Image copyright Reuters Image caption Taylor Swift had been sued over her hit single Shake It Off 
 
 The phrase "haters gonna hate" is too "banal" to be copyrighted, a US judge has declared. 
 
 Judge Michael W Fitzgerald made the comments while dismissing a copyright case against Taylor Swift. 
 
 Songwriters Sean Hall and Nathan Butler sued the star last year, arguing her single Shake It Off stole from their composition, Playas Gon' Play. 
 
 They said the chorus of her song relied on their lyric, "playas, they gonna play, and haters, they gonna hate". 
 
 Although short phrases are generally immune from copyright claims, the writers argued that combining the two thoughts was original enough to warrant protection. 
 
 Fitzgerald disagreed - in quite some style. 
 
 'Lacks the modicum of originality and creativity ' 
 
 "The lynchpin of this entire case is thus whether or not the lyrics 'Playas, they gonna play, and haters, they gonna hate' are eligible for protection," he wrote. 
 
 "In the early 2000s, popular culture was adequately suffused with the concepts of players and haters to render the phrases 'playas… gonna play' or 'haters… gonna hate', standing on their own, no more creative than 'runners gonna run'; 'drummers gonna drum'; or 'swimmers gonna swim.' 
 
 "The concept of actors acting in accordance with their essential nature is not at all creative; it is banal. 
 
 "The allegedly infringed lyrics are short phrases that lack the modicum of originality and creativity required for copyright protection," Fitzgerald added. 
 
 The judge also criticised the plaintiffs "clunky" legal arguments, before approving Swift's motion to dismiss the case. 
 
 "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". 
 
 Playas Gon' Play was a minor hit for US girl band 3LW in 2001. Hall has subsequently written and produced for artists such as Justin Bieber and Maroon 5, while Butler has worked with artists including Backstreet Boys and Luther Vandross. 
 
 Their lawyer, Gerard Fox, said he would not file an amendment to the original complaint, but planned to appeal Judge Fitzgerald's ruling. 
 
 Fox said the judge should have found an expert to rule on the originality of the lyrics, rather than interpreting them himself. 
 
 "He cannot make himself an expert in the music industry," he said. "I'm sorry. it's actually embarrassing." 
 
 Taylor Swift will headline BBC Music's Biggest Weekend in May this year. 
 
 Follow us on Facebook, on Twitter @BBCNewsEnts, or on Instagram at bbcnewsents. If you have a story suggestion email entertainment.news@bbc.co.uk. 

 Published on Feb 26, 2010 
 
 3LW's official music video for 'Playas Gon' Play'. Click to listen to 3LW on Spotify: http://smarturl.it/3LWSpotify?IQid=3L... 
 
 
 
 As featured on A Girl Can Mack. Click to buy the track or album via iTunes: http://smarturl.it/3LW?IQid=3LWPGP 
 
 Google Play: http://smarturl.it/PGPGPlay?IQid=3LWPGP 
 
 Amazon: http://smarturl.it/3LWA?IQid=3LWPGP 
 
 
 
 More from 3LW 
 
 I Do (Wanna Get Close To You): https://youtu.be/Ce_sZfmUvz0 
 
 No More (Baby I'ma Do Right): https://youtu.be/drvS9w-lTMc 
 
 Feelin' You: https://youtu.be/8i9rXOmq8LY 
 
 
 
 More great Classic RnB videos here: http://smarturl.it/ClassicRNB?IQid=3L... 
 
 
 
 Follow 3LW 
 
 Twitter: https://twitter.com/vrarmy 
 
 
 
 Subscribe to 3LW on YouTube: http://smarturl.it/3LWSub?IQid=3LWPGP 
 
 
 
 --------- 
 
 
 
 Lyrics: 
 
 
 
 The hit maker 
 
 The playas gon' play 
 
 Them haters gonna hate 
 
 Them callers gonna call 
 
 Them ballers gonna ball 
 
 (Let 'em know) 
 
 
 
 I, I don't mind (ha) 
 
 What people say or do (nah, nah) 
 
 But I, I do mind 
 
 What you believe is true 
 
 You are the only one 
 
 Getting all my love 
 
 Cuz what they do (what they do) 
 
 Ain't nothin' new 
 
 
 
 Playas, they gonna play 
 
 And haters, they gonna hate 
 
 Ballers, they gonna ball 
 
 Shot callers, they gonna call 
 
 That ain't got nothin' to do 
 
 With me and you 
 
 That's the way it is 
 
 That's the way it is 

 A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit Tuesday that accused Taylor Swift of copyright infringement on her hit song “Shake It Off.” 
 
 Songwriters Sean Hall and Nathan Butler brought the suit last fall, arguing that the chorus of the song borrowed from their 2001 composition, “Playas Gon’ Play.” 
 
 In his ruling, Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald held that combining the phrases, “Playas gonna play” and “haters gonna hate,” does not entail sufficient originality to warrant copyright protection. 
 
 “By 2001, American popular culture was heavily steeped in the concepts of players, haters, and player haters,” Fitzgerald wrote. “The concept of actors acting in accordance with their essential nature is not at all creative; it is banal.” 
 
 The plaintiffs’ song includes the following line in the chorus: “Playas, they gonna play, and haters, they gonna hate.” “Shake It Off” includes the line, “Players gonna play, play, play, play, play, and haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.” 
 
 Though short phrases are generally immune from copyright infringement claims, the plaintiffs argued that combining the two thoughts was sufficiently original to claim copyright protection. Fitzgerald disagreed. 
 
