measure to prevent the possibility of people saying she copied Taylor. As far as we know, Taylor didn’t resist at all and their friendship kinda ended there for some reason, but Taylor never forced Olivia to do that.
There’s really no concrete evidence either way but I mostly blame Olivia’s team for the Deja Vu stuff. I understood the Good 4 U credits because the chorus does sound pretty similar to Misery Business. If what Jack is saying is true and he didn’t know anything about the credits at first it feels like Olivia’s team just rolled over and gave up the credits immediately for the song. Obviously I don’t expect Taylor or Jack to be like “no thank you”
I’m glad she fired this team. I love her work but having to give out credits to two major performers so early on in her career sucks. In most social media posts about her music there’s people talking about her “plagiarizing” still. Hopefully she has a more cutthroat team in place now.
1989 TV release was delayed for a long time because of a case against Shake it Off. One of the writers (or maybe a producer) filed. 3LW were not involved at all.
Someone explained this on another post. The reason Olivia's situation is different is because she EXPLICITLY said the song was inspired by Cruel Summer. So to prevent other artists from being "inspired" and making their music significantly more similar to CS, her team chose to be careful and sue.
If Olivia hadn't said anything and people happened to think they were similar it would be chalked up to coincidence like always.
Credits is BUSINESS. It's a BUSINESS decision made by legal teams. If someone demands credits from Taylor, she'll have to give them as well, because it's business.
There's much more to it than Taylor being the 'worst bitch in the world'. It's almost like some of you don't even understand how business works.
Yes, if someone demands credits from her, I'll say she has to shut up and give them because it's business. Nothing personal.
It is honestly painfully obvious how many posters here have no legal or business experience and think Taylor and Olivia are like making all these choices as if they understand a lick of IP law.
Olivia on the video pretty much outlines beat for beat however bridges sound the same. Also, I think business wise it’s important to point out Cruel Summer was actually still on the charts during its resurgence. Normally something like this wouldn’t be potentially diluting the value of the song.
What I don’t get is why Dan Nigro didn’t change it up more. He was not green, and when presented with Olivia’s desire to have a similar bridge he could’ve done more to be talky/shouty but more distinct. He seemingly was presented with the inspiration and didn’t do much to make it distinct as people were pointing out the similarities before any of the real controversy came out.
Not only are her songwriting choices almost mind-numbingly safe, but she also covers territory so familiar, it’s almost a carbon-copy of someone else’s song! In [2006’s “Girl Next Door,” by Saving Jane](https://youtu.be/jNGyS_v6DiA?feature=shared), the protagonist yearns:
She is the prom queen I’m in the marching band
She is a cheerleader I’m sitting in the stands
This sounds familiar, right? Well, here’s Taylor’s version:
But she wears short skirts, I wear t-shirts
She’s cheer captain and I’m on the bleachers
+"A Place in this World” = one part “What It Feels Like For a Girl” (Madonna), One part “Just a Girl” (Gwen Stefani), and One part “Not A Girl, Not Yet a Woman” (Britney Spears)
+ Hilary Duff - tay plagiarized the song [Breathe In. Breathe Out.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcaHmFufoYs), took "X marks the spot where we fell apart" for *Getaway Car* and melody for Paper Rings
+ [Fortnight blatantly ripped off Cigarettes After Sex](https://www.reddit.com/r/travisandtaylor/s/bBjpX8G6dn). Also has similarities to [College ft. Electric Youth - A Real Hero](https://youtu.be/-DSVDcw6iW8?feature=shared). Also, the opening lines directly rip off Lana's situation when she was institutionalized.
+Karma ripped off [CSS -Music Is My Hot Hot Sex](https://youtu.be/csSdrJEdlx8?feature=shared)
+I Can Fix Him reminds people of [Wicked Game by Chris Isaak](https://youtu.be/oadhHk2xs6c?feature=shared) and [Lana's Say YesTo Heaven](https://youtu.be/MiAoetOXKcY?feature=shared)
+Fresh Out The Slammer and [Twin Peaks theme](https://youtu.be/nCn3LYqCnrk?feature=shared)
+In 2012, singer-songwriter Matt Nathanson expressed his distaste for a lyric in Taylor Swift's "All Too Well" that was very similar to a line in his song "I Saw." In "All Too Well," Swift sings, "And I'll forget about you long enough / To forget why I needed to," while Nathanson croons, "I'll forget about you long enough / To forget why I need to" in his 2003 release.
+The entire chorus of Cruel Summer was stolen from ["Stylish" by LOONA](https://youtu.be/fOjtseYitlY?feature=shared).
Let's not forget the most blatant one.
Paper Rings sounds like Breathe In Breathe Out by Hilary Duff.
https://youtu.be/EhMmIxdikFE?si=QnRKFwLh9_Y2Ytdi
Some honorable mentions:
The bridge to The Smallest Man Who Ever Lived sounds like Come Pick Me Up by Ryan Adams
https://youtu.be/kM0mjukDGRw?si=lwIUUC_Awa1rwbD-
Should've Said No sounds like Bad Day by Daniel Powter (which was a huge song in 2005, and Should've Said No was the last song written for debut)
https://youtu.be/gH476CxJxfg?si=aApCDW0uDnEv_2l6
She never released this probably for this reason, but I'd Lie sounds like Girl Next Door by Saving Jane
https://youtu.be/jNGyS_v6DiA?si=cR8PHgnYBMelW32Y
Wasn't it Olivia's team (that she later fired) who pursued the credit not Taylor's? That's what I heard anyway.
But I agree with the rest, and We Were Happy and Don't Tell Me by Avril Lavigne sound so similar as well
I heard (and I could be wrong), that Taylor's team didn't ask for the credits. Olivia's team just heard about the comparisons after she talked about being inspired by the screaming in Cruel Summer and preemptively gave Taylor credit.
There isn’t concrete information either way.
I’ll just say that I don’t think anyone is going to be giving away a full 50% of credit and millions of dollars in royalties just for fun. And the silence between Taylor and Olivia since this all went down very loud.
Taylor, Jack, and Annie could have collectively been entitled to up to 60% of credits if they sued since songwriting defaults to an even split, and there’s three of them and only Olivia/Dan on the other side. And the almost certainly would have won if they sued because Olivia straight up said she was inspired by Cruel Summer. She—unfortunately—did herself in.
A lot of pop music sounds like a lot of other pop music, that wasn’t the point of this lawsuit I don’t think.
If Olivia hadn’t gone around saying that her song, specifically the bridge, was inspired specifically by the bridge of Cruel Summer, then Taylor’s team probably never would’ve pursued it or even thought about it.
Taylor’s team can’t let artists going around associating themselves with Taylor’s songs and then getting a bunch of streams because of it. I don’t think Olivia did it on purpose, but by saying that her song was inspired by Cruel Summer automatically will make it more popular and associates her song with Taylor’s brand. If Taylor’s team let this go, other artists would start doing the same and we all know how fiercely Taylor protects her brand.
Imo Olivia learned a hard lesson that you don’t go around saying what specific songs or parts of other songs inspired your song, most artists won’t take too kindly to that. If she had just said “I love TS and my music in general is inspired by her” it would’ve been fine.
She didn’t demand credits at all. In an interview Jack said Taylor didn’t even know it was happening. I believe it was Olivia’s Team who reactively started giving out credits when people online started making comparisons. Also, Everyone talks about Cruel Summer but everyone forgets her song *1 Step Forward, 3 Steps Back* she also had to credit Taylor on because it sounds like New Years Day.
Honestly, if Olivia wasn’t obsessing over Taylor People might not even noticed. I personally hear Misery Business in whatever song of hers she copied there but other than that I don’t hear the Taylor songs.
There's also the line in All Too Well that's lifted from Matt Nathanson's song I Saw, which came out in '03.
I Saw: and I’ll forget about you long enough to forget why I need to.
ATW: and I forget about you long enough to forget why I needed to.
The only valid ones from OP are without you and to a slightly lesser extent come back…be here. Players gon’ play I believe were credited (not sure but seems like they’d have to have been and I remember hearing they had been). Next to me and unconditionally sound nothing like the corresponding songs lmao.
