| |
Fan Base: Archived: Taylor Swift (#2)
Member Since: 6/30/2012
Posts: 22,003
|
I'd be here for her dating Michael fassbender
He looks great tbh, plus he's really talented
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/15/2012
Posts: 2,055
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ripedie254
Only a month ago looking good and feeling fine shaven just how Taylor likes it. |
Interesting. I remember reading she had been spotted by Maggie G's house. Only time will tell if this is true and they get spotted out together. They must be keeping it super low key or this is a recent development. I like them together and think they make sense. I hope they are happy and can make it work this time around.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 831
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Vine101
I asked my friend what the lyric "I'll do anything you say, if you say it with your hands" means and she said that it basically means that they don't even have to talk, his/her body language is too powerful for words.
|
i'm 15 pages behind so i don't know if anyone has said it already, but let's not forget john mayer's Your Body Is A Wonderland lyric "your body is a wonderland, i'll use my hands" (and taylor using "til the gravity's too much" lyric when Gravity is basically Mayer's sig song"). the lyrics are basically her subtweeting him
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 627
|
Taylor is on the cover of Glamour Mexico... but it's an old photoshoot.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/9/2012
Posts: 1,916
|
Quote:
'Star Wars' -- How Will Taylor Swift's Empire Strike Back In The Lucky 13 Lawsuit
Some of the hub-bub may have died down about Taylor Swift and the trademark infringement lawsuit regarding “Lucky 13.” What really to make of it?
Swift’s time to answer is fast approaching, but nothing is yet on file with the United States District Court in Southern California. Taylor “Swift’s Business Empire ” (that is the Plaintiff’s wording) is defined as Taylor A. Swift, Taylor Nation, LLC, Taylor Swift Productions, Inc., Swift Merchandising, Inc., and TAS Rights Management, LLC. They are being sued by both Blue Sphere, Inc., a California Corporation doing business as Lucky 13, and Robert A. Kloetzly, its President. In an entertainingly written complaint (entertaining at least to trademark attorneys), the plaintiffs lay the groundwork for the Empire’s latest dastardly mission: infringement of the “Lucky 13” trademark, conceived and created by the plaintiffs over two decades ago.
The story begins with Lucky 13’s owner, Kloetzly. He grew up on the shores of Huntington Beach, California, surfing, riding motorcycles up and down Pacific Coast Highway, attending the Orange County Fair, and going to concerts given by such notable musicians as Mike Ness and Social Distortion, Black Flag, and Billy Zoom and John Doe’s group, X. He formed “Lucky 13″ in 1991, and has used the mark on clothing, jewelry, body spray, license plate holders, calendars and other sundry products.
Taylor Swift is apparently well known for using the number 13. She features 13 as her lucky number (harkening back to her birthday and other life events). She calls it her lucky number and has offered products such as t-shirts with the words “Lucky 13,” and a shamrock constituting the design.
If we know that is Taylor’s lucky number, why can’t she use it? Because Lucky 13 says they got there first. And apparently, her well known image for favoring “fast cars, and dangerous men who drive inappropriately,” insures trouble and confusion. They claim that the “Empire” has a huge degree of sophistication, and, in effect, should have known better. They would like the Court to believe that Swift is a dark star, indeed.
In reality, this suit is not remarkably different from any other run of the mill trademark infringement action. The willful knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing, the moral high ground of the plaintiff — both of those themes play well, and as a matter of fact, both are often pretty true. The obvious legal defense here would be that no trademark use is being made of “Lucky 13,” but that this is just a favorite phrase well known to fans of the defendant, and not likely to confuse anyone. But a favorite phrase is not necessarily free for use if someone else has claimed it first. Unlike some trademark cases, wherever celebrities are plaintiffs or defendants, the complaint of these plaintiffs are something more than fantasy. Whether or not they can use this Force to change the Empire’s use of “Lucky 13” remains to be seen.
|
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jesscoll...ky-13-lawsuit/
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 831
|
Quote:
Originally posted by JakeKills
OneRepublic confirmed earlier that they've done a song for The Giver. OneRepublic is Ryan Tedder, who has been in the studio with Taylor.
|
here. for. it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/26/2011
Posts: 15,572
|
Exhibit A: WayTooHonest spilt some Lipton to disco and I over twitter a few months back, still trying to find it. Anyway the tea was that Taylor and Jake were both looking for apartments in Manhattan close to each other....purposely.