 “It is hardly surprising that Plaintiffs, hoping to convey the notion that one should persist regardless of others’ thoughts or actions, focused on both players playing and haters hating when numerous recent popular songs had each addressed the subjects of players, haters, and player haters,” he wrote. “In short, combining two truisms about playas and haters, both well-worn notions as of 2001, is simply not enough.” 
 
 “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,” Fitzgerald concluded. 
 
 The case was dismissed with leave to amend, but Fitzgerald advised the plaintiffs not to refile the suit unless there are as-yet-undiscovered similarities between the two songs. 

 Case 2:17-cv-06882-MWF-AS Document 30 Filed 02/13/18 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:273 
 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 
 
 Case No. CV 17-6882-MWF (ASx) Date: February 13, 2018 
 
 Title: Sean Hall d.b.a. Gimme Some Hot Sauce Music, et al. v. Taylor Swift, et al. 
 
 Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge 
 
 Deputy Clerk: Court Reporter: 
 
 Rita Sanchez Not Reported 
 
 Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant: 
 
 None Present None Present 
 
 Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 
 
 DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 
 
 CLAIM AND MOTION TO STRIKE [20] 
 
 Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and 
 
 Motion to Strike (the “Motion”) (Docket No. 20), filed by Defendants Taylor Swift, 
 
 Karl Martin Sandberg, Karl Johan Schuster, Sony/ATV Music Publishing, LLC 
 
 (“Sony”), Kobalt Music Publishing America Inc. (“Kobalt”), Big Machine Label 
 
 Group, LLC (“Big Machine”), and Universal Music Group, Inc. (“Universal”) on 
 
 January 3, 2018. On January 19, 2018, Plaintiffs Sean Hall d.b.a. Gimme Some Hot 
 
 Sauce Music (“Hall”) and Nathan Butler d.b.a. Faith Force Music (“Butler”) filed an 
 
 Opposition. (Docket No. 25). On January 29, 2018, Defendants filed a Reply. 
 
 (Docket No. 28). 
 
 The Court has read and considered the papers filed in connection with the 
 
 Motion and held a hearing on February 12, 2018. 
 
 For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED with leave to amend. 
 
 The songs in question – Playas Gon’ Play and Shake it Off – are both before the Court, 
 
 and Plaintiffs have alleged with specificity which portions of Shake it Off were copied 
 
 from Playas Gon’ Play. Because Plaintiffs allege that Defendants copied only two 
 
 brief phrases from the lyrics of Playas Gon’ Play and do not allege that any musical 
 
 elements were copied (having listened to both tracks, it does not seem that any 
 
 distinctive musical elements were), the Court is able to evaluate this action without the 
 
 ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 1 
 
 Case 2:17-cv-06882-MWF-AS Document 30 Filed 02/13/18 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:274 
 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 
 
 Case No. CV 17-6882-MWF (ASx) Date: February 13, 2018 
 
 Title: Sean Hall d.b.a. Gimme Some Hot Sauce Music, et al. v. Taylor Swift, et al. 
 
 aid of experts opining on various musical elements or a jury evaluating intrinsic 
 
 similarities between the works. 
 
 The allegedly infringed lyrics are short phrases that lack the modicum of 
 
 originality and creativity required for copyright protection. Accordingly, if there was 
 
 copying, it was only of unprotected elements of Playas Gon’ Play. While the Court is 
 
 extremely skeptical that Plaintiffs will – in a manner consistent with Rule 11 – be able 
 
 to rehabilitate their copyright infringement claim in an amended complaint, out of an 
 
 abundance of forbearance it will give Plaintiffs a single opportunity to try. Any future 
 
 dismissal will be without leave to amend. 
 
 I. BACKGROUND 
 
 A. Plaintiffs’ Complaint 
 
 Hall and Butler are co-authors and copyright owners of the musical composition 
 
 titled Playas Gon’ Play. (Complaint ¶¶ 1-2, 15). 3LW, an all-girl group that gained 
 
 popularity in the early 2000s, performed Playas Gon’ Play and released it to the public 
 
 in May 2001. (Id. ¶¶ 15, 17). Playas Gon’ Play peaked at number 81 on Billboard’s 
 
 Hot 100 chart and, on March 7, 2001, appeared as the number-seven video on TRL, a 
 
 popular MTV music-video-request show at the time. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 18). 3LW also 
 
 performed Playas Gon’ Play several times on national television, including on Regis & 
 
 Kelly, MTV, and Fox Family. (Id. ¶ 19). The album that Playas Gon’ Play appeared 
 
 on – 3LW, 3LW’s self-titled debut album – was certified platinum by the Recording 
 
 Industry Association of America, meaning that more than 1,000,000 units were sold. 
 
 (Id. ¶ 17). 
 
 The chorus of Playas Gon’ Play consists of the following lyrics: “Playas, they 
 
 gonna play / And haters, they gonna hate / Ballers, they gonna ball / Shot callers, they 
 
 gonna call / That ain’t got nothin’ to do / With me and you / That’s the way it is / 
 
 That’s the way it is.” (Id. ¶¶ 20, 25; Declaration of Peter Anderson (“Anderson Decl.”) 
 
 (Docket No. 20-3), Ex. 2) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs acknowledge that the concepts 
 
 of players / playas, haters, and player / playa haters were already firmly rooted in pop 
 
 ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 2 
 
 Case 2:17-cv-06882-MWF-AS Document 30 Filed 02/13/18 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:275 
 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 
 
 Case No. CV 17-6882-MWF (ASx) Date: February 13, 2018 
 
 Title: Sean Hall d.b.a. Gimme Some Hot Sauce Music, et al. v. Taylor Swift, et al. 
 
 culture at the time Playas Gon’ Play was released, but allege that “[t]he combination of 
 
 playas/players playing along with hatas/haters hating … was completely original and 
 
 unique” when the song was released in 2001. (Complaint ¶ 20; see id. ¶ 20-25). 
 