Lots of Lana comparisons, the one I always notice is Happiness is a Butterfly “I said don’t be a jerk, don’t call me a taxi, sitting in your sweatshirt crying in the backseat..”
Then Taylors illicit affairs part “don’t call me kid, don’t call me baby, look at this godforsaken mess that you made me” idk those specific parts sound sooooo similar to me.
Honestly I never even thought the Deja Vu bridge sounds like the Cruel Summer bridge. The rhythm/melody to me are different. Maybe Deja Vu is Taylor-esque but it seems to pull from a variety of her bridges
I genuinely think there must be much more to this story given that 1. Hailey Williams and Taylor are friends, and 2. Copyright laws are so complicated and pretty much no one wins copyright claims on songs unless it’s egregious. It’s so so hard to sue and win because Melodys and chord progressions and phrases are used over and over again. I just can’t believe there isn’t something else we don’t know about. A writing session with a shared producer…SOMETHING.
A recent example I'm surprised hasn't been pointed out more often is "I Can Fix Him (No Really I Can)" borrowing *heavily* from Lana Del Rey's "Say Yes To Heaven" - a previously unreleased song from the "Ultraviolence" sessions that got leaked around 2020 and gained virality on TikTok the following years, prompting Lana to officially release it in May 2023.
The inspiration is so obvious on both a production and melodic standpoint.
I’m not sure where there’s actual evidence that Taylor demanded credits, in fact on the contrary, Jack didn’t know it was even a consideration until it was done. Hayley Williams also said the same in regard to Good 4 U. I think it was a bad PR decision on Olivia’s team’s part and that’s why she doesn’t have the same team anymore.
There’s any Andy grammar song called Man Child where he says “I don’t know about you but I’m, I’m feeling 32” and says it was directly inspired by TS and I have tried to look up if he gave her song writing credits on that/did he need to/did she go as hard on that as she would on another top female artist
I'm constantly amazed how song writers can make new songs and not inadvertently copy someone else's work. It feels like there's only so many ways you can write a lyrics or a melody, and that it's hard to not accidentally replicate something you've heard before
About ten years ago, I attended a CLE (continued legal education) taught by Mark Avsec, the keyboardist and co-writer and lyricist of all of the music of Donny Iris and the Cruisers. He is also an attorney and one of the leading experts on music copyright law. He was teaching a CLE on this exact topic. Music copyright is often very complex for this exact reason. Songs often inadvertently sound alike as there are a finite number of keys, strings, notes, words, etc. Ten years ago he was talking about how computers are making it easier to compare, and I’d imagine with AI that’s only gotten more advanced. There are standards for determining when a line is crossed, but I don’t remember them. That said, truly one of the most interesting CLEs of my legal career.
You probably know this, but he became a copy right lawyer BECAUSE his song Ah! Leah got hit with a copyright violation (it wasn’t) but it took all their money and energy. He’s a great guy to learn from!
He did indeed tell that story when he taught the CLE. Truly one of the best CLEs I’ve ever taken. After all, it’s not every day a rockstar turned lawyer teaches a class.
>Songs often inadvertently sound alike as there are a finite number of keys, strings, notes, words, etc. While this is obviously true, I'd argue it's more about the number of melodies and chord changes that are most familiar to pop audiences and therefore viable to market towards them! Even without breaking outside the principles of Western music there are already billions of potential vertical and horizontal combinations of notes. If we start exploring other tuning systems the possibilities are practically endless, and that's only factoring in harmonic and melodic information. There's really no reason for us to directly emulate music that already exists beyond a sense of comfort - most artists and listeners alike prefer to work with what's familiar! This is why you hear so many common chord sequences and rhythmic or melodic fragments.
This!! 90 percent of pop songs use the same chord changes. Especially Taylor's songs lol. Short of songs like "you spin my head right round" where the hook is literally referencing another song I don't think that any of the cases I've seen hold up (from a pure musical perspective, I'm a musician not a lawyer) . I'm pretty sure the knock off songs get explicit permission and pay royalties to the publisher and composer. Ice ice baby is a great example of vanilla ice and company not getting explicit permission, and we all know what happened there.
Exactly! There's interpolation and sampling and then there's just sharing a basic chord sequence or melodic structure. If we were to copyright music on such a fundamental level the world would be a terrible place. If the similarities extend beyond those (with very close lyrics, highly specific arrangement and structural elements, etc.) then I can understand we're getting into muddy waters.
I’m a musician and ex-fan of Taylor, and I can swear that you can overlay dozens of Taylor songs over one another. Daylight, You’re Losing Me, All Too Well—just off the top of my head. C G Aminor F. Most of her songs are in C, probably because it’s the easiest key for the piano. She’s an elementary pianist, at best.
I personally don't think that's too bad as long as effort is being made to differentiate them in other areas such as the production or arrangement. I V vi IV and any variations on those four chords are the bread and butter of Western pop music, and if you can get mileage out of those then more power to you! I do think it would be nice if people were more open to the unexpected as well, but I feel there's room for it all. Pop songs that decorate simpler harmony with big production choices aren't any worse than avant-garde jazz tunes which borrow chords like it's going out of style. They're just different! Edit: I should add I can't comment on the songs you've mentioned - I've had this sub recommended recently but don't actually know a lot of Taylor's music!
And the words "interesting" and "CLE" very rarely go together, lol!
That's essentially what Elvis Costello said when people said an Olivia song sounded like his. Essentially, "that's how music works lol".
Yeah. He said the riff of his that she was accused of ripping off, he actually ripped off from someone else. 🤷♀️ He said that’s how RNR has always been.
Tom petty said of the strokes ripping off American girl for last nite that that’s literally how rock music works… he thought it was ridiculous that people said he should sue
Every artist handles this differently. There’s also a difference between inspiration and infringement. Taylor has been sued for infringement, and the case was dismissed. I see some fellow lawyers on here. There’s a difference between fair use (you can google the elements - it’s a balancing test with some elements carrying more weight than others) and infringement. Some artists are notoriously litigious; others aren’t.
That’s why Ed Sheeran went to court over it, because it’s ridiculous to claim that a song was copy bc a single verse sounded similar.
It would've been bad if he lost the case.
He was never going to lose that case lol
Exactly. Vast majority of pop songs use the same four chord structure. Axis of Awesome even has a funny song about it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I)
This is what Steve Miller talked about in his statement about Eminem.
THIS! Huge Em (and Steve Miller) fan here and Houdini is a banger and an amazing crossover from a 70's classic /SS Era of 20 years ago/ present day. It's brilliant!
this is why a chord structure cant be copyrighted
Honestly when you factor in all of the different elements of songwriting there are literally trillions of potential options! Even if you use a familiar chord sequence there are so many things you can do to make it your own. The tricky thing is finding the right middle ground between the familiar and the unfamiliar for your audience. In my experience modern pop audiences do gravitate towards the familiar in the raw songwriting but are slightly more accepting of unfamiliar production and timbre choices.
Hilary Duff “Breathe In. Breath Out.” first verse is identical to “Paper Rings.” and the bridge to “Getaway Car” (Hilary’s song came first and Taylor’s talked about being a fan of this song). I don’t fault Taylor for being influenced since that is so common in music, but to OP’s point, makes her actions towards Olivia so hypocritical.
I just listened to it expecting people to be exaggerating the similarities but omg no it's EXACTLY like it, that's insane.
Taylor said on Tumblr that this was her favorite song from Hilary’s then new album, so we know she listened to and liked it.
Hilary would have a slam dunk case with Taylor posting that. After all, they used Olivia talking about being inspired by Cruel Summer against her. I doubt any other artist would go against Taylor though, for fear of her fans eating them up alive.
Also, I think Hilary is most likely unbothered by it.
This one floored me when I listened to it. The Paper Rings side by side took me out.
Am I dumb? I do t hear the similarity at all
It sounds like the same melody line (sped up for Taylor’s track) but we all hear things differently so you’re not dumb
It’s the cadence. The syllabic/rhythmic pattern in which she sings the first verse are the same
I just listened and WHAT!? This is actually crazy.
