fan base Taylor Swift

[pccp]

someone please make Cruel Summer go viral on Tiktok so it hits 1 billion streams on Spotify

[State of Grace.]

2 hours ago, Nick_317 said:

CAN THIS WOMAN JUST DROP HER FREAKING EGGS LIKE WE JUST NEED A DATE IS IT THAT HARD WE WAITED HALF A YEAR FOR RED TV FROM THE ANNOUNCEMENT SO EVEN IF IT IS COMING IN DECEMBER WE CAN WAIT JUST ANNOUNCE THE FREAKING ALBUM

LASH her

 

[idkwiam]

9 minutes ago, Nexto said:

Can someone pretend to be an insider and lie to us? I'll take anything at this point.

 

Taylor Swift - New single 22.07.2022. It will have an unexpected feature. Music Video premiering the week after. 

 

 

[State of Grace.]

14 minutes ago, Nexto said:

Can someone pretend to be an insider and lie to us? I'll take anything at this point.

 

I heard a rumor from a very reliable insider that Taylor Swift is on a Renaissance house (not country!) track. Stay tuned for more info.

 

[Steve Johnson]

13 minutes ago, Nexto said:

Can someone pretend to be an insider and lie to us? I'll take anything at this point.

 

TS10 on 29.02.2023

[Steve Johnson]

2 hours ago, pccp said:

someone please make Cruel Summer go viral on Tiktok so it hits 1 billion streams on Spotify

People on bird app saying it's going viral on tiktok. 

[simmnfierzig]

False God from 60k to 100k daily because of being on that show thing 

[Hunter_13]

LOVER YOU WILL ALWAYS BE FAMOUS 

 

 

This "flop" show helping this much already 

[enchanted0]

wow if CS becomes a legitimate hit..

[Steve Johnson]

9 minutes ago, Hunter_13 said:

LOVER YOU WILL ALWAYS BE FAMOUS 

 

 

This "flop" show helping this much already 

Cruel summer also getting traction on tiktok. 

[IBeMe]

this is incredible. Lover truly is an underrated gem. Also glad Rep is still getting its shine thanks to Don't Blame Me. 

I really hope that once she is done with the TVs she maybe gives Lover some shine despite already owning it. Like it feels unfair not to give it a cute little something and that something could be her giving Cruel Summer a remix and mv or something

[Cruel Summer]

With the alleged hint yesterday I’m really feeling like 1989 TV coming in a couple months makes sense. Ready for her to snatch the biggest debut of the year with the best album of the year 

[Taylor fanboy]

Lover serving immortal.

 

ME! was the perfect lead single in the end.

 

Y’all saw Pitchfork’s expose of UMG donating to Marsha Blackburn’s campaign?  These labels are WHACK!

 

With that “Old Taylor” merch Reddit thread, are we expecting old recordings of Speak Now to emerge so she can keep the license?

 

Imagine the Haunted full video officially unearthed. 
 

OR Speak Now World Tour Live going to streaming platforms.
 

Counsel @beagle have you seen that USPTO Old Taylor Reddit? Would you be so kind to share your thoughts?

 

 

[Taylor fanboy]

17 hours ago, Hunter_13 said:

 

 

 

HMMMM

She’s fueling that double 1989-Speak Now TV release when we all know is not likely for several factors.

 

Her arrogance to not give us anything amazes me.

[Taylor fanboy]

The absence of “Beautiful Eyes (Taylor’s Version)” in her application to USPTO is scaring me.

 

We need I Heart ? and Beautiful Eyes on Taylor Swift (Taylor’s Version).

[Taylor fanboy]

The potential of this song to have Whitney Houston / Jennifer Holiday vocals on its Taylor’s Version.

 

[Hunter_13]

1 hour ago, Taylor fanboy said:

The absence of “Beautiful Eyes (Taylor’s Version)” in her application to USPTO is scaring me.

 

We need I Heart ? and Beautiful Eyes on Taylor Swift (Taylor’s Version).

I can't see her not adding them to debut? It makes the most sense considering the ep is basically radio edits and acoustic of singles. The EP is on Amazon music randomly but nowhere else. 

[GabeInPolaroids]

7 hours ago, Nexto said:

Can someone pretend to be an insider and lie to us? I'll take anything at this point.

 

Cmon TeneoOoooO 

 

[cruelhprince]

4 hours ago, Hunter_13 said:

LOVER YOU WILL ALWAYS BE FAMOUS 

 

 

This "flop" show helping this much already 

Cruel Summer  manifesting it'll join DBM and Enchanted on the viral +1M club

[GabeInPolaroids]

4 hours ago, enchanted0 said:

wow if CS becomes a legitimate hit..

it’s all this song deserves 

[Hunter_13]

The False God songstress did that 

 

[beagle]

1 hour ago, Taylor fanboy said:

Counsel @beagle have you seen that USPTO Old Taylor Reddit? Would you be so kind to share your thoughts?

 

Hadn't been on the subreddit in a while, had to search for the thread. I'm getting the distinct impression that the commenters, at least, aren't particularly clear on what a trademark can and cannot do. Based on the application, holding the trademark would allow Taylor's team to have an easier time pursuing any potential infringement of the Speak Now logotype (as opposed to logomark). In simpler terms: if you try to sell counterfeit Speak Now merch and they take you to court, they won't need to prove that they have the rights over the particular visual representation of the words 'Speak Now' (font, spacing, coloring, etc.) that the album and related merch will have.