Low and Behold, Taylor has now purchased a Manhattan Apartment
Exhibit B: The stories of Taylor and Jake's virginity/breakup surfacing randomly 3-4 years later for no apparent reason.
Right around the time Jake "broke up" with his "girlfriend"
However, not long after that, Paula stepped down as Taylor's publicist. Was she testing the waters leaking that "story" to see what angle to play the reunion at?
Exhibit C: However, it seems Taylor is hell-bent on keeping an "IM SINGLE!1!!" image for right now, and rightfully so. She's mentioned so many times that shes single. Not to mention for the first time in forever, many dating rumors that cropped up last year were actually squashed by her publicity team. Since Paula is all about "Boys=publicity" and Taylor and Jake may seem to want to keep it on the DL. Since he "got back" with his "girlfriend" (Jake was always the private type anyways)
Exhibit D: This is a weak one, but she did away with the bangs officially not too long before the above started. The bangs she got cut not too long after the first breakup
UPDATE::
Taylor's visit to Maggie's house
Jake G mentioning Taylor to those 2 fans (  )
Jake finally shaving his beard/cutting his hair (See exhibit D )
Theres your fresh Sweet Tea & God's Graces
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/30/2012
Posts: 22,003
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ripedie254
Exhibit A: WayTooHonest spilt some Lipton to disco and I over twitter a few months back, still trying to find it. Anyway the tea was that Taylor and Jake were both looking for apartments in Manhattan close to each other....purposely.
Low and Behold, Taylor has now purchased a Manhattan Apartment
Exhibit B: The stories of Taylor and Jake's virginity/breakup surfacing randomly 3-4 years later for no apparent reason.
Right around the time Jake "broke up" with his "girlfriend"
However, not long after that, Paula stepped down as Taylor's publicist. Was she testing the waters leaking that "story" to see what angle to play the reunion at?
Exhibit C: However, it seems Taylor is hell-bent on keeping an "IM SINGLE!1!!" image for right now, and rightfully so. She's mentioned so many times that shes single. Not to mention for the first time in forever, many dating rumors that cropped up last year were actually squashed by her publicity team. Since Paula is all about "Boys=publicity" and Taylor and Jake may seem to want to keep it on the DL. Since he "got back" with his "girlfriend" (Jake was always the private type anyways)
Exhibit D: This is a weak one, but she did away with the bangs officially not too long before the above started. The bangs she got cut not too long after the first breakup
UPDATE::
Taylor's visit to Maggie's house
Jake G mentioning Taylor to those 2 fans ( )
Jake finally shaving his beard/cutting his hair (See exhibit D )
Theres your fresh Sweet Tea & God's Graces
|
I don't think so tbh
Taylor would never return to someone who had hurt her, she has too much self respect for that.
Plus he ditched her at her bday party right, idk how he would have made up for that.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/9/2012
Posts: 1,916
|
Quote:
Apple Should Start Its Own Record Label
NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- While it might not go down exactly as I describe, don't be surprised if Apple (AAPL_) starts its own or buys an existing record label.
With Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre in the fold after the deal for Beats it makes perfect sense. Extending the trajectory of thought Apple set into motion when it announced the deal -- that buying Beats is all about music and bringing the likeminded Iovine and Dre on board -- consider this madness that, when you really think about it, contains sensible method ...
If you're going to poach talent why not make it surefire profitable talent rather than relatively risky management members?
It's clear -- Apple wants to dominate every corner of the digital music landscape. From dying downloads to free streaming radio to on-demand style subscription Internet radio. And it will likely get into data and who knows what else as its strategy continues to mature and unfold. It makes more sense that I can relay in words for Apple to build a stable of the talent that directly dominates digital music and all that it entails. Musicians are not conduits. They're not third parties like Apple and Pandora (P_). They are the direct and dynamic dominators of digital music and the new and emerging music industrial complex.