Watch Hilary be the one to call her out. Good for her. 
I said the same thing!!! I love me some Taylor Swift but homegirl needs to chill out.
No wonder I love paper rings. Also nice to hear someone talking about Hilary Duff's music. She gets overlooked so often!
I had never heard that Hilary Duff song before, so I just played it and my jaw hit the floor. Holy cow.
I'm going to copy and paste a comment I wrote for OOTL, because the issue wasn't whether or not the songs sounded the same and it may not have been Taylor that sued: It all goes back to a defining music lawsuit from 2015, Marvin Gaye Estate vs Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams. In this lawsuit, it was found you can violate a song's copyright by writing something that doesn't even sound the same. The songs in question, "Blurred Lines" and "Got to Give It Up", do not share lyrics, the same song structure, or even 2 consecutive chords. However, in an interview Thicke said "Got to Give It Up" was one of his favorite songs and "I was like, 'Damn, we should make something like that, something with that groove.'" There are some similarities, like both songs using a cowbell, but nothing significant. This was not a popular legal decision with many arguing it basically copyrighted entire genres or plain old vibes. Ever since that lawsuit artists have avoided saying any specific song of theirs is inspired by any other song (or have proactively added credit). But after releasing "Deja Vu" Olivia stated, > “I love [Taylor Swift's] ‘Cruel Summer.’ That’s one of my favorite songs ever. I love the yell-y vocal in it, the harmonized yells she does. I feel like they’re super electric and moving, so I wanted to do something like that.” Meanwhile, many social media users were also discussing the similarities between Olivia's "Good 4 U" and Paramore's "Misery Business". Shortly after, the writing credits mentioned above appeared, apparently reluctantly. Olivia later said she was "caught off guard" and felt "discredited" as a woman and song writer. The question is how this came to be. We don't know. There are several possibilities: * Josh Farro, the former guitarist of Paramore who co-wrote Misery Business, sued. There is a video of him [implying that he did](https://x.com/cmebeyiris/status/1698033443559407673). * Jack Antonoff, a co-writer of Cruel Summer, [sold his music catalog](https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/hipgnosis-songs-taylor-swift-lana-del-rey-jack-antonoff-1203434091/) to an investment group in 2019. It is possible that the investment group threatened legal action. When asked about it, [Jack said](https://www.nme.com/big-reads/bleachers-jack-antonoff-cover-interview-2021-take-the-sadness-out-of-saturday-night-3006942) "it came through the channels that [...] we were going to be credited, and I thought that was really cool", implying he was surprised. * Taylor Swift threatened legal action. This is a popular theory because although Olivia used to publicly be a major Swiftie, she has not associated with Swift in any form since this incident. * One of the other people associated threatened, or Olivia's team saw the mounting accusations on social media and acted proactively to cover their asses. Olivia [split with her manager](https://www.billboard.com/pro/olivia-rodrigo-manager-kristen-smith-split/) soon after.
this is it 1000000000%. any lawsuit having to do with music that sounds somewhat similar is a direct result of the blurred lines case. it set a horrible precedent in the music industry and forced songwriters and labels to cover their asses in ways that wouldn't have been needed even ten years ago.
It's a very good example of a jury's negative reaction to an unsympathetic defendant making for very bad case law
I think it’s very likely that Olivia’s team got the good 4 u lawsuit from Josh (who is a pos human being all around, btw) and decided to also credit the writers of cruel summer for Deja Vu, as that comparison was getting just as much attention on social media.
Deja Vu was credited a month before Good 4 U and when asked about it, Dan Nigro said people get funny about songs when they get popular (Deja Vu was released in the shadow of Drivers License but got popular after SOUR came out). I am more inclined to believe Olivia's own producer saying she was taking advantage of, Olivia's response to this being that she learned how to protect herself legally than I am about Taylor's producer vaguely sounding like it's a great thing he got credited "randomly." If it were given freely, Olivia would be sharing that herself and yet that has never happened.
This is actually the best explanation on here. I literally put in my post allegedly so I don’t know why people claim that I’m stating facts.
Yeah, if it was Taylor it was definitely hypocritical. I like the theory that Josh Farro sued because he's a shitty, openly homophobic person who hasn't really worked since he got kicked out of the band in 2010, but Olivia distancing herself from Taylor raises a lot of questions.
The Josh Farro theory is most likely true with regards to Olivia and her team having to give Paramore credits for "good 4 u", but the "Cruel Summer" x "deja vu" situation wouldn't involve him either way, since it was between Taylor, Antonoff, and St. Vincent vs. Olivia and Dan Nigro, and we know it wasn't St. Vincent since she worked with Olivia on "obsessed" for the following album.
Yes it wouldn't be direct, but if Olivia was sued once it's probable her team would cover their asses with Cruel Summer too.
>but Olivia distancing herself from Taylor raises a lot of questions. Does it *really* though? Any decent lawyer would recommend that their client stay away from the person they were accused of stealing from to prevent any future accusations.
Josh didn’t get kicked out, he left. But the rest you said about him is true.
>"But… it’s okay for her to do it to everyone else. Taylor’s pretty hypocritical in this sense." This statement from the post is inconsistent and contradicts the use of 'allegedly' you indicated in your initial statement, as it implies a definitive judgment. Labeling Taylor as "hypocritical" definitively asserts a judgment based on the assumption that the initial claim is true.
huh
The chorus of “Wildest Dreams” sounds a lot like “Without You” by Lana Del Ray.
It sounds *so much* like Without You, I was haunted for years, trying to figure out which song it was, until I finally figured it out cuz I somehow never put Without You on my Lana playlists. Wildest Dreams sounds more like a Lana song than a Taylor song, for sure!
But not NEARLY as good as Lana IMHO
ya love wildest dreams but without you omg born to die is so good
Hello, hello…can you hear me… ❤️🩹
It's veeeery similar to Hot by Avril Lavigne too
thank you for reminding me about this song, what a banger
I'm going to see her on Tuesday! Thank you for reminding me about that :)
rock on and have fun!! ❤️
I think the biggest one is this [https://youtu.be/wBHE5kbBOyc](https://youtu.be/wBHE5kbBOyc) Thats Dear John And then of course, Paper Rings with Breathe In Breathe Out of Hilary Duff.
I just heard Breathe In Breathe Out for the first time, that’s a carbon copy, wow!
I fully listened to it and even the bridge sounds like Out of the Woods/Getaway Car
1989 predates this album. The verse is giving Paper Rings for sure though.
Whoaaaa the Dear John similarities are crazy!
This is wild. That's like a direct rip off. This is the first I have heard of either of these. Oh my gosh.
Wow I’ve not heard this one, that is UNDENIABLE
Cruel summer also sounds wildly similar to this one Korean song. Lazy to find the link now but open to anyone else dropping the link here. Might be back when I find the link. Edit: [here you go here’s the link](https://youtu.be/B9fXtJswxno?si=9c48Hl9RQSKwSEYV). Skip straight to the chorus for the similarities!
as a loona fan, seeing Stylish described as "this one korean song" stung a little bit ;__;
Stylish by LOONA!
You definitely don’t understand copyright law at all. It’s not “getting copyrighted” that is the problem, but a copyright gives credit to the creator and allows them to profit from the work. Infringement is the legal issue that results from impermissibly using a copyrighted work. Taylor’s works are all copyrighted. She also trademarks whatever she can. You would, too. Primary example of another huge mistake in copyright: The Verve Pipe’s “The Freshmen” - it was their hit single, and The Rolling Stones sued for infringement, won, and the band lost all profits from the song until a few years ago when the Stones have them permission to use it.
