This case revolves around a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Kimberly Marasco, a Florida artist, against Taylor Swift and her production company, Taylor Swift Productions, Inc. Marasco alleges that Swift’s songs and music videos incorporate “creative elements” from her own work without permission or acknowledgment. The lawsuit seeks over $7 million in damages. While Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed Swift from the lawsuit without prejudice due to a procedural error in serving the lawsuit, the claims against Taylor Swift Productions remain active.
The central issue in the case now concerns the statute of limitations for copyright infringement claims. Taylor Swift Productions’ legal team argues that a significant portion of Marasco’s claims are time-barred, as copyright infringement lawsuits must be filed within three years of the plaintiff becoming aware of the alleged infringement. Since Marasco filed her complaint in April 2024, her attorneys contend that she can only pursue claims related to infringements she discovered after April 2021. Several of the albums cited in Marasco’s complaint, including “Lover,” “Folklore,” and “Evermore,” were released prior to 2021, thus potentially falling outside the statute of limitations.
Marasco counters this argument by stating that she was unaware of the alleged similarities between her work and Swift’s music until she attended the Eras Tour in 2024. She claims she primarily listens to alternative rock and had not purchased any of Swift’s albums prior to this point. Marasco asserts that her lack of familiarity with Swift’s music prevented her from recognizing the alleged infringement earlier. Following the concert, she began researching the similarities, subsequently realizing the extent of the alleged infringement across Swift’s discography, including the earlier albums. This discovery, she argues, justifies her inclusion of the older albums in her complaint.
Taylor Swift Productions’ lawyers challenge Marasco’s claim of ignorance, emphasizing the widespread media coverage and popularity of Swift’s albums. They argue that the albums were readily accessible on various platforms and received substantial publicity, making it improbable for Marasco to remain unaware of their content, especially considering the alleged similarities to her own work. This difference in interpretation of when Marasco should have reasonably been aware of the alleged infringement forms a key point of contention in the case.
Marasco’s legal strategy hinges on establishing her lack of awareness of the alleged infringement until 2024. If the court accepts her argument, it could allow her to pursue claims related to the earlier albums. However, if the court sides with Taylor Swift Productions and upholds the statute of limitations argument, the scope of Marasco’s case will be significantly limited. The court’s decision on this matter will be crucial in determining the future trajectory of the lawsuit.
Looking ahead, Marasco has proposed a meeting between all parties to seek a resolution. However, she also indicated her intention to appeal or refile the lawsuit if the case is dismissed based on Swift’s removal and a finding of non-involvement by Taylor Swift Productions. The case highlights the complexities of copyright law, particularly regarding the determination of when a plaintiff reasonably should have been aware of an infringement. The outcome of this case will have implications for future copyright infringement claims, especially in the context of widely disseminated works in the music industry. The court’s decision will also set a precedent regarding the level of awareness required of plaintiffs in such cases.
