Marasco v. Taylor Swift Productions, Inc.
2:24-cv-14153
| S.D. Fla. | Jul 26, 2024Background
- Plaintiff, Kimberly Marasco, is the author of two poetry books and claims copyrights in them.
- Marasco alleges that Taylor Swift Productions, Inc., infringed her copyrights by using material from her works in Taylor Swift’s songs and performances.
- The lawsuit was initially filed in Florida state small claims court and removed to federal district court.
- Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court evaluated the complaint under the standards for motion to dismiss, including the more lenient view given to pro se pleadings.
- The factual allegations focused on broad similarities in themes, metaphors, or isolated phrases between Marasco’s poems and Swift’s lyrics, without specifics implicating Taylor Swift Productions, Inc.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shotgun Pleading | The narrative submitted is sufficient to state the claim | The complaint is vague, conclusory, and fails Rule 8 & federal pleading | Complaint is a shotgun pleading; must be dismissed |
| Failure to State a Claim | Swift’s songs are similar to Marasco’s poems in metaphors/themes | General themes/ideas not copyrightable; no plausible infringement pled | Insufficient facts to state copyright infringement claim |
| Copyright Infringement Elements | Her copyrights were registered and works were original | Mere similarity on broad themes is not actionable; lack of access, specifics | Plaintiff failed to allege access or substantial similarity |
| Personal Jurisdiction | Did not specifically address | No facts tying Taylor Swift Productions, Inc. to alleged acts in Florida | No personal jurisdiction established on current pleadings |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard under Rule 8)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (requirements for factual plausibility in complaints)
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (copyright protects only original expression, not ideas)
- Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (legal conclusions not accepted as factual allegations)
- Cramer v. State of Fla., 117 F.3d 1258 (prohibition against shotgun pleadings)
- Calhoun v. Lillenas Publ’g, 298 F.3d 1228 (substantial similarity and access in copyright claims)