A woman suing Taylor Swift‘s production company failed to follow court rules, according to an order from Judge Aileen Cannon filed on Tuesday.
Why It Matters
Kimberly Marasco, a Florida artist, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Swift and her production company last year. She alleged that several of Swift’s songs and music videos have “creative elements” that copy her work without authorization or credit.
She is seeking more than $7 million in damages.
Cannon, who is presiding over the case, dismissed Swift from the case without prejudice 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.
Photo by Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP
What To Know
Lawyers representing Taylor Swift Productions filed a reply supporting their motion to dismiss the case on Friday. Marasco filed a response to the reply on Monday.
Cannon issued an order striking the response because court rules state that no additional filings should be made after a reply without permission from the court, which Marasco did not have.
Marasco’s response focused on copyright law, the difference between ideas and original expression and access in the digital age.
Lawyers for Taylor Swift Productions said Marasco is alleging infringement of general concepts or ideas, which are not protected under copyright law. In Marasco’s response, she said ideas can be protected when they are in material form.
“Even if you don’t have a hit song, you don’t want others to profit from your intellectual property,” Marasco said.
Aaron S. Blynn and Katherine Wright Morrone, lawyers representing Taylor Swift Productions, are asking Cannon to dismiss the case for “numerous fundamental flaws.” They argue that Marasco “conflates” Swift with her production company and fails to prove that Taylor Swift Productions copied parts of Marasco’s work that were protected under the law.
What People Are Saying
Aaron S. Blynn and Katherine Wright Morrone, in their reply: “Contrary to Plaintiff’s allegations, the protected expression in Plaintiff’s poems is not the general situation or context being described; rather it is how an author uses narrative, descriptive, or explanatory text to describe that theme, subject, or idea.”
Kimberly Marasco, in her response: “Merely thinking about a song is not something you can copyright, but when you write the lyrics or music, you can protect your intellectual property with copyright.”
What Happens Next
Cannon has yet to rule on the defense’s motion to dismiss the complaint.
Do you have a story Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.
