Winning a "Shake It Off" suit does not entitle Taylor Swift to a lawsuit, as a Californian judge has ruled.
US District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald has challenged Swift's attempt to select a pair of songwriters, denied her $ 75,000 bill – and took a break to accuse the pop star of infringing claims that she's likely to make one day, decrease.
"Be careful what you wish for," Fitzgerald wrote in his book. Page decision. "There are very few record artists who have a greater interest than Ms. Swift in having a robust copyright."
Songwriter Sean Hall and Nathan Butler, who in 2001 wrote "Playas Gon's Play" song from the 3LW girl group, had sued Swift in September because he allegedly lyrics ̵
Swift's 2014 "Shake It Off" sold 9 million
After Fitzgerald threw the $ 30 million suit in February, Swift quickly moved to pay her $ 75,000 bill.
But the judge put a blank on what Taylor would collect and decided the "Playas" suit was "not factually wrong or far-fetched."
"There are at least dyeable arguments on both sides," the judge said.
Fitzgerald also claimed that the plaintiffs' claims to cover Swift's legal costs reward the Copyright Act's goal of "a balance between" a creator's work and allow others to build on it.
The lawyer then rejected the claim that the Swift team was trying to position itself as a deterrent to other frivolous suits as an unjustified robbery.
"More frankly" Richter wrote: "If the court were the only choice between awarding fees to defendants based on the complaint or fees for the claimants on the basis of the request, the court would award the fees to the plaintiffs without delay . "