The multi-award successful singer mentioned she had drawn from her personal experiences and “generally used phrases and feedback” she had heard all through her life for the observe.
The declare is being introduced by songwriters Sean Corridor and Nate Butler and alleges that Swift lifted lyrics for her music from their very own Playas Gon’ Play, carried out by US woman group 3LW.
Taylor Swift has hit again at complainants in a US copyright lawsuit over her hit music Shake It Off, saying the lyrics had been written “completely by me”.
Swift, 36, mentioned had “by no means heard” of the music Playas Gon’ Play or 3LW, previous to the lawsuit, in a sworn declaration filed on Monday and obtained by the PA information company.
“The lyrics to Shake It Off had been written completely by me,” she mentioned.
“Shake It Off is about independence and ‘shaking of’’ adverse private criticism by music and dance.
“In writing the lyrics, I drew partly on experiences in my life and, particularly, unrelenting public scrutiny of my private life, ‘clickbait’ reporting, public manipulation, and different types of adverse private criticism which I realized I simply wanted to shake off and give attention to my music.
“With Shake It Off, I wished to offer a comedic, empowering strategy to serving to individuals really feel higher about adverse criticism by music, dance, and the non-public independence enabling one to only shake off the adverse criticism.”
She added: “The lyrics to Shake It Off additionally draw from generally used phrases and feedback heard all through my life.
“Previous to writing Shake It Off I had heard the phrases ‘gamers gonna play’ and ‘haters gonna hate’ uttered numerous instances to precise the concept one can or ought to shrug off negativity.
“Till studying about Plaintiffs’ declare in 2017, I had by no means heard the music 9 Playas Gon’ Play and had by no means heard of that music or the group 3LW.”
Legal professionals for Swift beforehand appealed towards the choose’s resolution to permit a trial to go forward within the case, arguing that it was “unprecedented” and requested the ruling to be revisited.