 In 2014, Swift, Sandberg, and Schuster co-authored the musical combination 
 
 titled Shake it Off. (Id. ¶ 26). Swift performed and recorded the song, and it was 
 
 released to the public in August 2014. (Id.). Shake it Off debuted at number one on 
 
 Billboard’s Hot 100 chart and remained on the chart for 50 consecutive weeks. (Id. ¶ 
 
 35). More than 9,000,000 copies of Shake it Off have been sold, and more than 
 
 6,000,000 copies of Swift’s album 1989 – the album featuring Shake it Off – have been 
 
 sold. (Id. ¶¶ 35-36). 
 
 The chorus of Shake it Off contains the following lyrics: “ ‘Cause the players 
 
 gonna play, play, play, play, play / And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate / 
 
 Baby I’m just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake / Shake it off / Shake it off / 
 
 Heartbreakers gonna break, break, break, break, break / And the fakers gonna fake, 
 
 fake, fake, fake, fake / Baby I’m just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake / Shake it 
 
 off / Shake it off.” (Id. ¶¶ 27-28; Anderson Decl. Ex. 4) (emphasis added). 
 
 Plaintiff alleges that Sony and Kobalt co-own publishing rights in Shake it Off, 
 
 Big Machine is Swift’s record label and released Shake it Off, and Universal distributes 
 
 Shake it Off. (Id. ¶¶ 6-9). 
 
 Plaintiff asserts a single claim of copyright infringement against all Defendants, 
 
 premised upon the lyrical similarities between Playas Gon’ Play and Shake it Off. (Id. 
 
 ¶¶ 41-50). 
 
 ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 3 
 
 Case 2:17-cv-06882-MWF-AS Document 30 Filed 02/13/18 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:276 
 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 
 
 Case No. CV 17-6882-MWF (ASx) Date: February 13, 2018 
 
 Title: Sean Hall d.b.a. Gimme Some Hot Sauce Music, et al. v. Taylor Swift, et al. 
 
 B. Request for Judicial Notice 
 
 In connection with their Motion, Defendants request that the Court take judicial 
 
 notice of the following: 
 
  The song Dreams by Fleetwood Mac (1977) contains the lyrics “Players 
 
 only love you when they’re playing.” (Anderson Decl. ¶ 9, Exs. 5-7). 
 
  “Player” was the name of a 1970s soft rock band. (Id. ¶ 11, Ex. 9). 
 
  “Playa” was the name of a 1990s R&B musical group. (Id. ¶ 11, Ex. 9). 
 
  The Player is the title of a 1992 motion picture based on a 1988 novel 
 
 titled The Player. (Id. ¶ 12, Exs. 10-11). 
 
  The 1991 song Psychobetabuckdown by Cypress Hill includes the lyrics 
 
 “You’re looking at the tribe, and you’re a hater.” (Id. ¶ 13, Exs. 12-14). 
 
  Player’s Ball is the title of a 1993 song by Outkast. (Id. ¶ 14, Exs. 15-16). 
 
  Playa Playa is the title of a 1994 song by Big Mike. (Id. ¶ 15, Ex. 17). 
 
  Playa Hata is the title of a 1995 song by Luniz and includes these lyrics: 
 
 “So playa hataz hate me,” “Why you wanna playa hate on me?”, and 
 
 “Why you playa hate?” (Id. ¶ 16, Exs. 18-20). 
 
  Man U Luv to Hate, a 1996 song by Sir Mix-A-Lot, includes the lyrics: “If 
 
 you want to playa hate,” “Playa’s in the house can you feel me, Got these 
 
 playa haters lookin’ at me silly,” “Cause with these haters you gotta keep 
 
 your strap,” and “Boy get a job and quit hatin’.” (Id. ¶ 17, Exs. 21-23). 
 
 ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 4 
 
 Case 2:17-cv-06882-MWF-AS Document 30 Filed 02/13/18 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:277 
 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 
 
 Case No. CV 17-6882-MWF (ASx) Date: February 13, 2018 
 
 Title: Sean Hall d.b.a. Gimme Some Hot Sauce Music, et al. v. Taylor Swift, et al. 
 
  Playa Hater, a 1997 song by Notorious B.I.G., contains the lyrics: “Playa, 
 
 turn your head round,” and “We have, the playas, and we have, the playa 
 
 haters.” (Id. ¶ 18, Exs. 24-26). 
 
  Hater Players, a 1998 song by Black Star, includes the lyrics: “I’m sick of 
 
 the hater-players,” and “Aiyyo, later for the hater-players / Yo-yo, yo-yo, 
 
 later for these hater-players.” (Id. ¶ 19, Exs. 27-29). 
 
  Don’t Hate the Player, a 1999 song by Ice-T, contains the lyrics: “Bunch 
 
 of players listenin’ to the seventh deadly sin,” “Ice-T baby, this goes out 
 
 to all you haters out there,” and “Don’t hate the player.” (Id. ¶ 12, Exs. 
 
 30-32). 
 
  Don’t Hate the Player, a 2000 song by Too Short, contains the lyrics: 
 
 “Don’t hate the player,” “If you never was a player, I can’t hate you,” 
 
 “You never was a player, we can’t hate you,” and “You think someone 
 
 player hated.” (Id. ¶ 21, Exs. 33-35). 
 
 (Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Failure 
 
 to State a Claim (“RJN”) (Docket No. 24). 
 
 Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendants’ RJN. (See Plaintiffs’ Notice of Non- 
 
 Opposition to Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 26)). And the 
 
 Court finds that aforementioned band names, song titles, and song lyrics are 
 
 appropriate subject matter of judicial notice. All this information “can be accurately 
 
 and readily determined by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” 
 
 Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2), (c)(2). 
 
 Accordingly, Defendants’ RJN is GRANTED. 
 
 ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 5 
 
 Case 2:17-cv-06882-MWF-AS Document 30 Filed 02/13/18 Page 6 of 16 Page ID #:278 
 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 
 
 Case No. CV 17-6882-MWF (ASx) Date: February 13, 2018 
 
 Title: Sean Hall d.b.a. Gimme Some Hot Sauce Music, et al. v. Taylor Swift, et al. 
 
 II. DISCUSSION 
 
 A. Legal Framework 
 
 1. Pleading Standard 
 
 “Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper when the complaint either (1) lacks a 
 
 cognizable legal theory or (2) fails to allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable 
 
 legal theory.” Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 959 (9th Cir. 2013). In ruling on 
 
 the Motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court follows Bell Atlantic and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 
 
 556 U.S. 662 (2009). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain 
 
 sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’” 
 
 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The Court must disregard 
 
 allegations that are legal conclusions, even when disguised as facts. See id. at 681 (“It 
 
 is the conclusory nature of respondent’s allegations, rather than their extravagantly 
 
 fanciful nature, that disentitles them to the presumption of truth.”); Eclectic Properties 
 
 E., LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co., 751 F.3d 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2014). “Although ‘a 
 
 well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof is 
 
 improbable,’ plaintiffs must include sufficient ‘factual enhancement’ to cross ‘the line 
 
 between possibility and plausibility.’” Eclectic Properties, 751 F.3d at 995 (quoting 
 
 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–57) (internal citations omitted). 
 
 The Court must then determine whether, based on the allegations that remain 
 
 and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, the complaint alleges a 
 
 plausible claim for relief. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. 
 
 Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2011). “Determining whether a 
 
 complaint states a plausible claim for relief is ‘a context-specific task that requires the 
 
 reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.’” Ebner v. 
 
 Fresh, Inc., No. 13-56644, 2016 WL 5389307, at *2 (9th Cir. Sept. 27, 2016) (as 
 
 amended) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). Where the facts as pleaded in the 
 
 complaint indicate that there are two alternative explanations, only one of which would 
 
 result in liability, “plaintiffs cannot offer allegations that are merely consistent with 
 
 their favored explanation but are also consistent with the alternative explanation. 
 
 ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 6 
 
 Case 2:17-cv-06882-MWF-AS Document 30 Filed 02/13/18 Page 7 of 16 Page ID #:279 
 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 
 
 Case No. CV 17-6882-MWF (ASx) Date: February 13, 2018 
 
 Title: Sean Hall d.b.a. Gimme Some Hot Sauce Music, et al. v. Taylor Swift, et al. 
 
 Something more is needed, such as facts tending to exclude the possibility that the 
 
 alternative explanation is true, in order to render plaintiffs’ allegations plausible.” 
 
 Eclectic Properties, 751 F.3d at 996–97; see also Somers, 729 F.3d at 960. 
 
 2. Copyright Infringement Generally 
 
 “To prevail on [a] copyright infringement claim, [a plaintiff] must demonstrate 
 
 (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work 
 
 that are original.” Benay v. Warner Bros. Entm’t, Inc., 607 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 
 
 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). “Because the 
 
 requirement is one of substantial similarity to protected elements of the copyrighted 
 
 work, it is essential to distinguish between the protected and unprotected material in a 
 
 plaintiff’s work.” Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841, 845 (9th Cir. 2004) (emphasis in 
 
 original). 
 
 A plaintiff may establish copying through direct or circumstantial evidence. See 
 
 Baxter v. MCA, Inc., 812 F.2d 421, 423 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Because direct evidence of 
 
 copying is rarely available, a plaintiff may establish copying by circumstantial 
 
 evidence . . . .”). Circumstantial evidence of copying may include “(1) defendant’s 
 
 access to the copyrighted work prior to creation of defendant’s work and (2) substantial 
 
 similarity of both general ideas and expression between the copyrighted work and the 
 
 defendant’s work.” Baxter v. MCA, Inc., 812 F.2d 421, 423 (9th Cir. 1987). ‘A 
 
 plaintiff must show ‘substantial similarities of both ideas and expression.’” Buggs v. 
 
 Dreamworks, Inc., No. CV 09-07070 SJO (AGRx), 2010 WL 5790251, at *4 (C.D. 
 
 Cal. Dec. 28, 2010) (quoting Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1357 (9th Cir. 
 
 1984)) (emphasis in original). 
 
 Defendants do not dispute Plaintiffs’ ownership of a valid copyright covering 
 
 Playas Gon’ Play for purposes of this Motion. Nor do Defendants dispute that they 
 
 had access to Playas Gon’ Play prior to writing, recording, and releasing Shake it Off. 
 
 The Court thus focuses exclusively on whether any elements of Shake it Off are 
 
 substantially similar to protectable elements of Playas Gon’ Play. 
 
 ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 7 
 
 Case 2:17-cv-06882-MWF-AS Document 30 Filed 02/13/18 Page 8 of 16 Page ID #:280 
 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 
 
 Case No. CV 17-6882-MWF (ASx) Date: February 13, 2018 
 
 Title: Sean Hall d.b.a. Gimme Some Hot Sauce Music, et al. v. Taylor Swift, et al. 
 
 3. Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Components of Substantial Similarity 
 
 “The substantial-similarity test contains an extrinsic and intrinsic component.” 
 
 Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P., 462 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 
 
 2006). A finding of substantial similarity under the extrinsic component is a necessary 
 
 prerequisite to considering the intrinsic component, which is expressly reserved for the 
 
 jury. See Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F.2d 1353, 1360–61 (9th Cir. 1990). A failure to 
 
 satisfy the extrinsic component on a motion to dismiss thus requires judgment for the 
 
 defendant as a matter of law. See Funky Films, 462 F.3d at 1077. 
 
 “In analyzing musical compositions under the extrinsic test, [the Ninth Circuit] 
 
 has never announced a uniform set of factors to be used… So long as the plaintiff can 
 
 demonstrate, through expert testimony that addresses some or all of these elements 
 
 [e.g., rhythm, pitch, cadence, melody, tempo, harmony, lyrics] and supports its 
 
 employment of them, that the similarity was ‘substantial’ [as] to ‘protected elements’ 
 
 of the copyrighted work, the extrinsic test is satisfied.” Swirsky, 376 F.3d at 849. 
 
 In many, if not most, copyright infringement lawsuits involving music, courts 
 
 are called upon to evaluate expert testimony concerning extrinsic similarities in the 
 
 way the relevant songs sound. See, e.g., Swirsky, 376 F.3d at 845 (“The expert 
 
 testimony on which Swirsky relied was that of Dr. Robert Walser, chair of the 
 
 Musicology Department at the University of California at Los Angeles. On the basis 
 
 of his aural assessment of [the two relevant songs], Dr. Walser opined that the two 
 
 songs had substantially similar choruses.”); Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, No. CV 15-3462 
 
 RGK (AGRx), 2016 WL 1442461, at *16 (C.D. Cal. April 8, 2016) (discussing, among 
 
 other similarities, “repeated A-minor descending chromatic bass lines lasting 13 
 
 seconds and separated by a bridge or either seven or eight measures”). 
 
 Here, Plaintiffs do not contend that Playas Gon’ Play and Shake it Off share any 
 
 significant rhythmic, melodic, harmonic, or other musical similarities. Instead, 
 
 Plaintiffs focus exclusively on similarities between portions of the songs’ lyrics. 
 
 Because similarities between snippets of lyrics alone is an issue that is well within the 
 
 ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 8 
 
 Case 2:17-cv-06882-MWF-AS Document 30 Filed 02/13/18 Page 9 of 16 Page ID #:281 
 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 
 
 Case No. CV 17-6882-MWF (ASx) Date: February 13, 2018 
 
 Title: Sean Hall d.b.a. Gimme Some Hot Sauce Music, et al. v. Taylor Swift, et al. 
 
 Court’s purview (or the purview of any layman), expert opinions would not be helpful, 
 
 nor is the Ninth Circuit’s extrinsic/intrinsic test particularly apt. 
 
 4. Can the Issue be Decided Now? 
 
 While the question of whether the allegedly infringing work is sufficiently 
 
 similar to the allegedly infringed work to give rise to liability for infringement is often 
 
 resolved on summary judgment or by a jury, there is no logical reason to delay the 
 
 inevitable when the Court already has the allegedly infringed and infringing works 
 
 before it on a motion to dismiss. Courts have decided issues of similarity based upon 
 
 the pleadings and the works themselves before, and this Court sees no reason not to do 
 
 it in this case. See Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Development Corp., 
 
 602 F.3d 57, 65 (2d Cir. 2010) (“We … acknowledge that there can be certain 
 
 instances of alleged copyright infringement where the question of substantial similarity 
 
 cannot be addressed without the aid of discovery and expert testimony… But where, 
 
 as here, the district court has before it all that is necessary to make a comparison of the 
 
 works in question, we see no error in the district court’s decision to resolve the 
 
 question of substantial similarity as a matter of law on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to 
 
 dismiss.”); Campbell v. Walt Disney Co., 718 F. Supp. 2d 1108, 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2010) 
 
 (“‘When the copyrighted work and the alleged infringement are both before the court, 
 
 capable of examination and comparison, non-infringement can be determined on a 
 
 motion to dismiss.’”) (quoting Christianson v. West Pub. Co., 149 F.2d 202, 203 (9th 
 
 Cir. 1945)); Shame on You Productions, Inc. v. Elizabeth Banks, 120 F. Supp. 3d 1123 
 
 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (evaluating extrinsic factors and granting motions to dismiss and for 
 
 judgment on the pleadings based upon lack of substantial similarity between plaintiff’s 
 
 screenplay and defendants’ movie); Thomas v. Walt Disney Co., No. C-07-4392 CW, 
 
 2008 WL 425647 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2008) (evaluating extrinsic factors and granting 
 
 motion to dismiss based upon lack of similarity between the plaintiff’s story and the 
 
 film Finding Nemo). 
 
 Accordingly, the Court proceeds to consideration of similarity between Playas 
 
 Gon’ Play and Shake it Off. 
 
 ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 9 
 
 Case 2:17-cv-06882-MWF-AS Document 30 Filed 02/13/18 Page 10 of 16 Page ID #:282 
 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 
 
 Case No. CV 17-6882-MWF (ASx) Date: February 13, 2018 
 
 Title: Sean Hall d.b.a. Gimme Some Hot Sauce Music, et al. v. Taylor Swift, et al. 
 
 B. Plaintiffs’ Copyright Infringement Claim 
 
 As an initial matter, Songwriter 1 may assert a copyright infringement claim 
 
 against Songwriter 2 based upon Songwriter 2’s copying of Songwriter 1’s music, 
 
 lyrics, or some combination thereof. As explained in Nimmer on Copyright: 
 
 [T]he Copyright Act expressly provides for the protection of 
 
 ‘musical works, including any accompanying words.’ 
 