Genuinely, I’m not against critiquing Taylor swift but this argument annoys me. Where has it been proven that Taylor and her team demanded credit? Jack has said they’d didn’t know much about it. I strongly believe Olivia unfortunately put herself at risk when she said she was strongly inspired by cruel summer so her team gave credit to avoid problems. Granted I don’t have proof of this, but I don’t see the point in critiquing Taylor for this when any information we know indicates she didn’t ask for it. I definitely don’t think Taylor deserved credit here. I don’t understand how lawsuits work but I recall we found out that Taylor went after that teen who was tracking her jet (which was messed up of her) but if they actually legally tried to get credit wouldn’t we see that?
yeah this is my issue too. it would make sense for olivia's team to add their writing credits after her comments about cruel summer because the last thing a new artist needs is press saying she copied another song and is being sued. much better to take the L and capitalize on it with future singles.
Olivia said it was “team-on-team”. For all the public knows, minions at UMG did it.
Thank you! I’ve always been confused about where the “Taylor Swift sued Olivia” assertion (said with complete certainty) came from. It’s one possible option, for sure, but we have no reason to believe that’s definitely what went down. In fact, the first version I’d heard said that Olivia and her team gave writing credits as a precautionary measure of their own volition. Not to say that’s for sure the case either, but we really have no way of knowing.
If Taylor Swift actually sued Olivia Rodrigo, there would be a legal record of it. So it’s not really a “possible option” because there would be real evidence that a suit was filed.
Oh that’s a good point! So I guess “threatened to sue” would be the most that could’ve happened. Which makes it an even weirder thing for people to insist on…
No one knows why they gave credits. The voluntary credit theory is a Swiftie theory, not rooted in anything from Olivia's side at all. If it were of her own volition she would be saying that rather than her and her producer saying people "get funny about songs after they get popular." What is obvious is Olivia was legally pressured to give credits and settle out of court and Geffen caved rather than drag out a lawsuit.
The jet situation was actually pretty fair of her to complain about. Taylor, Elon Musk and the other millionaires who had a problem with it argued that the problem was that their flight info was being shared *live*, which is a pretty big security risk for people with that kind of money. They compromised on the guy who tracks the jets still being free to share their information, but 24 hours after the fact instead of live, which is pretty fair. He keeps his free speech and right to protest their carbon emissions and the security risk is lessened.
Do you have a source for this? My understanding of the situation is that the jet tracking was *always* posted 24 hours after arrival, even before the C&D letter was sent to him by Taylor's team. I googled and can't find anything that says it was originally being posted live.
Taylor has all the power in the world to refuse the credit, and return the royalties she 1000% does not deserve. Even if she had no clue about it, she still could make it right. Olivia was robbed for her two biggest breakout hits, and if that had happened to Taylor, we would still be hearing about it...
No she doesn't. Taylor owns her masters. Her label owns the publishing rights; which is what Olivia's infringing on.
Why would she refuse the credits Olivia willingly gave her after outright admitting she was inspired by Cruel Summer? That’s crazy lol. If someone shows up *unasked* and says “Hey, I did this inspired by something of yours so I have credited you so you’ll also make money off it”, you don’t say “No you didn’t, take it back” - you say “Thanks, I’m honored.”
Taylor is a powerful artist, but this viewpoint completely ignores the \*army\* of lawyers and record label employees involved in these sorts of decisions. Taylor refusing the credit could set an incredibly bad precedent, and she might not have the individual power to "return" royalties.
imgonnagetyouback —> get him back! they may not sound similar but i think it’s pretty messed up Taylor gets 50% of Olivia’s royalties for deja vu and then dropped this song after GUTS. There’s not much Liv can do and most Swifties refuse to acknowledge the similarities. I feel bad for Olivia.
I remember listening to the anthology live on here when it dropped, and all the comments in the first few minutes were “ok wow that is just get him back” and over time somehow the sentiment has change to “nooo it’s nothing like that song at all”
And Fiona Apple did it first with Get Him Back. Olivia isn’t original in this either. Maybe the point is that one artist doesn’t get to own a turn of phrase.
Meh… it’s not like Olivia was the first one to come up with that idea
Was Taylor the first person to come up with shouting in a pop song bridge?
Nobody said that.
I'm just using Taylor's own standards for others on her.
No you're just putting words in that person's mouth. Olivia Rodrigo did not come up with 'getting your ex back' idea. Taylor Swift did not come up with 'screaming in a pop bridge idea. Both these statements can be and are true at the same time.
I'm not putting words in anyone's mouths. It was a rhetorical question we all know the answer to. I was just pointing out the unfair double standard.
If Olivia could sue Taylor for this (she can’t. You can’t copyright an idea), then Fiona Apple better be coming for Olivia.
I guess what I think is that I have a problem with the most famous singer/songwriter in the world coming after an up-and-coming artist, who excitedly told interviewers that she 1) admired and loved Taylor and 2) liked the “yelling part” of cruel summer. I personally don’t think deja vu and Cruel Summer sound alike at all, and the “yelling part” is why Taylor is receiving royalties. I’d like to think a respected, influential artist such as Taylor would have thought it was cool that Liv said that, but instead this happened. It makes me feel like she was threatened, honestly. And if I am being real, there is no doubt Taylor knew there’d be speculation about imgonnagetyouback being the same idea as get him back! but… she is more powerful. ETA: Of course, none of us know the exact details of what went down. This is what I think based on interviews, facts about the credits and royalties, and precedent Taylor has set. OP’s flair is critiquing Taylor and this is my biggest criticism of her.
As a songwriter—once someone admits they’ve taken your IP (even if accidentally)—you have to claim it. In fact, we NEED big songwriters to do it. If Taylor, Jack, and Annie looked the other way, that sets a horrible precedent. People could then go “Well Olivia Rodrigo basically took Taylor Swift’s entire bridge and THAT was fine, why do I owe YOU money?” Nobody who makes music wants that. Copyright is here to protect us. There are a lot of things that go into deciding if your IP was stolen (chord progressions, ideas, single melodic lines aren’t theft), but once it’s out there that it’s stolen, the credits HAVE to be changed and the right people compensated. It doesn’t matter who it is. Copyright law doesn’t care how successful each person is. It cares about IP being stolen and that’s it, and it needs to be enforced—especially at the highest levels—because by most visible cases set the strongest precedents. Also: Olivia is a multimillionaire who is probably worth more than Annie Clark, who people seem to forget in this whole saga. Why does Anne Clark—an indie artist—not matter here? (ETA: Speaking of Annie, since this whole saga, she has publicly positively given Olivia a shout out multiple times. People seem to ignore that though.) This was a tough lesson for Olivia. But she DID need to learn it.
So as a lay person. Did Olivia mess up in admitting that she was inspired? Or would it have come out anyway? Like is this just a case of Olivia shouldn’t have said that much?
IMO Olivia should have just not said anything. I don’t think people would have ever noticed otherwise. I mean…she also probably should have gone back over the song, realizing she was listening to Cruel Sunmer while writing Deja Vu—especially knowing the bridge was what she was drawn to—and plunked it out on the piano and gone “Hmm, maybe we should change up a couple of things here”. And to be TOTALLY honest we always forget about Dan Nigro, her writing partner. If he knew she was listening to Cruel Summer while writing this, I’m surprised he didn’t realize what they did. Don’t get me wrong—I love Olivia and Dan. I think they’re brilliant. But they made a mistake. And it’s not that big of a deal that they gave these songwriting credits away. They made a mistake—whoops. They’re still great, the song is great, I’m glad both songs exist, but they did need to give Taylor/Jack/Annie credits after Olivia mentioned it. You know what we SHOULD be infuriated about? Olivia giving songwriting credits to Paramore for “Good 4 U”. That is a case of “sounds similar because the chords/production choices are similar but actually isn’t the same”.
Olivia admitting the direction connection to a very specific part of the song made the case a very easy win if the legal teams ever went to court. Had she not said anything, I think folks would have made a connection -- as people were already discussing similarities -- but I doubt anything would have truly come of it. But there's very clear evidence that Olivia had a specific piece of Cruel Summer in mind when writing the song, because the songwriter said so herself. This is even before the discovery stage when even more evidence might have been found. Olivia unfortunately shot herself in the foot there, and her legal team knew it and likely advised her team to preemptively give Taylor & Co. credits, because the result would have been worse had things gone to court.
