Kimberly Marasco, a Florida artist, filed an emergency lawsuit in November 2025 to block the Disney+ release of “The End of an Era,” a six-part documentary about Taylor Swift’s record-breaking Eras Tour.
Marasco represents herself without a lawyer and filed her case in the U.S. District Court in Florida. She claims that Swift copied 14 of her songs from the albums Lover, Folklore, Midnights, and The Tortured Poets Department.
Marasco’s lawsuit targets not just Swift but also Universal Music Group, Republic Records, and music producers Jack Antonoff and Aaron Dessner. Disney+ planned to release the documentary on December 12 during the lucrative holiday season.
The streaming company invested millions in promoting this project, so any delay could result in significant financial losses and disappoint Swift’s millions of fans worldwide. This marks Marasco’s third federal lawsuit against Swift or her companies.
Two earlier cases failed—one got dismissed for procedural reasons, and the court dismissed another with prejudice, meaning Marasco cannot refile it.
The Heart of the Copyright Dispute
Marasco argues that specific songs, including “The Man,” “My Tears Ricochet,” “Invisible String,” and “Clara Bow,” were stolen directly from her own poetry. She insists that releasing the documentary would cause her “irreparable harm” because her work would reach millions of people without proper credit.
Marasco says money cannot fix this damage once viewers see the documentary. Swift’s lawyers, James Douglas Baldridge and Katherine Wright Morrone, reject these claims as “utterly frivolous.” They point out that Marasco has lost every lawsuit against Swift previously and lacks standing to sue.
Swift’s legal team explains that copyright law requires proof that the artist copied someone’s work directly—not just that the songs sound similar or share emotional themes. This high legal standard makes cases like Marasco’s extremely difficult to win. Courts recognize that common phrases and similar emotions naturally appear in many songs.
To win her case, Marasco must prove three things: she owns the copyright to her poetry, Swift somehow accessed her work, and the songs contain substantial similarity to her poems. All three conditions are hard to satisfy in court.
What Happens Next and Why It Matters
Judge Aileen Cannon, who previously dismissed one of Marasco’s earlier complaints, now must decide quickly before December 12. She will consider whether Marasco is likely to win at trial, whether she faces real and irreparable harm, how fair the outcome would be for both sides, and the public interest.
Legal experts believe Swift has the stronger legal position and a greater public interest, while Marasco’s only real argument rests on her claim of irreparable harm. If Judge Cannon denies the emergency motion, the case will proceed to the discovery phase, where both sides will present evidence and expert testimony.
Swift’s songwriting records and Marasco’s own poems would face intense examination. The court may encourage both sides to settle before the premiere date arrives, but currently, no settlement talks are underway. Whatever Judge Cannon decides, the losing side plans to appeal immediately. This case could shape how courts handle copyright disputes involving major streaming releases in the future.
The entertainment industry watches closely because the outcome may influence how Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Apple TV+ handle copyright vetting for future major releases. The ruling will determine whether the documentary launches as planned or becomes another battle in the larger debate about who truly owns creative work in the digital age.