As such, Apple should call Taylor Swift's label -- the independent Big Machine Records -- and tell Scott Borchetta, the dude who runs it, you have two choices: Let us buy you or let us have Swift.
From there -- and I hate to use such sterile and formal language to classify a talent as incredible and otherworldly as Swift, but I want to keep things short and sweet -- you directly own the content that makes all of the above tick. All of the above being the aforementioned components of the digital music landscape. From music downloads to streaming to other facets, such as data and touring, I discuss at the links in this article.
Apple apparently wants content, in some fashion, from television programmers, but it can't get it. It's too valuable for the TV peeps to give up. Even to Apple. But music's not nearly as tough a nut to crack, particularly for Apple. It would make sense for Big Machine and/or Swift to join the (Big) Apple Machine as it looks to do great things music-wise with Beats. Big Machine and Swift are already wildly successful without Apple; imagine what they could accomplish with it.
Plus, if Apple's really desperate to regain and maintain the hearts and minds of young people, there's no better performer to associate with than Swift. She could sell more iPhones than freaking T-Mobile (TMUS_)!
What Apple would do as a "record label" is redefine what it means to be a record label. In the spirit of how Netflix (NFLX_) handles its DVD division, Apple could produce the bare minimum number of physical copies of recordings, effectively pushing music listeners away from CDs and nudging them to where they're going anyway -- streaming. Accessing, not owning music. Leasing music, not buying it. Storing it in the cloud, not on bookshelves and in empty milk crates.
Apple could set up compensation schemes for everything from sales to streams to merchandise to touring that artists such as Swift would not merely accept, but love, respect and, most of all, promote. And others would follow. They would scratch and claw to sign with Apple. There would be nothing like being on the label owned by Apple and run by Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre. The move would instantly propel Tim Cook to Steve Jobs-level genius. And rightfully so.
|
http://www.thestreet.com/story/12729...ord-label.html
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/30/2012
Posts: 22,003
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Elise
Taylor is on the cover of Glamour Mexico... but it's an old photoshoot.
|
Slay
Glamorous queen
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/26/2011
Posts: 15,572
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ash12345
Plus he ditched her at her bday party right, idk how he would have made up for that.
|
Omg how dare he
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/23/2012
Posts: 8,113
|
She's obviously low-key dating someone. Who?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 10,918
|
Quote:
Originally posted by dragon
|
They decide to sue her years after her getting famous though 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/26/2011
Posts: 15,572
|
Quote:
Originally posted by WayTooHonest13
She's obviously low-key dating someone. Who?
|
Shes in a polygamous relationship with Jake, Karlie and Ed is it not obvious?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/30/2012
Posts: 22,003
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ripedie254
Omg how dare he
|
It was her 21st birthday
That's a big deal tbh
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/30/2012
Posts: 22,003
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ripedie254
Shes in a polygamous relationship with Jake, Karlie and Ed is it not obvious?
|
Don't look at me I've got a girl at home and everybody knows that
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/26/2011
Posts: 15,572
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ash12345
It was her 21st birthday
That's a big deal tbh
|
You right
Id never forgive them not even 4 years later
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/23/2012
Posts: 8,113
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ash12345
It was her 21st birthday
That's a big deal tbh
|
Skipping out on the chance to see a white trash bumpkin from southern PA get hammered and then have her dad clean up her messes, as he does with everything else in her life, doesn't seem like a bad decision on Jake's part. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/9/2012
Posts: 38,050
|
Quote:
Originally posted by dragon
|
Interesting.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/26/2011
Posts: 15,572
|
Quote:
Originally posted by WayTooHonest13
Skipping out on the chance to see a white trash bumpkin from southern PA get hammered and then have her dad clean up her messes, as he does with everything else in her life, doesn't seem like a bad decision on Jake's part. |
There ya go
|
|
|
|
|
|
