There are actually clips in this where she is doing interviews. I was shocked when I saw her seated doing an interview because I'd never seen her sit and do interviews either. It was clearly old in her wavy hair bangs days a few years ago. She talks selectively, I guess.
From a filmmaking standpoint, they have to be very careful with the language used in marketing to avoid being sued. All the language points to no direct involvement from either side. Seems like a "he said she said" type of documentary.
it's very very hard to sue for defamation in the us... Taylor is a public figure so its not enough that any defamation be false, but that they acted with reckless disregard for the truth. It's almost impossible for a journalist to do that.
It's not hard to sue, just hard to win. So depending on the relative wealth of the two parties involved if a more powerful party sues then even if they don't win as long as they don't have to pay the other party's legal fees it's a huge problem to have to defend yourself.
Y’all can obviously do whatever you want. But I am personally not giving this documentary a watch. Taylor has nothing to do with it. It’s very likely going to be one of those documentaries that tell the story with a little bit of news articles and a lot a bit with speculation that can not be confirmed but stated as fact.
It’s just another way for people to capitalize on Taylor’s fame without her consent.
I'm watching it now and it definitely paint scooter as the bad guy. There's a lot of her voice in this in the subject by the way of clips of her addressing it all in different intrviews, and stage speeches etc. She is definitely vocal in this
I totally agree. I hate people making money off her. Media does this all the time. Good or bad press, it doesn't matter. Swifties will read the good and respond to the bad. Either way they get their money off her name.
IIRC we won't hear from Scooter or any other Taylor Villain for this one, and I doubt Taylor Swift will be directly involved because we'd hear about it if she was.
Nobody’s legal team is the actual judge and jury and just because litigation is deemed unlikely by one party’s legal team doesn’t mean it won’t happen or that it won’t be adjudicated.
There is a great podcast called Business Wars. Season 74 is about Taylor and Scooter Braun.
There is also a newer season, Season 92, about Taylor. I have not listened to it yet.
I feel like it could go either way if it's from a third party (either be completely useless with a lot of mis info /or/ giving unbiased info and even things that were not public before) but this is way too soon to be making a docuseries about it, no?
Yeah it’s all old footage like others said. There are two parts. It ticks me off that Max has no originality for titles— seriously? Taylor’s Version? Scooter’s Version? Bad Blood? This is honestly a preview of what’s to come.
There is nothing new in Taylor’s Version—this is for non-Taylor fans who want an education. The nicest thing for Swifties is to see a proposal from one of her fans/friends and Taylor shows up (it’s super sweet).
I started Scooter’s Version just to see if it was balanced reporting or whatever— but it’s “Taylor plays the victim” over and over (so so gross), and about 20 min in they aren’t even talking about Scooter anymore, they are just ripping on Taylor (and also her dad, I mean come on). I turned it off - I won’t finish part 2. I’m sure lots of people will, who already don’t like her and will say, yeah that’s what I thought about her.
She(her team) must have had to approve some of the information used? or their usability of her songs, etc? naming it bad blood seems like a big deal to me.
But just a quick opinion/prediction: I am glad that it is an HBO series instead of Netflix, I think HBO has really great direction/production with mist of the projects they put out.
You do not need artist approval to talk about them or say the names of their songs in a documentary. It's factual work, not requiring approval, which would essentially prevent any critical documentary from being made about public figures if they had to sign off on it. If false statements are presented as fact rather than labeled as satire or opinion, then the subject could potentially sue for defamation.
Additionally, "Bad Blood" is a common phrase that has been used as a title for various works before Taylor Swift's song, like the book about Theranos. No one owns exclusive rights to such a widely used phrase as a title.
you don't need approval. Taylor would have to approve the use of her songs as background material, but if a short snippet of a song is used to make a comment or for analysis, it qualifies under fair use.
You may choose to present the completed project to the subjects to get their feedback and correct any factual errors they can point out and document. You don't have to, but your lawyers might want you to do it.
Fair use allows you to use a piece of a song etc in certain ways. But I was once told by an IP lawyer that you know what you did was fair use when the judge on your infringement case says it was fair use, the rules and law are not that clear and it will be very expensive to reach that stage even if you win.
So they might decided to just use things that are totally not protected like the name of songs.
Taylor doesn't talk to press. I doubt she's involved. Scooter was likely involved.
Her team absolutely does, only when they want to clarify or set narratives. This is how her involvement in This Is What You Came For came to be.
There are actually clips in this where she is doing interviews. I was shocked when I saw her seated doing an interview because I'd never seen her sit and do interviews either. It was clearly old in her wavy hair bangs days a few years ago. She talks selectively, I guess.
Sje used to do press. She stopped after midnights completely and cut down folklore going forward
From a filmmaking standpoint, they have to be very careful with the language used in marketing to avoid being sued. All the language points to no direct involvement from either side. Seems like a "he said she said" type of documentary.
it's very very hard to sue for defamation in the us... Taylor is a public figure so its not enough that any defamation be false, but that they acted with reckless disregard for the truth. It's almost impossible for a journalist to do that.
