tell me how this isn't the exact same intellectual property?

what's the point of copyrights if you can override them this easily? How is this fair to Scooter ?

intellectual property is fake

you tell me

She can prolly just call each song an interpolation

Fair to scooter

that confuses me though bc you gotta give publishing credit when you do that

Idk

But this version is better then the og

I thought scooter sold her masters

All you need to know is she gonna make a lot money and she can have own her masters

She can give credit but still owns the rights to her own song

Idk industry politics are weird

it's not an identical re-recording. she made a better song

Scooter already sold it and secured the bag

He owns the sound (like the actual music) she owns lyrics/melodies

ok it seems he bought then sold, so Scooter already took his dub. but how is this fair to the investment fund that paid $300 million + for them?

its virtually identical

We need that industry guru in here again

Scooter should sue her for copyright infringement.

you're really caring about what's fair to scooter in this?

Taylor owns the songs, they own the old recordings

The fact that it’s not identical is irrelevant. Copyright law works on whether the material is similar to a strong quality (i.e. not the quantity; though in this case it clearly satisfies both).

My guess is that she’s probably infringing the intellectual property and is breaching copyright, but Scooter/his label as the owner of the initial IP probably isn’t bringing a claim. There’s probably an agreement between the parties, as they’ve already made their money from it.

I think he'll be fine

Wont someone please think of scooter brauns pockets

same applies to Taylor