Cole DelbyckEntertainment Writer, The Huffington Post
12/13/2015 02:06 pm ET
Hugo Hu/LP5 via Getty Images
Taylor Swift is taking care of business.
The pop star wants to trademark five phrases associated with her album "1989" to prevent others from cashing in on her success by merchandising clothes, printed materials, retail websites and concerts featuring her lyrics and famous phrases.
Swift filed trademark applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Dec. 3 for "Blank Space," "And I'll Write Your Name," "A Girl Named Girl," "1989" and "Swiftmas," according toUSA Today.
We understand wanting to trademark song lyrics and titles, but "Swiftmas?" Seriously? We're surprised "Squad" didn't make the list, considering how often she flaunted her ever-expanding group of girlfriends over the past year.
Our reaction to this can best be summed up by the photo Swift shared on her Instagram Sunday to celebrate her 26th birthday.
But if you, too, were born in 1989, don't freak out yet. The trademark application for that year only applies to the numbers in this “stylized form,” according to BuzzFeed.
I don't know why someone gets to own language? "This sick beat"? Yeah, that was in one of her songs but that has been in other songs long before her. Not sure why she gets to buy Language? Seems pretty greedy and narcisssitic.
She is becoming the Gwyneth or Kanye of her genre.
The best thing that ever happened to one of her songs was when it was used in a parody.
The parody is way better.
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
1989 is too general to be trademarked. It is the year I graduated and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay her a royalty every time I write "class of 1989" on my Facebook wall.
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
“You may shoot me with your words, you may cut me with your eyes, you may kill me with your hatefulness, but still, like air, I'll rise!” ― Maya Angelou
She's no ditz. She's a cutthroat business woman. She's very smart. Her parents have ammassed weath and i think her parents are like investment bankers or something. Anyway, she is in the know when it comes to money. Seems she has a roving band of lawyers at her beck and call.
Honestly, most of it is to protect herself. She is not going to sue people for posting 1989 on their Facebook walls. But she is going to go after anyone who uses 1989 in Reference to herself or her work, especially when done in an objectionable manner, without permission.
It makes it easier to get a cease and desist if you own the "rights".
And I honestly do not blame her. If I wrote the lyrics and melody to a song, I would not want it sampled by a hardcore rapper in a mysoginistic rap or by a car company trying to hawk this year's latest model (while I find Fight Song to be on the insipid side, using it to sell fords most definitely takes away from the message).
Its about ownership of your intellectual property and I just cannot fault or make fun of her for going to the extremes.
__________________
“One day, you will be old enough to start reading fairytales again.”
C.S.Lewis
Honestly, most of it is to protect herself. She is not going to sue people for posting 1989 on their Facebook walls. But she is going to go after anyone who uses 1989 in Reference to herself or her work, especially when done in an objectionable manner, without permission.
It makes it easier to get a cease and desist if you own the "rights".
And I honestly do not blame her. If I wrote the lyrics and melody to a song, I would not want it sampled by a hardcore rapper in a mysoginistic rap or by a car company trying to hawk this year's latest model (while I find Fight Song to be on the insipid side, using it to sell fords most definitely takes away from the message).
Its about ownership of your intellectual property and I just cannot fault or make fun of her for going to the extremes.
Really? I don't see all these other stars doing this?
None of this makes me look at her and go WOW. She still seems flighty to me. Swiftmas? How dumb. You can have it.
__________________
“You may shoot me with your words, you may cut me with your eyes, you may kill me with your hatefulness, but still, like air, I'll rise!” ― Maya Angelou
Honestly, most of it is to protect herself. She is not going to sue people for posting 1989 on their Facebook walls. But she is going to go after anyone who uses 1989 in Reference to herself or her work, especially when done in an objectionable manner, without permission.
It makes it easier to get a cease and desist if you own the "rights".
And I honestly do not blame her. If I wrote the lyrics and melody to a song, I would not want it sampled by a hardcore rapper in a mysoginistic rap or by a car company trying to hawk this year's latest model (while I find Fight Song to be on the insipid side, using it to sell fords most definitely takes away from the message).
Its about ownership of your intellectual property and I just cannot fault or make fun of her for going to the extremes.
Really? I don't see all these other stars doing this?
Really? Because in 2012 TufAmerica lost it's lawsuit (on behalf of the band Trouble Funk) against the BeastiBoys NOT because the "samples" were too small/short or because the Boy's song transformed the sample enough, but because TufAmerica did not get the correct copyright; i.e. exclusive copyright vs the right to sue on behalf of the original musician's behalf.
That means that the Beastie Boys get to make money using TufAmerica's creativity and work.
Are you honestly telling me that if you wrote a song, painted a painting or created a new recipe, you would be perfectly OK with someone else using your hard work and ingenuity to make sales without your permission or providing you profit? You seem to have issue with people on social services using your hard earned tax dollars without work.
The same situation happened with the JayZ lawsuit. The judge did not dismiss the case because JayZ and Timberland did NOT steal a sample for one of their biggest hits, but because the person suing did not have "standing" to sue (i.e. the nephew of the original artist), which is WHY JayZ and Timberland thought that it was perfectly OK to use someone else's work to make their work easier or better.
And how many Stars have to take on Politicians for using their music as anthems? Donald Trump using Neil Young's song? Reagan using Born in the USA and Pink Houses? Sting getting pissed that both Dole and Bush tried to use "Brand New Day". Sam Moore and Obama using "Hold on, Im Coming".
If you write an amazing anthem type song, would you be happy if someone you do not support uses it to promote themselves and their political stance?
I just find it really interesting that you don't seem to support this.
__________________
“One day, you will be old enough to start reading fairytales again.”
C.S.Lewis
The little reading I did pointed out there is a difference between copyright and trademark. You can trademark more general terms. The example given was Madonna trademarked Madonna and was able to shutdown Madonna.com, a porn site at the time.