Woman decided to sue Taylor Swift after watching Eras Tour
The woman suing Taylor Swift's production company said she noticed alleged copyright infringement while watching the Eras Tour.
Why It Matters
Kimberly Marasco, a Florida artist, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Swift and her production company last year. She alleges Swift's songs and music videos have "creative elements" that copy her work without authorization or credit.
She is requesting more than $7 million in damages.
Judge Aileen Cannon, who is presiding over the case, dismissed Swift from the lawsuit without prejudice last month because Marasco failed to serve the lawsuit in a timely manner. The ruling allows Marasco to refile the lawsuit against Swift in the future.
The claims against the singer's production company, Taylor Swift Productions, Inc., have not been dismissed.
What To Know
Lawyers representing Taylor Swift Productions filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on Tuesday, arguing that more than half the claims are "time-barred" under the law.
Copyright infringement claims must be filed within three years of the plaintiff's learning of the alleged infringement. Since the complaint was filed in April 2024, attorneys Aaron S. Blynn and Katherine Wright Morrone said Marasco could only pursue the claims she became aware of after April 2021.
Marasco's complaint mentions the albums Lover, Folklore and Evermore, all released before 2021.
In a response filed on Friday, Marasco said she had never bought any of Swift's albums as she "only listened to alternative rock."
"Just because Taylor Swift is a very singer, doesn't mean that the Plaintiff was aware of the specific lyrics she sang as soon as she produced her albums," Marasco wrote.
Marasco said she began researching the similarities between her writing and Swift's music after watching the Eras Tour in 2024.
"That is when she discovered the infringement and went back to her earlier albums to check other songs since there were so many found," the response states.
Blynn and Wright Morrone said Marasco should have been aware of the alleged copyright infringement because "each album release was covered by news and media outlets, are widely available on streaming platforms, and 'have been exceedingly popular both domestically and abroad.'"
What People Are Saying
Attorneys Aaron S. Blynn and Katherine Wright Morrone, in their motion to dismiss: "In sum, Plaintiff's claims remain entirely unfounded, and her 'final opportunity' to state a claim fails. At this juncture, dismissal with prejudice is required."
Kimberly Marasco, in her response: "The Plaintiff may not be a well-known national author, but she created works that were unique, not borrowed from anywhere else, and went to lengths to ensure they would be protected in hopes she would be afforded the same protection as everyone else, no matter how known or unknown they are."
What Happens Next
Marasco suggested that all parties meet so they could come to a resolution. She said that if the case is dismissed because Swift was dropped and the court finds that Taylor Swift Productions has no involvement, she plans to appeal or refile.
Do you have a story Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.
