Ruth Samuel
On Friday, October 3rd, Taylor Swift released her 12th studio album, “The Life of a Showgirl,” and with it came the usual discourse: empty, vapid “analysis” from crazed stans, questionably microaggressive lyrics and weak jabs at industry counterparts.
What was not expected is an ostensibly phallic track about her fiance, Travis Kelce, becoming the source of copyright infringement allegations.1 According to listeners and internet sleuths, her record “Wood” allegedly drew its melody from The Jackson 5’s “I Want You Back.”2
Four days later, musical prodigy and singer Charlie Puth took to TikTok to explain the difference between sampling and interpolation with what he calls “the four-note threshold rule.”3 Considering there are only 12 notes in a scale, he said, similar melodies between older and newer songs are inevitable. If five consecutive notes or more mirror the preceding song, that is interpolation, not copying, according to Puth.
However, contrary to his oversimplification, courts do not play their copyright rulings by ear.
Following decades of precedent, myriad factors influence legal outcomes, e.g., which musical elements are unprotectable, how commonplace certain chord progressions are across genres, access to the original copyrighted work, and more. Though the Michael Jackson Family Trust has not initiated a lawsuit — and Swift has yet to amend the “Wood” songwriting credits — a case could fare multiple ways in court.
In Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music Ltd., the Court held that even unintentional, subconscious duplication of a copyrighted work still counts as infringement.4 Ex-“Beatles” member George Harrison composed a song called “My Sweet Lord,” which the Court found “virtually identical” to “He’s So Fine” by the Chiffons.
The controversy stemmed from four repetitions of “basic musical phrase[s],” which were referred to as “motif A,” “motif B,” etc. Both the Beatles and Chiffons were topping the charts in 1963, thus the Court determined that Harrison likely had access to “He’s So Fine.” Consequently, he must have latently copied the tune in his composition, as it had been commercially successful seven years prior.
As set forth in Feist, copyright protection can only be granted to works that display “a minimum of originality.”5 Echoed in Puth’s analysis and held in Gaste v. Kaiserman, copyright law “accounts for both the limited number of notes and chords available to composers” and the recurring themes and arrangements in popular music.6 Established by McDonald v. West, “key, meter, tempo, common song structures, common chord progressions, common melodies, and common percussive rhythms” are unprotectable.7
A note is a single key, while a chord is a group or unit of multiple notes. Copyright protection relies on the manner in which chords are arranged, and whether that arrangement reflects genre norms versus novel human creativity. In Griffin v. Sheeran, which preceded the famed “Let’s Get It On” v. “Thinking Out Loud” trial, a question arose of whether “the basic I-iii-IV-V chord progression” in “Let’s Get It On” was popular before the song’s inception.8
The defendant was able to identify thirteen songs predating “Let’s Get It On” that used the same four-chord progression, thus undermining Griffin’s protection claim. At trial (i.e. in Structured Asset Sales, LLC. v. Sheeran), it was decided that the aforementioned progression in question is considered “ubiquitous in pop music” and does not meet the originality threshold.9
Any American musician with a pulse knows what “I Want You Back” sounds like and can easily access it. Yet, as the Court held in Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, a plaintiff suing for copyright infringement must demonstrate that protected elements have been copied and the new song shares substantial similarities.10
A two-part test is used to determine the latter. Through “extrinsic” evaluation, fact finders will compare “specific expressive elements” between the works; the “intrinsic” evaluation relies on whether a layman could find them similar. While I won’t subject myself to listening to Swift’s latest album, a verdict is in: forensic musicologist Joe Bennett thinks the “Wood” comparisons are a reach.11
So, the very woman who has been lauded as an ardent advocate for artists’ rights — and whose team retroactively pursued songwriting credits from a teenager — apparently does not have to attribute credits to the King of Pop.12
Baby, that’s show business for you.
[1] Julia Reinstein, Taylor Swift Is Singing Puns About Travis Kelce’s “Wood," The Cut (Oct. 3, 2025), https://www.thecut.com/article/taylor-swift-is-singing-puns-about-travis-kelces-wood.html.
[2] Bill Donahue, Amid Taylor Swift Debate, Charlie Puth Explains Why Some Songs Sound Alike, Billboard (Oct. 8, 2025), https://www.billboard.com/pro/taylor-swift-wood-song-copy-charlie-puth-interpolation/.
[3] Charlie Puth, Professor Puth Ep. 8, TikTok (Oct. 7, 2025), https://www.tiktok.com/@charlieputh/video/7558510770246520119.
[4] Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music Ltd., 420 F.Supp. 177, 178 (S.D.N.Y.1976).
[5] Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute (LII), Copyright, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/copyright (last visited Oct. 23, 2025).
[6] Gaste v. Kaiserman, 863 F.2d 1061, 1068 (2d Cir. 1988).
[7] McDonald v. West, 138 F.Supp.3d 448, 454 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
[8] Tomas Mier, Ed Sheeran Wins Marvin Gaye Copyright Case Appeal, Rolling Stone (Nov. 1, 2024), https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/ed-sheeran-wins-marvin-gaye-copyright-lawsuit-appeals-1235150674/; Griffin v. Sheeran, 351 F.Supp.3d 492, 494 (S.D.N.Y. 2019).
[9] Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Sheeran, 120 F.4th 1066, 1080-81 (2nd Cir. 2024).
[10] Skidmore as Trustee for Randy Craig Wolfe Trust v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d at 1075-76 (9th Cir. 2020).
[11] Brittany Spanos, The Internet Thinks Taylor Swift Copied These Songs. But Did She?, Rolling Stone (Oct. 9, 2025), www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/taylor-swift-life-of-a-showgirl-plagiarism-jonas-brothers-1235443811/.
[12] Brittany Spanos, Olivia Rodrigo Adds Taylor Swift, St. Vincent and Jack Antonoff Co-Writes to “Deja Vu,” Rolling Stone (July 9, 2021), https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/olivia-rodrigo-adds-taylor-swift-st-vincent-jack-antonoff-co-writes-to-deja-vu-1193659/.