 Suppose that plaintiff’s work includes both music and 
 
 ‘accompanying’ words, but that defendant copies only 
 
 plaintiff’s words, unaccompanied by music, or only the 
 
 music, unaccompanied by the words. It was clear, under the 
 
 1909 Act, and remains clear under the current Act, that if 
 
 words and music have been integrated into a single work, the 
 
 copyright in a ‘musical work’ protects against unauthorized 
 
 use of the music alone or the words alone, or of a 
 
 combination of music and words. 
 
 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 2.05[C] (2017). Thus Plaintiffs could feasibly have a viable 
 
 copyright infringement claim against Defendants based upon Defendants’ copying of 
 
 Plaintiffs’ lyrics alone, regardless of whether any other musical elements of Playas 
 
 Gon’ Play were copied. Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants copied anything other 
 
 than lyrics. 
 
 The only obvious similarities between the two works is that Playas Gon’ Play 
 
 contains the lyrics “Playas, they gonna play / And haters, they gonna hate,” and Shake 
 
 it Off contains the lyrics “‘Cause the players gonna play, play, play, play, play / And 
 
 the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.” The lynchpin of this entire case is thus 
 
 whether or not the lyrics “Playas, they gonna play / And haters, they gonna hate” are 
 
 eligible for protection under the Copyright Act. 
 
 The Copyright Act protects “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible 
 
 medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be 
 
 ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 10 
 
 Case 2:17-cv-06882-MWF-AS Document 30 Filed 02/13/18 Page 11 of 16 Page ID #:283 
 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 
 
 Case No. CV 17-6882-MWF (ASx) Date: February 13, 2018 
 
 Title: Sean Hall d.b.a. Gimme Some Hot Sauce Music, et al. v. Taylor Swift, et al. 
 
 perceived, reproduced or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a 
 
 machine or device.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(a) (emphasis added). Any copyrighted 
 
 expression must be “original.” Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805, 810 (9th Cir. 2003) 
 
 (citing Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991)). “Although 
 
 the amount of creative input by the author required to meet the originality requirement 
 
 is low, it is not negligible.” Id. (citing Feist, 499 U.S. at 362). “There must be 
 
 something more than a ‘merely trivial’ variation, something recognizably the artist’s 
 
 own.” Id. (quoting Three Boys Music Corp., 212 F.3d 477, 489 (9th Cir. 2000)). 
 
 As with any other artistic medium, a song, or a portion of a song, must be 
 
 sufficiently original and creative to warrant copyright protection: 
 
 [C]opyrightable works require two ingredients. The first is 
 
 originality, which signifies that the work originates in the 
 
 author rather than having been copied from past sources. The 
 
 second is creativity, signifying that the work has a spark that 
 
 goes beyond the banal or trivial. Those two elements, of 
 
 course, apply to the domain of music no less than to any 
 
 other subject matter of copyright protection. Although the 
 
 two are distinct, unfortunately, many cases refer 
 
 interchangeably to each of them as “originality.” 
 
 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 2.05[B] (2017) (emphasis in original). 
 
 Defendants first argue that “Playas, they gonna play/And haters, they gonna 
 
 hate” is not entitled to copyright protection because it is merely a short phrase and 
 
 short phrases are not afforded protection under the Copyright Act. (See Mot. at 10-12). 
 
 Defendants are correct that short phrases are generally not accorded protection. 
 
 “Ordinary phrases are not entitled to copyright protection… Phrases and expressions 
 
 conveying an idea typically expressed in a limited number of stereotyped fashions are 
 
 not subject to copyright protection.” Narell v. Freeman, 872 F.2d 907, 911 (9th Cir. 
 
 1989) (holding that the following phrases, among others, that defendant copied were 
 
 not subject to protection: “river wound its way between muddy banks crawling with 
 
 ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 11 
 
 Case 2:17-cv-06882-MWF-AS Document 30 Filed 02/13/18 Page 12 of 16 Page ID #:284 
 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 
 
 Case No. CV 17-6882-MWF (ASx) Date: February 13, 2018 
 
 Title: Sean Hall d.b.a. Gimme Some Hot Sauce Music, et al. v. Taylor Swift, et al. 
 
 alligators,” “hordes of gold seekers,” “shanties and corrugated [iron/steel] shacks … 
 
 were crowded together,” and “beach was strewn with boxes, bales”); see also Acuff- 
 
 Rose Music, Inc. v. Jostens, Inc., 155 F.3d 140, 143-44 (2d Cir. 1998) (song lyrics 
 
 “You’ve got to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything” not protectable); 
 
 Alberto-Culver Co. v. Andrea Dumon, Inc., 466 F.2d 705, 711 (7th Cir. 1972) 
 
 (advertising phrase “most personal sort of deodorant” not protectable); see generally 1 
 
 Nimmer on Copyright § 2.01[B][3] (“The refusal to protect short phrases applies a 
 
 fortiori to one or two words. Even marginally longer phrases (‘if no pulse, start CPR’) 
 
 are appropriately denied copyright protection.”). 
 
 As Plaintiffs point out, courts have recognized that there may be exceptions to 
 
 the general rule that short phrases are not protectable where a short phrase is 
 
 sufficiently creative. See, e.g., Society of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Inc. v. 
 
