...... People use snippits and lyrics within 10 seconds ( I think is the rule before you can call copyright, so long as you give proper credit) of other songs, especially in pop.
not exactly. There is no specific time allowed where you can copy someone else's work and call it legit. There isn't for the most part a "fair use" clause that applies outside of a very narrow exception for religious and educational use. All other uses.... even use with no profit intended, requires the user to obtain a license at their expense to use those copyrighted snippits or the entire song, or a sample thereof. (Harry Fox Agency handles all licensing)
George Harrison was sued successfully over 3 notes. Others have been sued over the use of a short one second sample. In fact, the song and commercial use contracts I have to sign to place my music in libraries specifically states that I swear and avow that I own all the rights to all lyrics, music, tracks, and samples used in my music.
The issue in the Swift case, the contested lyrics were determined to be to ordinary to be considered copyrightable. And since that was the only part of the song that Taylor wrote that Sean Hall and Nathan Butler sued over..... the judge threw it out. In essence, Swift used a well worn cliche in her music and cliche's are in that category of being so commonly used that there isn't anything original in their use, and therefore.... not subject to copyright.
But..... each case would have to be decided by a judge and possibly a jury.
The judge was fair.... he gave them a second chance...."In sum, the lyrics at issue... are too brief, unoriginal, and uncreative to warrant protection under the Copyright Act," he wrote. However, he offered Hall and Butler one last chance to amend their argument before the case is settled on 26 February, "just in case there are more similarities between Playas Gon' Play and Shake it Off than Plaintiffs have alleged thus far"
I'm not a Swift fan but I have to agree with this decision.