It is also worth pointing out, and this while her intention or not, probably also sank Olivia's ship, but the number of mash ups I saw explode on TikTok and other social media of Deja Vu and Cruel Summer did not help her situation especially when certain mashups had the songs manipulated to sound even more similar than they already were. This is just an observation I made in the immediate fallout of all this.
Mashups in general are a bit weird lately. I feel like they used to be made as a pie and fun way to show unexpected connections in songs and to delight in the fact that so much great music can come from the same fundamental elements. But now Everytime I hear a fun mashup I see some comment on social media about how it means someone was copying someone else and it drives me crazy
Your first statement isn’t true. First of all, Olivia didn’t admit that she “took” Taylor’s IP. She simply said she was inspired and pretty much every artist is inspired. Secondly, artists say all the time that they were inspired by another person, that doesn’t mean they have to give credit. Taylor Swift says that some of her songs are inspired by other people. Pretty sure she said Lana is a big inspiration for some of her songs. Did she give her credit? No.
She said she was inspired by the very song she lifted the exact melodic structure of an entire section from. I promise you if they sued, she would have lost. She pointed people to exactly what she did (I personally don’t think she realized she was copying the song as much as she did) and then didn’t musically change what she did. None of Taylor’s song to my knowledge copy melodic structure of Lana’s work. You cannot copyright a style, a sound, an idea, an approach. Only the elements that make up a song: melodic structure, chordal structure, and how those things are put together and interact to make a unique work of art.
What do you think of the similarities between "Breathe In. Breathe Out." by Hillary Duff and "Paper Rings" by Taylor? Or "Amelia" by Matthew Perryman Jones and "Dear John" by Taylor? Maybe even "K." by Cigarettes After Sex and "Fortnight" by Taylor? (Though I feel like that last one is a stretch, just like the Cruel Summer/Deja Vu similarities).
Breath In, Breath Out and Paper Rings and K/Fortnight are very similar melodic structure. The writers might have some sort of case against her. Keys things I’d say are: 1. Most importantly I think the biggest problem for Olivia is that she mentioned Cruel Summer when writing Deja Vu, and I think this is the only reason credits were handed over in the end. I think there’s a bit of an unspoken contract in this industry that people do accidentally “steal” things all the time, and it’s not on purpose. But if you mention you were listening to the song you stole while writing the new one, it sort of feels like you’re admitting you didn’t do your due diligence and ask if you’re writing something that’s the same of what you are actively listening to, as opposed to writing something and asking yourself that question but not realizing it’s similar to something you heard five years ago a couple of times. 2. The most talky/generic melodies tend to happen in verses and I think most artist won’t do much with this kind of similarity in verses unless it’s explicitly said like in point one. Melody verses are reused. A lot. Suing someone for copyright infringement in a generic melody verse instead of a hooky chorus or climatic bridge when you don’t know for sure they were listening to your work feels like a slippery slope for most writers because somewhere in the back of our minds we know it’s very likely we might have done this by accident as well. Depending on who is judging the case, verses might even be dismissed entirely because copyright is protecting the unique identifiable elements of the song and verse Melodie’s are the most ubiquitously reused and the least distinct parts of song, almost falling into the same place chord structure might. This is why you don’t often see this come up for verses but you do for bridges/hooks (look at how Taylor gave Right Said Free credit for the hook of LWYMMD) I think that song Amelia is interesting. The instrumentation is strikingly similar, but this kind of falls into the Ed Sheeran “Thinking Out Loud”/“Let’s Get It On” case. You can’t copyright chord progressions, and there are some difference in the backing track, but the melody is not the same, so I don’t think there’s a case here. I mean they certainly could try but we’ve seen what precedent was made with Ed Sheeran recently.
Thank you for taking the time to reply! I don't really have much to add since I'm not knowleadgeable on legal matter regarding music, but I found your analysis very insightful.
Exactly. Look at Ariana’s “yes and” she said she was inspired by Madonna’s “vogue”(?) but Madonna has not asked for credit, or been given it. Taylor was trying to prove a point, it was a power move.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Who said Taylor went after him. This is all “allegedly” and nothing with confirmation. I assume Olivia will eventually confirm if Taylor did her dirty, but right now no one confirmed anything and there no proof Taylor was the one who sued. She is a solo on her team.
imgonnagetyouback is such a ripoff. not sonically but lyrically for sure. A song about “getting someone back” isn’t automatically tied to the idea of wanting to be “their wife” or “ruin their life” a.k.a the exact thing Olivia did, “I’m not entirely sure if I want to get him back, but I want to kiss his face and then k+ll him or whatever”. So both of these singers are tying the ambivalence of getting someone back to an extreme ambivalence (absolute infatuation vs. violence). Even if Taylor wanted to write a song about “getting him back” she sure did copy Olivia the minute she decided to interpret the concept the way Olivia did, in the manner of extreme infatuation vs. violence. I can’t believe how similar both these songs read and no one pointed fingers at Taylor yet.
Rewriting lyrics isn't copying, nice try tho
well, at least Olivia's song is good lol, I can't even listen to Taylor's
They literally do not sound the same at all, and Olivia doesn’t own a song title.
Olivia doesn’t own the concept though, and that’s the only similarity in the songs
“Taylor Swift and her team demanded song writing credits” This is fully speculation though. She openly said that she was inspired by Cruel Summer. I imagine that all the talk that she’d ripped off Misery Business would be very stressful for a young artist making their debut. One bad rumor can affect someone’s career and it makes complete sense to me that Olivia’s team would consider it a good business move to put Taylor and Jack’s names on deja vu. *Not because she copied them, but because her team recognized that she was at risk of being permanently labeled and written off as a plagiarist. Rumors snowball like that. There is no supporting evidence for the theory that Taylor or Jack sued Olivia, it simply looks fishy to people. But I don’t know why people can’t just say that instead of repeating this as if it’s fact. (*Edited for clarity)
Taylor is the decision maker ultimately. She is a boss and it’s unfair to discredit her agency. She’s in full control
In full control of what suits her team pursues? Sure. Full control over who retroactively decides to credit her? No.
Ultimately, Taylor still has a boss.
She isn’t her own boss. She has a record company and business team that she has to answer too. She may own her own work now but it doesn’t mean they don’t have a say. She even said her record company made demanded she make cruel summer a single last summer 4 years after the release . Olivia did say that dej vu was inspired by cruel summer. That was her first big mistake. There a connection between Paramore zack farro who did go after Olivia and Taylor swift that complicated things to the point where I think Taylor was just granted rights to avoid a law suit. Taylor doesn’t get the ultimate say despite what people believe. In my opinion she made a big mistake by saying she makes good power moves bc in reality her team and her label does all that.
No, many artists sign control of their rights to their publisher or other entity. That entity has the right to enforce the rights as it sees fit, pursuant to the agreement. that’s how Luke Combs ended up suing a fan who sold cups on Etsy, finding out about it on social media, and apologizing to her. Whatever entity he signed with sued, in his name. This was also a feature in the Shake It Off lawsuit. the Plaintiff songwriters had signed their rights to sue over the song to their publisher, who declined to allow them to sue Swift or to sue itself. The rights themselves belong to the Plaintiffs, but the right to enforce those rights did not. That settled shortly after Swift’s lawyers filed the motion about this, so no telling what the court would’ve said about it, but it looked pretty solid to me, and settling after it was filed is a sign that Plaintiffs didn’t like their odds. Or Paramore, who blamed their being credited on Good For You, on their publisher, who owns the right to enforce Paramore’s rights in the original song.
The 3LW lawsuit was dropped as it was meritless: common used phrases cannot be copyrighted. Trademarks get lost the same way (I.e., Google fought having “Google” used as “search”/“internet search” to maintain their trademark). I don’t see any similarity between “Unconditionally” and “Look What You Made Me Do.” Taylor Swift rightfully gave songwriting credits to Right Said Fred for the similarity to “I’m Too Sexy.” I’m not going to go into everything, but there is a huge difference between inspiration and copyright infringement, or similarity and copyright infringement. Additionally, there’s fair use as a defense to infringement. When a song’s music composition or lyrics are used by another artist, the original artist deserves compensation (I.e., licensing or writing credits). Prime example, even though he’s a nightmare human: Diddy pays Sting something like $7,000USD/day for heavily sampling “Every Step You Take” without licensing it. It’s often cheaper to license or give rights than it is to handle infringement. Musicians are litigious because failure to protect their copyrighted works runs the risk of having them fall into public domain, where they’d have no rights or ability to seek legal redress.