 Gregory, 689 F.3d 29, 52 (1st Cir. 2012) (“[W]hile both this court and the Copyright 
 
 Office have generally recognized that short phrases may not be subject to 
 
 copyrightability…, applicability of this law very much turns on the specific short 
 
 phrases at issue, as not all short phrases will automatically be deemed 
 
 uncopyrightable…”); Syrus v. Bennett, 455 Fed. Appx. 806, 809 (10th Cir. 2011) 
 
 (“‘[A] short phrase may command copyright protection if it exhibits sufficient 
 
 creativity … The smaller the effort (e.g., two words) the greater must be the degree of 
 
 creativity in order to claim copyright protection.’”) (quoting 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 
 
 2.01[B][3]); Stern v. Does, 978 F. Supp. 2d 1031, 1041-42 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (“[T]he 
 
 copyrightability of a very short textual work – be it word, phrase, sentence, or stanza – 
 
 depends on the presence of creativity. The opening sentence of a poem may contain 
 
 sufficient creativity to warrant copyright protection whereas a more prosaic sentence of 
 
 similar length may not.”); Fischer v. Forrest, Nos. 14 Civ. 1304(PAE), 14 Civ. 1307 
 
 (PAE), 2015 WL 195822, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2015) (“[B]revity does not preclude 
 
 copyright protection.”). 
 
 Plaintiffs argue that their short phrase – “Playas, they gonna play/And haters, 
 
 they gonna hate” – is sufficiently creative to warrant protection. The Court disagrees. 
 
 ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 12 
 
 Case 2:17-cv-06882-MWF-AS Document 30 Filed 02/13/18 Page 13 of 16 Page ID #:285 
 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 
 
 Case No. CV 17-6882-MWF (ASx) Date: February 13, 2018 
 
 Title: Sean Hall d.b.a. Gimme Some Hot Sauce Music, et al. v. Taylor Swift, et al. 
 
 As reflected in Defendants’ RJN, and as Plaintiffs acknowledge, by 2001, 
 
 American popular culture was heavily steeped in the concepts of players, haters, and 
 
 player haters. Although Plaintiffs recognize as much, they allege that they “originated 
 
 the linguistic combination of playas/players playing along with hatas/haters hating…” 
 
 (Complaint ¶ 24). Plaintiffs explain that the plethora of prior works that incorporated 
 
 “the terms ‘playa’ and hater together all revolve about the concept of ‘playa haters’” – 
 
 a “playa” being “one who is successful at courting women,” and a “playa hater” being 
 
 “one who is notably jealous of the ‘playas’” success.” (Opp. at 8). Plaintiffs explain 
 
 that Playas Gon’ Play “used the terms in the context of a third party, the narrator of a 
 
 song who is neither a ‘playa’ nor a hater, stating that other people will do what they 
 
 will and positively affirming that they won’t let the judgment of others affect them.” 
 
 (Id.). 
 
 The concept of actors acting in accordance with their essential nature is not at all 
 
 creative; it is banal. In the early 2000s, popular culture was adequately suffused with 
 
 the concepts of players and haters to render the phrases “playas … gonna play” or 
 
 “haters … gonna hate,” standing on their own, no more creative than “runners gonna 
 
 run,” “drummers gonna drum,” or “swimmers gonna swim.” Plaintiffs therefore hinge 
 
 their creativity argument, and their entire case, on the notion that the combination of 
 
 “playas, they gonna play” and “haters, they gonna hate” is sufficiently creative to 
 
 warrant copyright protection. (See Complaint ¶¶ 24-25; Opp. at 9-10). 
 
 “It is true, of course, that a combination of unprotectable elements may qualify 
 
 for copyright protection… But it is not true that any combination of unprotectable 
 
 elements is eligible for copyright protection… [A] combination of unprotectable 
 
 elements is eligible for copyright protection only if those elements are numerous 
 
 enough and their selection and arrangement original enough that their combination 
 
 constitutes an original work of authorship.” Satava, 323 F.3d at 811 (internal citations 
 
 omitted; emphasis in original). 
 
 Looking at this case from a combination-of-unprotected-elements perspective, 
 
 Plaintiffs’ combination of “playas, they gonna play” and “haters, they gonna hate” – 
 
 two elements that would not have been subject to copyright protection on their own – 
 
 ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 13 
 
 Case 2:17-cv-06882-MWF-AS Document 30 Filed 02/13/18 Page 14 of 16 Page ID #:286 
 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 
 
 Case No. CV 17-6882-MWF (ASx) Date: February 13, 2018 
 
 Title: Sean Hall d.b.a. Gimme Some Hot Sauce Music, et al. v. Taylor Swift, et al. 
 
 is not entitled to protection. See id. at 812 (“The combination of unprotectable 
 
 elements in Satava’s sculpture falls short of this standard. The selection of clear glass, 
 
 oblong shroud, bright colors, proportion, vertical orientation, and stereotyped jellyfish 
 
 form, considered together, lacks the quantum of originality needed to merit copyright 
 
 protection.”); Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Seattle Lighting Fixture Co., 345 F.3d 1140, 1147 
 
 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Lamps Plus’s mechanical combination of four preexisting ceiling- 
 
 lamp elements with a preexisting table-lamp base did not result in the expression of an 
 
 original work as required by § 101 [of the Copyright Act].”). Two unprotectable 
 
 elements that, given pop culture at the time, were inextricably intertwined with one 
 
 another, is not enough. 
 
 At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel suggested that other combination-of- 
 
 unprotected-elements cases, like Satava and Lamps Plus, are distinguishable because 
 
 they involve physical elements, such as jellyfish, rather than words, such as “players” 
 
 and “haters,” that reflect concepts. Neither Satava, Lamps Plus, nor any other relevant 
 
 authority supports Plaintiffs’ position that there is some meaningful difference between 
 
 words and physical objects. And the Court is unpersuaded that Plaintiffs’ distinction 
 
 matters. If the touchstone of copyrightability is originality and creativity, the category 
 
 of preexisting elements that an artist incorporates into his work (e.g., words, marine 
 
 animals, Christmas ornaments) really should not matter; what matters is whether the 
 
 artist combined preexisting elements in such a way as to convert them into a 
 
 sufficiently original and creative whole. 
 