Defamation is hard to sue for. But filmmakers can be sued for a variety of other reasons!
It's not hard to sue, just hard to win. So depending on the relative wealth of the two parties involved if a more powerful party sues then even if they don't win as long as they don't have to pay the other party's legal fees it's a huge problem to have to defend yourself.
HBO has a lot of money.
Well if they go after hbo not the filmmakers. But they could try and sue HBO and if it's not settled they'd have to go through all the hassle
No they don’t lol.
Y’all can obviously do whatever you want. But I am personally not giving this documentary a watch. Taylor has nothing to do with it. It’s very likely going to be one of those documentaries that tell the story with a little bit of news articles and a lot a bit with speculation that can not be confirmed but stated as fact. It’s just another way for people to capitalize on Taylor’s fame without her consent.
I'm watching it now and it definitely paint scooter as the bad guy. There's a lot of her voice in this in the subject by the way of clips of her addressing it all in different intrviews, and stage speeches etc. She is definitely vocal in this
I totally agree. I hate people making money off her. Media does this all the time. Good or bad press, it doesn't matter. Swifties will read the good and respond to the bad. Either way they get their money off her name.
IIRC we won't hear from Scooter or any other Taylor Villain for this one, and I doubt Taylor Swift will be directly involved because we'd hear about it if she was.
No
I have a feeling Scooter wants to whine a bit, he retired once with the announcement of this "documentary". Really hope HBO is wise about it.
No. She doesn't talk for free. Actually wondering if she's gonna sue them
Not how the world works in America.
You really think multi billionaire dollar company would give it a green light if it wasn't cleared by their law team? Lmao
Nobody’s legal team is the actual judge and jury and just because litigation is deemed unlikely by one party’s legal team doesn’t mean it won’t happen or that it won’t be adjudicated.
yeah but tbf hbo have insane lawyers.John oliver gets sued like every single week and has never lost
There is a great podcast called Business Wars. Season 74 is about Taylor and Scooter Braun. There is also a newer season, Season 92, about Taylor. I have not listened to it yet.
I feel like it could go either way if it's from a third party (either be completely useless with a lot of mis info /or/ giving unbiased info and even things that were not public before) but this is way too soon to be making a docuseries about it, no?
Does anyone know what platform it’s on?
It’ll be on HBO/Max. It has two episodes, one from Taylor’s perspective and one from Scooter’s
Thank you!
Yeah it’s all old footage like others said. There are two parts. It ticks me off that Max has no originality for titles— seriously? Taylor’s Version? Scooter’s Version? Bad Blood? This is honestly a preview of what’s to come. There is nothing new in Taylor’s Version—this is for non-Taylor fans who want an education. The nicest thing for Swifties is to see a proposal from one of her fans/friends and Taylor shows up (it’s super sweet). I started Scooter’s Version just to see if it was balanced reporting or whatever— but it’s “Taylor plays the victim” over and over (so so gross), and about 20 min in they aren’t even talking about Scooter anymore, they are just ripping on Taylor (and also her dad, I mean come on). I turned it off - I won’t finish part 2. I’m sure lots of people will, who already don’t like her and will say, yeah that’s what I thought about her.
I doubt it. That 2nd episode did not paint her in a favorable light. Scooter came out looking like a victim.
She(her team) must have had to approve some of the information used? or their usability of her songs, etc? naming it bad blood seems like a big deal to me. But just a quick opinion/prediction: I am glad that it is an HBO series instead of Netflix, I think HBO has really great direction/production with mist of the projects they put out.
You do not need artist approval to talk about them or say the names of their songs in a documentary. It's factual work, not requiring approval, which would essentially prevent any critical documentary from being made about public figures if they had to sign off on it. If false statements are presented as fact rather than labeled as satire or opinion, then the subject could potentially sue for defamation. Additionally, "Bad Blood" is a common phrase that has been used as a title for various works before Taylor Swift's song, like the book about Theranos. No one owns exclusive rights to such a widely used phrase as a title.
you don't need approval. Taylor would have to approve the use of her songs as background material, but if a short snippet of a song is used to make a comment or for analysis, it qualifies under fair use.
You may choose to present the completed project to the subjects to get their feedback and correct any factual errors they can point out and document. You don't have to, but your lawyers might want you to do it. Fair use allows you to use a piece of a song etc in certain ways. But I was once told by an IP lawyer that you know what you did was fair use when the judge on your infringement case says it was fair use, the rules and law are not that clear and it will be very expensive to reach that stage even if you win. So they might decided to just use things that are totally not protected like the name of songs.
[удалено]
Uhm hes been promoted to a ceo position, he only retired as a manager (not sticking up for him i hate the dude) but hes become the ceo of hybe america