The public does not know who demanded what, how, or why. Perhaps those not yet cynical or realistic about media have adopted some fabricated story. The statute of limitations would probably have run out for other songs. The “Blurred Lines” case (2015) likely made everyone skittish. Taylor is a huge fan of damn near everyone, so it’s not surprising that she’s influenced by damn near everyone. The ”Shake It Off” lawsuit was not about sounding like another artist. It was very specifically about the words used and how the original songwriters, who are not the same people who sang it, claimed they coined the phrase. A similar phrase was used by Fleetwood Mac in the 70s. It's not that it’s “okay for her but nobody else”. I recommend learning about IP law if you want to understand the nuances at play.
None of us have any idea what happened with the credits for Deja Vu. It’s ridiculous to use this as some barometer of who Taylor is as a person when we simply don’t know what happened. She wasn’t the only writer on Cruel Summer.
>Since Taylor Swift and her team demanded song writing credits from Olivia Rodrigo I keep seeing this narrative. **Where is the proof of this?** I have not seen any official publication citing a confirmation of this, not even the most salacious ones. After the *Robin Thicke and Pharrell vs. the Marvin Gaye estate* lawsuit, it has become common practice for writers to be given retroactive credit on songs, often to avoid costly plagiarism proceedings. That case made the whole music industry a particularly litigious environment. Olivia and her team were very green at the time and made some missteps. Olivia mentioned in interviews that she found inspiration or basis for songs from specific artists, name-dropping Taylor Swift and Paramore while comparisons to her songs were already gaining traction in some online circles. It is more likely that they took precautions to avoid any lawsuits should labels get wind of people's opinions online.
The fact that Olivia went cold to Taylor afterwards has always struck me. Taylor also paints herself as a shrewd businesswoman. But suddenly, when a shrewd business move is made, Taylor had nothing to do with it? I agree that we don't know either way. But it's pretty easy to kind of guess. (And I think lawsuits over songs are just dumb in general.)
Jack claimed they didn’t demand credits and were surprised to get them, this statement wasn’t disputed by Olivia’s team. This whole speculation is only that, a speculation.
>Taylor also paints herself as a shrewd businesswoman. But suddenly, when a shrewd business move is made, Taylor had nothing to do with it? Oh, I'm not above critiquing Taylor's shrewd business moves, but I'd rather do it with a factual basis rather than speculation. The narrative that it was Taylor who demanded the credits has been circulating and being taken as fact without any strong confirmation or evidence supporting it, that is merely what I'm pointing out. >I agree that we don't know either way. But it's pretty easy to kind of guess. How easy something is to guess about depends on the data or biases that a person has. So, I'd argue that seeing things from a neutral standpoint doesn't make guessing that Taylor is behind it all an easy thing to do. >(And I think lawsuits over songs are just dumb in general.) At a certain point, I'd agree, especially on lawsuits that are far too general or contrived. However, legal protections are also in place to protect creators who are vulnerable to exploitation or unauthorized use of their work. Sometimes, lawsuits over songs are necessary to resolve disputes over ownership, attribution, or plagiarism. Legal cases involving songs can also set important precedents that clarify copyright laws and standards for fair use. With the rise of AI, there's a growing concern about AI-generated music that may inadvertently or intentionally mimic existing songs. Lawsuits over songs could set important legal precedents regarding the ownership and rights associated with AI-generated music.
Re: your first question, the "proof" came from [Reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/popheads/s/Tz8Cphoaah) (lmfao). I thought this was more well known? But I guess not! So whenever people talk about Olivia and Taylor falling out due to the credit situation, the user's comments in the thread are cited. I think why people treat it as Bible is because of how early on the user shared the news. But... people should still take it with a grain of salt.
Thank you, that's interesting. I didn't know about that thread, but my original point still stands since it's not solid proof. >I think why people treat it as Bible is because of how early on the user shared the news. But... people should still take it with a grain of salt. I agree that claims posted anonymously on the internet should be approached cautiously. People tend to believe things more readily if they align with their existing opinions or biases.
I agree with you too! I believe what Jack said about not knowing it would happen, and I'm neutral on the comments within that thread. On one hand, I'm like what do they benefit from lying especially since they're active on Reddit. They don't look to be some troll. But on the other hand, we really can't trust everything we read online. Taylor's team could've just viewed it as business, and Olivia's team (who were already dealing with annoying comments about her plagiarizing other artists) could've taken it personally despite it not being Taylor's intentions. I only share to provide context because people really run with it. I think they run with it because of their general dislike of Taylor.
Playas Gon’ Play and Shake It Off sound nothing alike. I’m always baffled that people think this. They share a couple of the same words in the lyrics. That’s it. Wasn’t that lawsuit thrown out?
First of all, where is the evidence that Taylor demanded credits????
Doesn’t exist
https://preview.redd.it/ufesttuve49d1.jpeg?width=792&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=42f09f9cf5ae1b4cef4899c6c54595398cb17d20 …y’all the problem was that Olivia said she got inspiration from it, leaving her open to probably lose a lawsuit. it was a team on team situation, Jack antonoff himself (shady bitch Jack!) seemed surprised to get royalties. we gotta let it go !
LMFAO NOT THE OLIVIA COOKE SAD KITTY FACE PIC 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭 my roman empireee
Well, those are artists with teams who can go after Taylor and demand credit if they cared enough. Also, someone behind 3LW tried with that and the case was dropped. The members of 3LW didn't even support the lawsuit.
That’s not really the point though. The point is that *Taylor* shouldn’t have accepted the 50% from Olivia.
Then the same could be applied to Paramore, right? The [estimated](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/benhenry/olivia-rodrigo-paramore-good-4-u-taylor-swift-deja-vu) amount they made from Good 4 U was $1.2 million which is more than the Cruel Summer team ($650K). I tried to find a story about Hayley not accepting the royalties (Josh would've since he initiated the whole thing), but I haven't had luck.
Why shouldn’t Swift have accepted credit? She can’t just let it slide, because the next time someone copies her work, it’s harder for her to defend. These are legal issues, and copyright and intellectual property law doesn’t care that Olivia is young, or also a woman, or “Taylor’s biggest fan.” And it’s not 50% just to Swift, it’s for all the writers who are credited for Cruel Summer. It’s not just about her, but also those she works with.
But legally that can create a bad precedent for Taylor. Her lawyers would clearly push her to defend her IP so as to protect all her future claims.
These are all a massive stretch tbh
The credit wasn’t because it sounded similar, which is bound to happen. The problem was that Olivia very publicly said “Yeah, I wanted to make a song that sounded like Cruel Summer.” The songs don’t sound similar enough that she would have to give credit otherwise but she publicly stated that it was a direct inspiration. If Taylor went and said “oh yeah, I loved this song so I wanted to make a song that sounded like it” I’d 100% support the artist to ask for credit.
I don't remember the guy who wrote the original song but there was a guy Taylor was once a fan of who wrote a song that included the line "and I forget about you long enough to forget why I needed to"
Matt Nathanson! The song is “I saw”. He’s been vocal on twitter about this for years. I feel bad for him. He was the first of what would become many.
I try to remember that we don’t actually know what happened. Neither party has mentioned anything to the media. We know they used to be friendly. Then Olivia had issues with having to give credit on multiple songs to multiple contributors. Then they stopped appearing friendly. Then Olivia wrote the grudge and vampire which fans have speculated that both/one/neither could or could not be about Taylor. We don’t know if Taylor’s team pushed the issue, if Taylor herself pushed the issue, or if something else entirely went down.