 Looking at this this case from a potentially-protectable-short-phrase perspective, 
 
 the lyrics in question are not sufficiently creative to warrant protection. As noted in 
 
 Nimmer, “It appears … that there is a reciprocal relationship between creativity and 
 
 independent effort: the smaller the effort (e.g., two words) the greater must be the 
 
 degree of creativity in order to claim copyright protection.” 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 
 
 2.01[B][3]. Even if, as Plaintiffs contend, Plaintiffs were the first to employ the 
 
 concepts of players playing and haters hating for the purpose of expressing “the idea of 
 
 not concerning yourself with what other people do and think” (Opp. at 10), the 
 
 ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 14 
 
 Case 2:17-cv-06882-MWF-AS Document 30 Filed 02/13/18 Page 15 of 16 Page ID #:287 
 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 
 
 Case No. CV 17-6882-MWF (ASx) Date: February 13, 2018 
 
 Title: Sean Hall d.b.a. Gimme Some Hot Sauce Music, et al. v. Taylor Swift, et al. 
 
 allegedly-infringed lyrics consist of just six relevant words – “playas … gonna play” 
 
 and “haters … gonna hate.” 
 
 In order for such short phrases to be protected under the Copyright Act, they 
 
 must be more creative than the lyrics at issue here. As discussed above, players, 
 
 haters, and player haters had received substantial pop culture attention prior to 2001. It 
 
 is hardly surprising that Plaintiffs, hoping to convey the notion that one should persist 
 
 regardless of others’ thoughts or actions, focused on both players playing and haters 
 
 hating when numerous recent popular songs had each addressed the subjects of players, 
 
 haters, and player haters, albeit to convey different messages than Plaintiffs were 
 
 trying to convey. In short, combining two truisms about playas and haters, both well- 
 
 worn notions as of 2001, is simply not enough. 
 
 At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel offered alternative (very clunky) formulations 
 
 of pairing a noun with its intransitive verb, thereby suggesting that “[noun] gonna 
 
 [verb]” was creative in itself. While clever, this argument does not persuade. The 
 
 argument ultimately only makes sense if the use of “gonna” as a contraction of “is 
 
 going to” is sufficiently creative, or (as discussed above) one can claim creativity in 
 
 asserting that a type of person acts in accordance with his or her inherent nature. To 
 
 explicitly state the argument is to see how banal the asserted creativity is. 
 
 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. In light of the fact that the Court seemingly “has before it all that is 
 
 necessary to make a comparison of the works in question,” Peter F. Gaito 
 
 Architecture, 602 F.3d at 65, the Court is inclined to grant the Motion without leave to 
 
 amend. However, out of an abundance of caution, the Court will allow Plaintiffs one 
 
 opportunity to amend, just in case there are more similarities between Playas Gon’ 
 
 Play and Shake it Off than Plaintiffs have alleged thus far (which Plaintiffs’ counsel 
 
 did not suggest at the hearing). If there are not, the Court discourages actual 
 
 amendment. The more efficient course would be for Plaintiffs to consent to judgment 
 
 being entered against them so that they may pursue an appeal if they believe that is 
 
 appropriate. 
 
 ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 15 
 
 Case 2:17-cv-06882-MWF-AS Document 30 Filed 02/13/18 Page 16 of 16 Page ID #:288 
 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 
 
 Case No. CV 17-6882-MWF (ASx) Date: February 13, 2018 
 
 Title: Sean Hall d.b.a. Gimme Some Hot Sauce Music, et al. v. Taylor Swift, et al. 
 
 III. CONCLUSION 
 
 For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is GRANTED with leave to amend. 
 
 Should Plaintiffs elect to file a first amended complaint, they must do so by February 
 
 26, 2018. 
 
 While there may be a first amended complaint, there will be no second. Any 
 
 future motion to dismiss will be granted without leave to amend. 
 
 IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 16
– Taylor Swift counted another courtroom win Tuesday, though the reason revolved around lyrics deemed by a judge to be "unoriginal" and "uncreative." Songwriters Sean Hall and Nathan Butler sued Swift for copyright infringement last year, arguing that Swift's 2014 hit "Shake It Off" borrowed heavily from their 2001 song "Playas Gon' Play," performed by girl group 3LW, per the Washington Post. That song goes, "Playas, they gonna play, and haters, they gonna hate," while "Shake It Off" goes, "Players gonna play, play, play, play, play, and haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate," reports Variety. In a rather amusing verdict, federal court Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald dismissed the case, declaring that the lyrics were too commonplace to warrant protection. Swift's legal team made a similar argument, pointing to songs before 2001 with the same theme. Explaining that "American popular culture was heavily steeped in the concepts of players, haters, and player haters" by the time "Playas Gon' Play" was written, Fitzgerald said "the concept of actors acting in accordance with their essential nature is not at all creative; it is banal." He concluded "the lyrics at issue ... are too brief, unoriginal, and uncreative to warrant protection under the Copyright Act." The case remains open for amendment in case some other similarities between the songs are uncovered. But a lawyer says Hall and Butler will instead appeal the ruling on the basis that Fitzgerald made the "embarrassing" mistake of interpreting the originality of the lyrics himself, rather than seeking the opinion of a music expert, per the BBC. (A similar suit was previously dismissed.)