 

But holding the registered trademark does not mean that, for example:

- Taylor has an exclusive right to use the phrase 'Speak Now', even in connection with a musical recording;

- No other artist can release an album entitled 'Speak Now' either forever* or as long as the trademark is registered (10 years from the date of registration, can be renewed);

- The trademark has any effect whatsoever over the copyright over the contents of the recording;

 

* a brief glance at a database shows at least 15 albums entitled Folklore released prior to 2020, but Mae Moore, Sixteen Horsepower or (Die) City Watchers can have no claim against Taylor for the use of that album name 

 

The majority of musical recordings get released without any trademarks at all. Even when they do, most will only claim an unregistered trademark™ - the protection the law provides is the same, the holder will just need to show evidence establishing prior use of the trademark for the infringement case in court. The major reason Taylor's team are going for a registered trademark ® is because of the merch - it will make things immensely easier to fight counterfeiters inside and outside of court if they don't need to prove in each individual case that Taylor used that trademark first.

 

TL:DR - the registration process of the 'Speak Now TV' trademark should have little to no bearing on the release of the Speak Now re-recording; it mostly affects the merch to be released together with the album.

 

 

[GambleBreauxNews]

34 minutes ago, beagle said:

Hadn't been on the subreddit in a while, had to search for the thread. I'm getting the distinct impression that the commenters, at least, aren't particularly clear on what a trademark can and cannot do. Based on the application, holding the trademark would allow Taylor's team to have an easier time pursuing any potential infringement of the Speak Now logotype (as opposed to logomark). In simpler terms: if you try to sell counterfeit Speak Now merch and they take you to court, they won't need to prove that they have the rights over the particular visual representation of the words 'Speak Now' (font, spacing, coloring, etc.) that the album and related merch will have.

 

But holding the registered trademark does not mean that, for example:

- Taylor has an exclusive right to use the phrase 'Speak Now', even in connection with a musical recording;

- No other artist can release an album entitled 'Speak Now' either forever* or as long as the trademark is registered (10 years from the date of registration, can be renewed);

- The trademark has any effect whatsoever over the copyright over the contents of the recording;

 

* a brief glance at a database shows at least 15 albums entitled Folklore released prior to 2020, but Mae Moore, Sixteen Horsepower or (Die) City Watchers can have no claim against Taylor for the use of that album name 

 

The majority of musical recordings get released without any trademarks at all. Even when they do, most will only claim an unregistered trademark™ - the protection the law provides is the same, the holder will just need to show evidence establishing prior use of the trademark for the infringement case in court. The major reason Taylor's team are going for a registered trademark ® is because of the merch - it will make things immensely easier to fight counterfeiters inside and outside of court if they don't need to prove in each individual case that Taylor used that trademark first.

 

TL:DR - the registration process of the 'Speak Now TV' trademark should have little to no bearing on the release of the Speak Now re-recording; it mostly affects the merch to be released together with the album.

 

 

Thank you so much for that explanation - makes sense seeing as how much merch she/her team like to push out especially with new music releases. Still looks like she has other options to still release the TV and merch together though 

[lovethismusic]

40 minutes ago, beagle said:

Hadn't been on the subreddit in a while, had to search for the thread. I'm getting the distinct impression that the commenters, at least, aren't particularly clear on what a trademark can and cannot do. Based on the application, holding the trademark would allow Taylor's team to have an easier time pursuing any potential infringement of the Speak Now logotype (as opposed to logomark). In simpler terms: if you try to sell counterfeit Speak Now merch and they take you to court, they won't need to prove that they have the rights over the particular visual representation of the words 'Speak Now' (font, spacing, coloring, etc.) that the album and related merch will have.

 

But holding the registered trademark does not mean that, for example:

- Taylor has an exclusive right to use the phrase 'Speak Now', even in connection with a musical recording;

- No other artist can release an album entitled 'Speak Now' either forever* or as long as the trademark is registered (10 years from the date of registration, can be renewed);

- The trademark has any effect whatsoever over the copyright over the contents of the recording;

 

* a brief glance at a database shows at least 15 albums entitled Folklore released prior to 2020, but Mae Moore, Sixteen Horsepower or (Die) City Watchers can have no claim against Taylor for the use of that album name 

 

The majority of musical recordings get released without any trademarks at all. Even when they do, most will only claim an unregistered trademark™ - the protection the law provides is the same, the holder will just need to show evidence establishing prior use of the trademark for the infringement case in court. The major reason Taylor's team are going for a registered trademark ® is because of the merch - it will make things immensely easier to fight counterfeiters inside and outside of court if they don't need to prove in each individual case that Taylor used that trademark first.

 

TL:DR - the registration process of the 'Speak Now TV' trademark should have little to no bearing on the release of the Speak Now re-recording; it mostly affects the merch to be released together with the album.

 

 

You are amazing. Thanks for the explanation!

[TaylorNation]

50 minutes ago, beagle said:

the 'Speak Now TV' trademark should have little to no bearing on the release of the Speak Now re-recording; it mostly affects the merch to be released together with the album.

 

 

lmao, figures she won’t release the album (which is the most important thing and allows her to claim her lifelong work) unless she can release that shitty made in Taiwan merch  

 

the money thing with Taylor is funny because it’s true