...
By Jenna Sundel
News Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Attorneys representing Taylor Swift accused a Florida woman of filing "harassing" claims of copyright infringement in a lawsuit against the singer and related companies.
"Plaintiff Kimberly Marasco…has spent the better part of two years, in two different actions, hawking harassing and frivolous copyright infringement claims against Artist and related companies," the attorneys wrote in opposition to the plaintiff’s for a preliminary injunction.
Marasco denied any harassment in opposition to a motion to dismiss filed on Monday.
Read More on News
"On the contrary, the Plaintiff has faced significant harassment from 'Swifties' including attacks on social media, other websites, and even comments from co-workers in prior employment settings. This harassment escalated to threats of physical harm, causing the Plaintiff to fear leaving her home at times," Marasco wrote.
Marasco, a Florida artist, asked the court to block the release of episodes of The End of an Era, a Disney+ docuseries about Swift’s Eras Tour, containing alleged copyright infringement. Attorneys for the defendants called the request "extreme and inappropriate."
...
The series is scheduled to be released on December 12.
Newsweek reached out to Marasco and a representative for Swift for comment.
Why It Matters
Marasco is suing Swift, Universal Music Group and Republic Records. She alleged that Swift and her co-defendants copied her poetry in lyrics and visuals from multiple albums, including Lover, Folklore, Midnights and The Tortured Poets Department.
This is Marasco’s second lawsuit against Swift. Swift was dismissed from the first case in December 2024 after Marasco failed to serve the lawsuit within the time frame provided by the court. The case against Swift’s production company, Taylor Swift Productions, was dismissed with prejudice in September.
What To Know
James Douglas Baldridge and Katherine Wright Morrone, attorneys for the defendants, said Marasco has not shown any potential for irreparable harm if an injunction is not issued. The attorneys said the balance of hardships weighs in favor of the defendants.
"Far from maintaining the status quo, the relief Plaintiff seeks would create an absurd result: it would disrupt the status quo by awarding Plaintiff—who has been hawking the same baseless and harassing claims for years even after this Court previously dismissed them with prejudice—censorship rights over Defendants’ works, enjoyed by millions worldwide, so that Plaintiff can (as is currently the case) not even offer her poems for sale," Baldridge and Wright Morrone wrote.
The attorneys said that if the motion was granted, it would cause "extreme disruption to Defendants’ businesses and daily lives."
Baldridge and Wright Morrone also argued that "in the incredibly unlikely event that Plaintiff could ever prevail on her baseless claims, monetary damages would be sufficient to address any purported harms."
Marasco said in her motion that the release of the docuseries will cause her to suffer "irreparable harm."
"Once the docuseries is broadcast globally, Plaintiff’s works will be irreversibly embedded in cultural products beyond Plaintiff's reach, without any credit or acknowledgment of Plaintiff’s material," Marasco wrote.
What People Are Saying
Kimberly Marasco, in a motion for preliminary injunction: "Absent injunctive relief, Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm that monetary damages cannot remedy. The balance of equities and public interest strongly favor protecting Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests that this Court grant the motion for preliminary injunction."
James Douglas Baldridge and Katherine Wright Morrone, attorneys for Taylor Swift and her co-defendants, in opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction: "The intellectual property interests at risk and under attack in this litigation are Defendants’, not Plaintiff’s. The public interest weighs heavily in favor of protecting against highly valuable intellectual property being locked away and restricted from public enjoyment because of baseless legal claims. It is further in the public’s interest to avoid frivolous litigation that needlessly wastes both the court’s and the public’s time and resources."
What Happens Next
The court has yet to rule on Marasco’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.
Update 12/09/25, 12:32 p.m. ET: This article has been updated with additional information.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines