The Taylor Swift “Shake It Off” copyright lawsuit ended quietly on December 12, 2022, when a federal judge dismissed the case with prejudice at the joint request of both sides, roughly a month before trial was set to begin. Songwriters Sean Hall and Nathan Butler had accused Swift of lifting lyrics from their 2001 track “Playas Gon’ Play,” recorded by the girl group 3LW. After five years of litigation, a dismissal, a Ninth Circuit reversal, and a scheduled January 17, 2023 trial date, the parties settled on undisclosed terms and each agreed to pay its own legal costs.
Who Sued and What Lyrics Were at Issue
Hall and Butler filed suit in September 2017. Their 2001 song included the chorus lines “Playas, they gonna play” and “Haters, they gonna hate.” Swift’s 2014 hit uses “the players gonna play, play, play” and “the haters gonna hate, hate, hate.”
The plaintiffs did not claim ownership of any single word. They argued that pairing the “players” and “haters” concepts into a back-to-back lyrical hook was a distinct creative choice, and that “Shake It Off” copied that structure. They sought a share of the song’s profits, which were substantial across streaming, digital sales, and touring.
Swift’s Defense
Swift’s team argued two things. First, that she wrote “Shake It Off” independently and had never heard “Playas Gon’ Play” before the lawsuit; she said so in sworn declarations filed in 2022. Second, that the phrases at issue were too common in everyday English for anyone to own. The defense pointed to earlier songs using similar language, including Outkast’s “Player’s Ball” (1993), The Notorious B.I.G.’s “Playa Hater” (1997), and Fleetwood Mac’s “Dreams” (1977).
Independent creation is a strong defense in copyright cases because infringement requires proof of actual copying, not just similarity.
The Dismissal and the Ninth Circuit Reversal
U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald initially threw the case out. He ruled that the disputed lyrics were too commonplace to earn copyright protection, noting that by 2001 the concepts of “players playing” and “haters hating” were already deeply embedded in pop culture. The U.S. Copyright Office itself declines to register words and short phrases, holding that they contain “an insufficient amount of authorship.”1U.S. Copyright Office. Circular 33 – Works Not Protected by Copyright
Hall and Butler appealed. In October 2019, the Ninth Circuit reversed. The appellate court did not say the lyrics were original enough to be protected. It said originality was a factual question that a judge could not resolve on paper at the pleading stage, and that the complaint “still plausibly alleged originality.” A jury, not a judge, would have to decide whether the particular combination of common phrases crossed the creativity threshold set by the Supreme Court’s low but real originality bar.2Legal Information Institute. Feist Publications Inc v Rural Telephone Service Company Inc
That reversal put the case back on track toward trial and worried parts of the music industry, because it lowered the practical bar for surviving early dismissal in copyright suits built on shared use of common phrases.
How the Case Ended
With a January 17, 2023 trial looming, both sides filed a joint request to end the case. On December 12, 2022, Judge Fitzgerald signed an order dismissing the suit “in its entirety and with prejudice,” meaning Hall and Butler cannot refile the same claim.
The terms were not disclosed. Neither side said whether money changed hands or whether any songwriting credit was granted. Each party agreed to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs, which in federal copyright cases can otherwise be awarded to the prevailing side at the court’s discretion.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 USC 505 – Remedies for Infringement: Costs and Attorneys Fees That fee arrangement is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a win for either party.
What the Case Leaves Unresolved
Because the case settled before trial, it produced no definitive ruling on whether combining short, common lyrical phrases in a particular way can be copyrighted. The Ninth Circuit’s reversal remains on the books, signaling that originality in short phrases is a factual question that will be fought case by case. For songwriters, plaintiffs gained an easier path to a jury; defendants face the cost and risk of prolonged litigation even when the alleged copying involves everyday expressions. Federal copyright law protects “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression” and excludes ideas and concepts from that protection,4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 USC 102 – Subject Matter of Copyright: In General but where a short phrase falls on that line is now a question courts will keep answering one case at a time.