[ad_1]
Judge Aileen Cannon denied a Florida artist’s motion to block the release of Taylor Swift’s new docuseries over alleged copyright infringement.
Cannon, who rose to national prominence when she was the judge assigned to President Donald Trump’s classified documents case, said the motion “clearly lacks a basis to grant the extraordinary relief sought” in an order on December 22.
Florida artist Kimberly Marasco had 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.”
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 for alleged copyright infringement. 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 court-ordered time frame. The lawsuit also named Swift’s production company, Taylor Swift Productions, as a defendant. The case against the production company was dismissed with prejudice in September.
What To Know
Marasco said in her motion for a preliminary injunction 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.
Attorneys representing Swift and co-defendants said 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,” in a filing opposing the motion.
Marasco denied any harassment in a later filing.
“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.
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 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
Cannon has yet to rule on the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.
Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.
[ad_2]