poll does taylor deserve 50% of olivia's deja vu royalties?

[Bosque]

3 minutes ago, naval23 said:

i'm surprised Taylor took 50% because imagine if someone did that to her in her debut era 

I'm sure someone will try if they have a case  can't imagine someone passing up the chance at receiving royalties to a Taylor Swift song, if they have a fair claim to it

Edited September 3, 2023 by Dephira

[Cruel Summer]

Just now, WavesOfLust said:

Except Olivia and St Vincent are friends in real life and Olivia just recently spoke about her being a huge inspiration to her - this was solely Taylor’s decision. 

The overwhelming likelihood is that this was a publisher’s decision. Assuming it was Taylor herself who initiated negotiations for the credits comes from wanting to make her out to be a villain, not from any actual evidence that we have about this situation. We will likely never know, with any certainty whatsoever, what actions specific individuals took.

[rihannafan]

11 minutes ago, Dephira said:

I'm sure someone will try if they have a case  can't imagine someone passing up the chance at receiving royalties to a Taylor Swift song, if they have a fair claim to it

So that's why she befriended Lana

[WavesOfLust]

7 minutes ago, Cruel Summer said:

The overwhelming likelihood is that this was a publisher’s decision. Assuming it was Taylor herself who initiated negotiations for the credits comes from wanting to make her out to be a villain, not from any actual evidence that we have about this situation. We will likely never know, with any certainty whatsoever, what actions specific individuals took.

The story can be made less aggressive and disappointing than it actually is by doing mental gymnastics, sure -- but the truth of the matter is Taylor could've denied credit, said no if she so desired, or she could have at the very least spoken out about how wrong it is to accept credit for someone else's success. However, she chose to keep silent. 
 

There was an insider on Reddit who announced this was happening behind the scenes a month before it went public — they said it was a mean girl move on Taylor's end, and that team Olivia didn't want or care to fight against the Taylor Swift™️ so early in her career.

 

 

[Cruel Summer]

1 minute ago, WavesOfLust said:

The story can be made less aggressive and disappointing than it actually is by doing mental gymnastics, sure -- but the truth of the matter is Taylor could've denied credit, said no if she so desired, or she could have at the very least spoken out about how wrong it is to accept credit for someone else's success. However, she chose to keep silent. 
 

There was an insider on Reddit who announced this was happening behind the scenes a month before it went public — they said it was a mean girl move on Taylor's end, and that team Olivia didn't want or care to fight against the Taylor Swift™️ so early in her career.

 

 

It’s not “mental gymnastics” to point out we don’t know Taylor’s level of participation and intent, and it’s not “aggressive and disappointing” even if it was all 110% her and her alone. I don’t think it matters if a Redditor thought it was a “mean girl move.” If Taylor thought she deserved the credit and this didn’t stop it from happening, or even made the initial moves to request it herself, and if the cut she got was in line with typical industry standards for these things, then that’s that. It’s weird to assume vindictive, malicious intent on the part of people we will never personally know.

[Starchild]

These "Atrl decides!" threads cmtfu like who gaf what this site thinks (not that this site isn't obviously for discussion I just mean the title is kinda cringe)

the OPs always being biased is funny too 

Edited September 3, 2023 by Starchild

[Jjang]

I don't think it's earned in this case, no. 

 

That being said, I do think Taylor projects these moves as a businesswoman (and business can be ugly) as a way to send a message to any artist out there in the future attempting to sample or "be inspired" by her that she'll come after them. If she managed to make a lesson out of Olivia, who was having the biggest song of the year, then that message was successfully heard, even if it were an "overreaction". I honestly think that's what it boils down to. Next time, these artists will know better than to not give her any credit, or else she might come for them and literally snatch half the royalties. So in a way, she's saving her future self a lot of work.

 

Some may say Lana could have done that same thing with Wildest Dreams, but it was Lana's personal choice not to take legal action cause she, unlike Taylor, does not care about the business side of the industry as much. 

Edited September 3, 2023 by Jjang

[moo]

Deserves 100%. She made that ***** famous.

[Trainwreck]

I'm pretty sure Olivia's team did what they knew was best for their client and handled the situation way better than the average ATRL user.

[Vespertine]

Yes. If anything Olivia deserves to pay it just for being dumb enough to go on the record saying they were trying to imitate the song while writing Deja Vu  

 

Honestly — everything about her Swiftie persona during her debut was a mistake. She should’ve never interpolated New Year’s Day either. It’s kind of corny to do that with a song that’s not even nostalgic/retro yet, sorry. She should’ve never defined herself as a fan of someone else so much when She debuted, especially someone who is still a very active pop star. 

[Watson!]

46 minutes ago, Jjang said:

I don't think it's earned in this case, no. 

 

That being said, I do think Taylor projects these moves as a businesswoman (and business can be ugly) as a way to send a message to any artist out there in the future attempting to sample or "be inspired" by her that she'll come after them. If she managed to make a lesson out of Olivia, who was having the biggest song of the year, then that message was successfully heard, even if it were an "overreaction". I honestly think that's what it boils down to. Next time, these artists will know better than to not give her any credit, or else she might come for them and literally snatch half the royalties. So in a way, she's saving her future self a lot of work.

 

Some may say Lana could have done that same thing with Wildest Dreams, but it was Lana's personal choice not to take legal action cause she, unlike Taylor, does not care about the business side of the industry as much. 

at this point you just made up things to advocate your fave's selfishness and hypocrisy.

[ImpressMeMuch]

I love me some folklore but gd some swifties scare me

Edited September 3, 2023 by ImpressMeMuch

[Tistotal]

2 hours ago, Cruel Summer said:

She doesn’t deserve 50%, and thankfully she doesn’t receive 50%. She, Jack, and Annie together get 50% combined.

Isn't too much for 3 seconds (at most) of a screaming line? 

Also, how much Annie received? wasn't like 5%? 

 

I don't how this does work. Certainly Jack and Taylor could reject the credits and royalties if they wanted to though.

[Jjang]

1 minute ago, Watson! said:

at this point you just made up things to advocate your fave's selfishness and hypocrisy.

ATRL is the only place where you can get called the biggest Taylor hater of all time and a passionate defender of her hypocrisy all in the same week. 

[barbiegrande]

2 hours ago, DatChickDoe said:

Nope. Taylor is a Billionaire and it is super tacky she is doing this. 

She needs extra coin to hoard more jet fuel 

[Cruel Summer]

Just now, Tistotal said:

Isn't too much for 3 seconds (at most) of a screaming line? 

Also, how much Annie received? wasn't like 5%? 

 

I don't how this does work. Certainly Jack and Taylor could reject the credits and royalties if they wanted to though.

Annie appears to be getting just 5%, yes. I would also agree that 50% cumulatively is a lot for the seemingly small contribution, but other examples have been posted that suggest that this amount is relatively standard for the industry, and we don’t really know how crucial that moment was in coming up with the rest of the song that isn’t inspired by Cruel Summer, so it’s very hard to say definitively that it’s too much if that’s just how things work with song credits. If it’s uncommonly high, then maybe we can lean toward it being unreasonably high, too.

[ScorpiosGroove]

no but Annie Clark does 

[Tistotal]

3 minutes ago, Cruel Summer said:

Annie appears to be getting just 5%, yes. I would also agree that 50% cumulatively is a lot for the seemingly small contribution, but other examples have been posted that suggest that this amount is relatively standard for the industry, and we don’t really know how crucial that moment was in coming up with the rest of the song that isn’t inspired by Cruel Summer, so it’s very hard to say definitively that it’s too much if that’s just how things work with song credits. If it’s uncommonly high, then maybe we can lean toward it being unreasonably high, too.

so the whole point remains, it's still 45% for Jack and Taylor 

 

maybe it's what Olivia deserved for using this overrated song. Taylor has way better songs -even on lover- to use 

[Watson!]

1 hour ago, Cruel Summer said:

It’s not “mental gymnastics” to point out we don’t know Taylor’s level of participation and intent, and it’s not “aggressive and disappointing” even if it was all 110% her and her alone. I don’t think it matters if a Redditor thought it was a “mean girl move.” If Taylor thought she deserved the credit and this didn’t stop it from happening, or even made the initial moves to request it herself, and if the cut she got was in line with typical industry standards for these things, then that’s that. It’s weird to assume vindictive, malicious intent on the part of people we will never personally know.

well, the whole mess with her masters was also a typical standard for the industr.. I guess industry standards are ok only when they benefit Taylor

[Revolution]

no, it caused unnecessary bad blood between taylor and olivia

[Roberto]

She doesn't deserve anything. Both songs don't even sound similar at all.

[WavesOfLust]

1 hour ago, Jjang said:

I don't think it's earned in this case, no. 

 

That being said, I do think Taylor projects these moves as a businesswoman (and business can be ugly) as a way to send a message to any artist out there in the future attempting to sample or "be inspired" by her that she'll come after them. If she managed to make a lesson out of Olivia, who was having the biggest song of the year, then that message was successfully heard, even if it were an "overreaction". I honestly think that's what it boils down to. Next time, these artists will know better than to not give her any credit, or else she might come for them and literally snatch half the royalties. So in a way, she's saving her future self a lot of work.

 

Some may say Lana could have done that same thing with Wildest Dreams, but it was Lana's personal choice not to take legal action cause she, unlike Taylor, does not care about the business side of the industry as much. 

It's likely a part of it, but I think with Olivia it hit a bit deeper for Taylor - Olivia had one helluva debut, breaking tons of records, including Taylor's own, and was dubbed the new Taylor.

'Nothing New' basically confirms this 

[NEX]

There have been times when the writer who accidentally copied a song got less than that. Sisqo is paying 100% royalties to the writers of Livin La Vida Loca for just 1 line. You can say Taylor (or whoever disputed this) were very generous 

[WavesOfLust]

A good two-part TikTok that delves into the feud and includes information on the Reddit insider who informed this was going to happen before it did: 

 

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMjFSayr2/

 

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMjFSSWWu/
 

[Rep2000]

1 hour ago, Jjang said:

I don't think it's earned in this case, no. 

 

That being said, I do think Taylor projects these moves as a businesswoman (and business can be ugly) as a way to send a message to any artist out there in the future attempting to sample or "be inspired" by her that she'll come after them. If she managed to make a lesson out of Olivia, who was having the biggest song of the year, then that message was successfully heard, even if it were an "overreaction". I honestly think that's what it boils down to. Next time, these artists will know better than to not give her any credit, or else she might come for them and literally snatch half the royalties. So in a way, she's saving her future self a lot of work.

 

Some may say Lana could have done that same thing with Wildest Dreams, but it was Lana's personal choice not to take legal action cause she, unlike Taylor, does not care about the business side of the industry as much. 

Taylor doesn't have to do ****. Olivia's team clearly got spooked with the G4U/Paramore situation and it was damaging her brand when all her songs were being dissected and compared to other songs (ie. Brutal). So they overcompensated as preemptive measure.

 

The fact that this conversation is now spilling over to her 2nd album launch is problematic.