9th Circuit Revives Ridiculous 'Shake It Off' Copyright Lawsuit, Because The 9th Circuit Loves To Mess Up Copyright Law

from the playas-gonna-play dept

Why is the 9th Circuit so horrendously bad at copyright law? This question comes up way too often. Last year we wrote about a very good and (and at the time, we thought) very easy and obvious district court dismissal of a lawsuit against Taylor Swift. The issue was Taylor Swift’s hit song “Shake It Off” which includes in the lyrics the lines “playas gonna play” and “haters gonna hate.” She was sued by Sean Hall who had a song call “Playas Gon’ Play” that has the lyrics “Playas, they gonna play / And haters, they gonna hate.” The district court not only dismissed the case as ridiculous, but the judge threatened Section 11 sanctions on Hall’s lawyers for bringing such a ridiculous case as it was beyond obvious that such short snippets (used slightly differently) weren’t nearly enough to get a copyright alone — and since that’s the only similarity, the case got tossed.

In sum, the lyrics at issue ? the only thing that Plaintiffs allege Defendants copied ? are too brief, unoriginal, and uncreative to warrant protection under the Copyright Act.

But, as first noted by the Hollywood Reporter, the 9th Circuit has revived the case and sent it back to the lower court. The incredibly short (and non-precedential) order just says that determining whether or not something is covered by copyright is a matter of fact, not law. This matters in a big way, procedurially, though I apologize for my very layman’s explanation of civil procedure. A motion to dismiss is generally the quickest and easiest way to get a case dismissed, though it’s limited in what it can be used for. A typical “12(b)6” motion to dismiss is used at the earliest part in a lawsuit, and basically says that “even if everything the plaintiff says is true, it doesn’t state a legitimate claim under the law” and thus should be dismissed. The judge is then supposed to assume that everything in the complaint is true (for this stage of things) and determine if there’s a valid claim (it’s much later in the procedure, if it gets that far, that defendants can start poking holes in the claims).

One of the rules used by judges is that they can only rule on matters of law, and whether or not there’s an actual claim is seen as a matter of law. Matters of fact, on the other hand, are seen as things that a jury should decide (much, much later in the process). Again, this is a very, very, very basic civil procedure lesson and there’s lots of nuance and conditions and real lawyers can feel free to complain about this description, but that’s the quick overview.

What’s bizarre about this 9th Circuit remand to the district court is that it suggests district court judges can never say “but that’s not even covered by copyright” at the motion to dismiss stage:

Originality, as we have long recognized, is normally a question of fact… . Indeed, as Justice Holmes long ago cautioned:

It would be a dangerous undertaking for persons trained only to the law to constitute themselves final judges of the worth of pictorial illustrations, outside of the narrowest and most obvious limits. At the one extreme, some works of genius would be sure to miss appreciation. Their very novelty would make them repulsive until the public had learned the new language in which their author spoke. . . . At the other end, copyright would be denied to pictures which appealed to a public less educated than the judge. . . . [A]nd the taste of any public is not to be treated with contempt.

Justice Holmes? century-old warning remains valid. By concluding that, ?for such short phrases to be protected under the Copyright Act, they must be more creative than the lyrics at issues here,? the district court constituted itself as the final judge of the worth of an expressive work. Because the absence of originality is not established either on the face of the complaint or through the judicially noticed matters, we reverse the district court?s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).1

But… that seems to totally misunderstand Justice Holmes’ point. Justice Holmes was saying that judges shouldn’t be in the business of judging the artistic merit of a work. But that’s a wholly different question from whether or not a work even qualifies for copyright in the first place. And it’s long established that short words or phrases are not covered by copyright. Indeed, the Copyright Office has made it clear for ages that you can’t copyright short phrases:

Words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans, are uncopyrightable because they contain an insufficient amount of authorship. The Office will not register individual words or brief combinations of words, even if the word or short phrase is novel, distinctive, or lends itself to a play on words

As such, it seems pretty freaking obvious that this is a question of law, not fact. “Is this copyrightable?” is right smack in the middle of a question of law. And yet, the 9th Circuit seems to think not — meaning that the 9th Circuit may face a bunch of really dumb copyright lawsuits on things clearly not covered by copyright, because the 9th Circuit seems to think even when there’s obviously no legitimate copyright, it has to go to a jury to decide that “fact.”

That seems really bad — and means that bogus copyright lawsuits cannot be (I’m so, so sorry) “shaken off” as easily as they should be.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “9th Circuit Revives Ridiculous 'Shake It Off' Copyright Lawsuit, Because The 9th Circuit Loves To Mess Up Copyright Law”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

This is just another stone in the wall of copyright

When those in DC can point to varying interpretations of copyright across the court systems, it will be much easier for the lobbiests to bribe their congress critters into passing the CASE law (or whatever it’s re-named in it’s next evolution).

Step 1 – appoint bought and owned judges
Step 2 – force differing judgements in different circuts
Step 3 – Point to discrepancies and claim your new Copyright Court will harmonize the laws (aka Jack them to 11)
Step 4 – Profit (all the lawyers… what you didn’t know all these shennanigans are just make work for lawyers to keep busy making money while doing nothing but scamming from the public).

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Michael Barclay (profile) says:

Split in the Circuits?

In the Seventh Circuit, fair use can be decided as a matter of law at the pleading stage. Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners, 682 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2012). So why can’t copyrightability of short phrases be decided as a matter of law?
Seems like there’s a circuit split here.

Anonymous Coward says:

Words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans, are uncopyrightable because they contain an insufficient amount of authorship. The Office will not register individual words or brief combinations of words, even if the word or short phrase is novel, distinctive, or lends itself to a play on words

this is common sense , if someone could get a copyright on common phrase,s , slogans, it would reduce the freedom of writers and creators,
remember copyright law is supposed to protect artistic expression ,
its not just there for big corporations or coyright trolls .
haters gonna hate , players gonna play is in common use
,it was not invented by the songwriter or by taylor swift.
i can see no logical reason why this case was revived except to give
more money to lawyers and legal experts .

Tony Smith says:


You cannot get a copyright on a brief phrase. True. But you can get a copyright on your entire set of lyrics. The question then becomes whether copying parts of the song infringes the copyright. No one is saying that the phrase on its own could have a copyright. The 9th cir. is sayimg that the question of what stealing part of a song violates the copyright is a question of law. That’s reasonable.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...