Florida artist Kimberly Marasco is asking the court to order singer Taylor Swift and her co-defendants to give up all profits from songs Marasco alleges contain copyrighted material.

Marasco, who is representing herself, filed a second amended complaint against Swift, songwriter Aaron Dessner, Universal Music Group and Republic Records on October 14. The complaint asks for disgorgement of profits attributable to alleged infringement.

Newsweek reached out to Marasco and a Swift representative for comment.

“Disgorgement looks at the breaching party or the party that’s in violation, and it asks, ‘How much did they benefit from, in this particular case, the copyright violation?’” Neama Rahmani, president of West Coast Trial Lawyers and former federal prosecutor, told Newsweek. 

If Marasco prevails in her request, Rahmani said, the amount Swift made from the songs found to be in violation “will be taken from Taylor Swift and given to the plaintiff.” 

Why It Matters

Marasco has accused Swift and her co-defendants of copying her poetry in lyrics and visuals from multiple albums, including Lover, Folklore, Midnights and The Tortured Poets Department.

Taylor Swift performs at Paris La Defense Arena during her “Eras Tour” concert in Paris on May 9, 2024. (AP Photo/Lewis Joly, File) | AP Photo/Lewis Joly, File

What To Know

Rahmani said disgorgement is not common in most cases, but it is seen in copyright infringement cases.

“If someone’s assaulted, someone’s negligent, you typically don’t get these damages, but in the intellectual property world, they are more common,” he said. “Of course, you have to prove the violation first, but if you do, you can get disgorgement.” 

Last year, Marasco filed her first lawsuit against Swift and her production company, alleging copyright infringement. Swift was dismissed from the case in December over failure to serve the lawsuit within the time frame provided by the court.

Marasco documented her difficulty serving Swift in several court documents. The dismissal came after the court granted Marasco “one final opportunity” to serve Swift and submit proof.

The case against Taylor Swift Productions was dismissed with prejudice last month by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who serves in the Southern District of Florida. Cannon rose to national prominence when she was the judge assigned to President Donald Trump’s classified documents case.

“In sum, Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim for copyright infringement because none of the works qualifies as protectable expression, and even if they did, Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that Defendant copied her works,” Cannon wrote in an order. 

Marasco filed the lawsuit against Swift, Dessner, songwriter Jack Antonoff, Universal Music Group and Republic Records in February. Marasco voluntarily dismissed Antonoff from the case in a notice dated September 29.

Cannon determined in August that Marasco met the requirements for substitute service of Swift in this case by filing an affidavit of compliance and accompanying attachments showing compliance with the notice, mailing and filing requirements.

Swift’s attorneys have repeatedly denied the allegations in the current and previous lawsuit.

In a May memorandum, attorneys James Douglas Baldridge and Katherine Wright Morrone accused Marasco of “continuing to assert utterly frivolous copyright infringement claims” against Swift.

What People Are Saying

Rahmani, to Newsweek: “I don’t think she has a strong case, and I think it’s telling that she’s representing herself in pro per or pro se. Typically, that’s a sign that someone does not have a good case. And because if it was a strong claim against someone like Taylor Swift who has the ability to pay, you know, there’d be lawyers jumping up and down to get a piece of that.”

Marasco, in the second amended complaint: “The substantial similarities between Plaintiff’s works and Defendants’ songs are not coincidental, but evidence unlawful copying of protectable expression.”

What Happens Next

Marasco seeks damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees, interest and any other relief as the court “deems just and proper.”

Marasco is also demanding a trial by jury on all triable issues.