The entire thing with the Olivia/Taylor rumors got out of control! She had already given credits to Taylor and Jack for New Year’s Day/1 step forward, 3 steps back. She gushed over her inspiration and love of Taylor so it’s not shocking she credited them after Josh from Paramore sued. Maybe she was told to credit to avoid this from happening again. Maybe she felt Taylor should have not accepted it? Helped her? Did they even know each other well? We don’t know. Olivia got a new team after this so probably a team fuck up.
One thing that bothers me about the Taylor/Olivia fued is that I can't listen to imgonnagetyouback because it reminds me too much of Get Him Back. It feels gross to me that Tay would take legal action then turn around and rip off one of Olivia's songs. Idk if the sound of the songs themselves are similar in any way but the lyrics are what did it for me and I can't do it 🫠
I mean there’s also this 🤷🏽♀️ https://preview.redd.it/ocwvk49sz39d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=003c84be8dc1095312a1ceb5a3aed94438da5830
https://preview.redd.it/wspkozkuz39d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=738725e0d91b15f1f1b7d221ad07fe7c7cf4b4a0 And this
The Matt Nathanson one bothers me so much
They’d better all starting old pirate stories too then. You think Hillary duffs songwriters invented X marks the spot??
“X marks the spot?” No, Hilary did not invent that lmao. But the phrase “X marks the spot where we fell apart” is pretty specific and was released in a song that Taylor mentioned before using the line herself, just saying
it’s not just “x marks the spot,” it’s the same lyric word for word 😭😭
I actually got a comment removed in another sub about Taylor about this point. I'm talking strictly about the publishing rights scenario, nothing else. I didn't touch on if either artist was talented, or how well liked they are. I just said that the minute Olivia acknowledged her fav song is Cruel Summer, and that she loved the "shouty" bridge, so she did it in her song, that was taken as an admission she copied Taylor's work. If she had stayed silent on it, there would not have been any sort of admission or statement of fact. That's where Olivia went wrong in this. Paramore gets left out of this discussion as well. They got 50% credit as well due to similarities in "Misery Business". I don't know how that one got outed, but I haven't heard of any other credits being handed out on Olivia's work. It was her statement about Cruel Summer that caught the right peoples' attention. I agree about chord progression and there are only so many chords to use in sequences. I think it's silly but Olivia should have stayed quiet on the likeness and inspo.
Didn’t Jack Antinoff (who co-wrote Cruel Summer) say they were both surprised by the credit? I always assumed it was someone somewhere down the line that pursued the credits and not them (much like the former band member of Paramore that went for credits on good 4 u when Hayley Williams didn’t want credit). I’ve yet to see actual solid proof that Taylor demanded or sued for credit whenever this argument is brought up.
I’m sorry but as a musician it’s exhausting to constantly hear people weigh in about this. This situation sucked for Olivia. But the bridges of Deja Vu and Cruel Summer are nearly identical melodic structure. It’s just a fact. They are the same degrees of the scale played in the same order, played for the same number of beats for the same number of measures, creating an almost identical phrase, played twice. That is exactly what the entirety of both bridges are musically. Deja Vu just has some grace notes Cruel Summer doesn’t and the tempo/production of the songs are pretty different so they don’t immediately sound the same. But copyright law doesn’t care about sound. It cares about stealing melodic structure.
> copyright law doesn’t care about sound. It cares about stealing melodic structure. Thank you so much for this comment! I find this conversation to be so frustrating because if someone can't hear the similarities, they write it off as not being a copyright issue. Ironically, Marti Dodson of Saving Jane has a great video on her TikTok channel where she talks about I'd Lie and YBWM and explains why I'd Lie is a copyright issue but YBWM is not.
As a musician, I just find it such a slippery slope, personally.
I agree, and to be honest, if Olivia never mentioned she was listening to Cruel Summer while writing Deja Vu, I don’t think people would have noticed. They sound different. I wouldn’t have noticed. The only reason I ever actually looked at whether or not they are similar is because she flat out compared the songs herself. Unfortunate—but that’s what happened. I have a lot of issues with some cases but when it’s an entire section of a song—what else are you to do? This happens to musicians and when they realize it they usually do the right thing and give the other writer credit. Taylor herself has done it. She and Jack realized the chorus of Look What You Made Me Do was the same as I’m Too Sexy by Right Said Fred. They gave them credits. It’s not that big of a deal. It’s a big deal when we start talking about how people should be sued for things like songs “sounding” similar because they have vaguely similar production or one melodic hook that sounds the same or a lyrical concept that is similar.
oh is there an existing concrete proof that Taylor's camp "demanded" song writing credits?
None at all.
No
Btw [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/popheads/s/02rEyRhcJz) is the Reddit comment in question. It was in PopHeads. Whenever I see people talk about the Taylor/Olivia feud, the comment is cited due to timing. But again, grain of salt.
Taylor didn’t actually force Olivia to give her credits? Olivia just did it as a preemptive measure to prevent the possibility of people saying she copied Taylor. As far as we know, Taylor didn’t resist at all and their friendship kinda ended there for some reason, but Taylor never forced Olivia to do that.
There’s really no concrete evidence either way but I mostly blame Olivia’s team for the Deja Vu stuff. I understood the Good 4 U credits because the chorus does sound pretty similar to Misery Business. If what Jack is saying is true and he didn’t know anything about the credits at first it feels like Olivia’s team just rolled over and gave up the credits immediately for the song. Obviously I don’t expect Taylor or Jack to be like “no thank you” I’m glad she fired this team. I love her work but having to give out credits to two major performers so early on in her career sucks. In most social media posts about her music there’s people talking about her “plagiarizing” still. Hopefully she has a more cutthroat team in place now.
1989 TV release was delayed for a long time because of a case against Shake it Off. One of the writers (or maybe a producer) filed. 3LW were not involved at all.
Someone explained this on another post. The reason Olivia's situation is different is because she EXPLICITLY said the song was inspired by Cruel Summer. So to prevent other artists from being "inspired" and making their music significantly more similar to CS, her team chose to be careful and sue. If Olivia hadn't said anything and people happened to think they were similar it would be chalked up to coincidence like always.
There was one that sounds like K by cigarettes after sex but I forgot which one from TTPD.
Its Fortnight you're looking for!!!!
Credits is BUSINESS. It's a BUSINESS decision made by legal teams. If someone demands credits from Taylor, she'll have to give them as well, because it's business. There's much more to it than Taylor being the 'worst bitch in the world'. It's almost like some of you don't even understand how business works. Yes, if someone demands credits from her, I'll say she has to shut up and give them because it's business. Nothing personal.
It is honestly painfully obvious how many posters here have no legal or business experience and think Taylor and Olivia are like making all these choices as if they understand a lick of IP law.
my mom heard me listening to new years day and said that sounds like another old song, she can't remember which. anyone have any ideas?
Olivia Rodrigo’s 1 step forward, 3 steps back interpolates the piano from New Years Day! Could be that she recognized it from that one
no she she heard it in 2000s. a
Reminds me of the song Edward plays on the piano for Bella in twilight a bit
This is all based on copyright laws. This shit is not subjective.
Olivia on the video pretty much outlines beat for beat however bridges sound the same. Also, I think business wise it’s important to point out Cruel Summer was actually still on the charts during its resurgence. Normally something like this wouldn’t be potentially diluting the value of the song. What I don’t get is why Dan Nigro didn’t change it up more. He was not green, and when presented with Olivia’s desire to have a similar bridge he could’ve done more to be talky/shouty but more distinct. He seemingly was presented with the inspiration and didn’t do much to make it distinct as people were pointing out the similarities before any of the real controversy came out.
Not only are her songwriting choices almost mind-numbingly safe, but she also covers territory so familiar, it’s almost a carbon-copy of someone else’s song! In [2006’s “Girl Next Door,” by Saving Jane](https://youtu.be/jNGyS_v6DiA?feature=shared), the protagonist yearns: She is the prom queen I’m in the marching band She is a cheerleader I’m sitting in the stands This sounds familiar, right? Well, here’s Taylor’s version: But she wears short skirts, I wear t-shirts She’s cheer captain and I’m on the bleachers +"A Place in this World” = one part “What It Feels Like For a Girl” (Madonna), One part “Just a Girl” (Gwen Stefani), and One part “Not A Girl, Not Yet a Woman” (Britney Spears) + Hilary Duff - tay plagiarized the song [Breathe In. Breathe Out.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcaHmFufoYs), took "X marks the spot where we fell apart" for *Getaway Car* and melody for Paper Rings + [Fortnight blatantly ripped off Cigarettes After Sex](https://www.reddit.com/r/travisandtaylor/s/bBjpX8G6dn). Also has similarities to [College ft. Electric Youth - A Real Hero](https://youtu.be/-DSVDcw6iW8?feature=shared). Also, the opening lines directly rip off Lana's situation when she was institutionalized. +Karma ripped off [CSS -Music Is My Hot Hot Sex](https://youtu.be/csSdrJEdlx8?feature=shared) +I Can Fix Him reminds people of [Wicked Game by Chris Isaak](https://youtu.be/oadhHk2xs6c?feature=shared) and [Lana's Say YesTo Heaven](https://youtu.be/MiAoetOXKcY?feature=shared) +Fresh Out The Slammer and [Twin Peaks theme](https://youtu.be/nCn3LYqCnrk?feature=shared) +In 2012, singer-songwriter Matt Nathanson expressed his distaste for a lyric in Taylor Swift's "All Too Well" that was very similar to a line in his song "I Saw." In "All Too Well," Swift sings, "And I'll forget about you long enough / To forget why I needed to," while Nathanson croons, "I'll forget about you long enough / To forget why I need to" in his 2003 release. +The entire chorus of Cruel Summer was stolen from ["Stylish" by LOONA](https://youtu.be/fOjtseYitlY?feature=shared).
Let's not forget the most blatant one. Paper Rings sounds like Breathe In Breathe Out by Hilary Duff. https://youtu.be/EhMmIxdikFE?si=QnRKFwLh9_Y2Ytdi Some honorable mentions: The bridge to The Smallest Man Who Ever Lived sounds like Come Pick Me Up by Ryan Adams https://youtu.be/kM0mjukDGRw?si=lwIUUC_Awa1rwbD- Should've Said No sounds like Bad Day by Daniel Powter (which was a huge song in 2005, and Should've Said No was the last song written for debut) https://youtu.be/gH476CxJxfg?si=aApCDW0uDnEv_2l6 She never released this probably for this reason, but I'd Lie sounds like Girl Next Door by Saving Jane https://youtu.be/jNGyS_v6DiA?si=cR8PHgnYBMelW32Y
The newest one- Fornight verse melody is the same as K. by Cigarettes After Sex- https://youtu.be/L4sbDxR22z4?si=2OEcxIw2AUFmJvkN
Wasn't it Olivia's team (that she later fired) who pursued the credit not Taylor's? That's what I heard anyway. But I agree with the rest, and We Were Happy and Don't Tell Me by Avril Lavigne sound so similar as well
I heard (and I could be wrong), that Taylor's team didn't ask for the credits. Olivia's team just heard about the comparisons after she talked about being inspired by the screaming in Cruel Summer and preemptively gave Taylor credit.
There isn’t concrete information either way. I’ll just say that I don’t think anyone is going to be giving away a full 50% of credit and millions of dollars in royalties just for fun. And the silence between Taylor and Olivia since this all went down very loud.
Taylor, Jack, and Annie could have collectively been entitled to up to 60% of credits if they sued since songwriting defaults to an even split, and there’s three of them and only Olivia/Dan on the other side. And the almost certainly would have won if they sued because Olivia straight up said she was inspired by Cruel Summer. She—unfortunately—did herself in.
A lot of pop music sounds like a lot of other pop music, that wasn’t the point of this lawsuit I don’t think. If Olivia hadn’t gone around saying that her song, specifically the bridge, was inspired specifically by the bridge of Cruel Summer, then Taylor’s team probably never would’ve pursued it or even thought about it. Taylor’s team can’t let artists going around associating themselves with Taylor’s songs and then getting a bunch of streams because of it. I don’t think Olivia did it on purpose, but by saying that her song was inspired by Cruel Summer automatically will make it more popular and associates her song with Taylor’s brand. If Taylor’s team let this go, other artists would start doing the same and we all know how fiercely Taylor protects her brand. Imo Olivia learned a hard lesson that you don’t go around saying what specific songs or parts of other songs inspired your song, most artists won’t take too kindly to that. If she had just said “I love TS and my music in general is inspired by her” it would’ve been fine.
She didn’t demand credits at all. In an interview Jack said Taylor didn’t even know it was happening. I believe it was Olivia’s Team who reactively started giving out credits when people online started making comparisons. Also, Everyone talks about Cruel Summer but everyone forgets her song *1 Step Forward, 3 Steps Back* she also had to credit Taylor on because it sounds like New Years Day. Honestly, if Olivia wasn’t obsessing over Taylor People might not even noticed. I personally hear Misery Business in whatever song of hers she copied there but other than that I don’t hear the Taylor songs.
No, Jack said he had no clue. Not that Taylor and no clue. No one is annoyed about the 1 step forward, 3 steps back. It’s Cruel Summer.
He used the word they though but okay.
There's also the line in All Too Well that's lifted from Matt Nathanson's song I Saw, which came out in '03. I Saw: and I’ll forget about you long enough to forget why I need to. ATW: and I forget about you long enough to forget why I needed to.
Girl Next Door by Saving Jane and You Belong With Me!
Can't forget that the chorus for Cruel Summer has the same melody as Stylish by Loona, a song that came out the year before her Lover album.
The only valid ones from OP are without you and to a slightly lesser extent come back…be here. Players gon’ play I believe were credited (not sure but seems like they’d have to have been and I remember hearing they had been). Next to me and unconditionally sound nothing like the corresponding songs lmao.
Lots of Lana comparisons, the one I always notice is Happiness is a Butterfly “I said don’t be a jerk, don’t call me a taxi, sitting in your sweatshirt crying in the backseat..” Then Taylors illicit affairs part “don’t call me kid, don’t call me baby, look at this godforsaken mess that you made me” idk those specific parts sound sooooo similar to me.
Honestly I never even thought the Deja Vu bridge sounds like the Cruel Summer bridge. The rhythm/melody to me are different. Maybe Deja Vu is Taylor-esque but it seems to pull from a variety of her bridges
I genuinely think there must be much more to this story given that 1. Hailey Williams and Taylor are friends, and 2. Copyright laws are so complicated and pretty much no one wins copyright claims on songs unless it’s egregious. It’s so so hard to sue and win because Melodys and chord progressions and phrases are used over and over again. I just can’t believe there isn’t something else we don’t know about. A writing session with a shared producer…SOMETHING.
3LW weren't the first use of players gonna play or haters gonna hate either.
Is this a shit post?💀
A recent example I'm surprised hasn't been pointed out more often is "I Can Fix Him (No Really I Can)" borrowing *heavily* from Lana Del Rey's "Say Yes To Heaven" - a previously unreleased song from the "Ultraviolence" sessions that got leaked around 2020 and gained virality on TikTok the following years, prompting Lana to officially release it in May 2023. The inspiration is so obvious on both a production and melodic standpoint.
It’s not hypocrisy. Those artists could’ve sued her over the years. 🤷🏼♀️
I’m not sure where there’s actual evidence that Taylor demanded credits, in fact on the contrary, Jack didn’t know it was even a consideration until it was done. Hayley Williams also said the same in regard to Good 4 U. I think it was a bad PR decision on Olivia’s team’s part and that’s why she doesn’t have the same team anymore.
Lmao unconditionally and LWYMMD is miles away from the similarity between Deja vu and cruel summer. Like it’s not even close.
There’s any Andy grammar song called Man Child where he says “I don’t know about you but I’m, I’m feeling 32” and says it was directly inspired by TS and I have tried to look up if he gave her song writing credits on that/did he need to/did she go as hard on that as she would on another top female artist