Aileen Cannon supports Taylor Swift in legal battle

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon agreed with Taylor Swift's legal team on Wednesday that the pop star was improperly served with a subpoena in a lawsuit alleging copyright infringement.

Cannon, who rose to prominence after being assigned to President-elect Donald Trump's case in Florida and later dismissed, gave Swift's legal team a deadline to comment after the team said Monday that Swift never received the subpoena . Cannon also ordered the plaintiff to properly operate Swift by mid-November.

Cannon was appointed by Trump. She was reportedly a potential candidate for attorney general in a second Trump administration ahead of Tuesday's presidential election, according to ABC News.

Kimberly Marasco, the plaintiff in the Florida copyright lawsuit, has accused Swift of failing to give her proper credit for her lyrics, creative expression and choreography. Swift's legal team has repeatedly denied the claims and sought to have the case dismissed.

The case was originally brought to small claims court in April. “But because federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright cases, the case was transferred to the district court. So a small, petty claims case literally became a federal case because of the nature of the claim,” said former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani Newsweek in an email on Friday.

It's not uncommon for musicians to face lawsuits accusing them of co-opting other people's work, and Swift, one of the world's most successful recording artists, has faced such accusations on several occasions.

Rahmani explained: “Superstars like Taylor Swift are often involved in copyright lawsuits. Their music is very valuable, so they have to sue others to protect it. But they are also the target of lawsuits because they are so rich and famous.”

Request for repeal

On Monday, Swift's legal team filed a motion to vacate the plaintiff's “inadequate service of process,” according to court documents viewed by Newsweek.

“Lawyers can file a motion to quash a subpoena or subpoena because it was improperly served or for some other procedural or substantive defect,” but granting the procedural motion does not clear the case, Rahmani said Newsweek.

In October, two subpoenas relating to Marasco's amended complaint were documented served on representatives of Swift and Swift Productions Inc., the defendants in the case.

However, in the motion to vacate, which was granted, Swift's team writes that “Plaintiff has not served Artist” and adds that “Artist has never owned and does not currently own the property listed in the affidavit.”

The motion also states that Swift does not know the person listed as the receiving agent on the subpoena.

On November 5, Marasco filed a motion for reconsideration of service by alternative methods, requesting that the plaintiff be able to serve Swift by “alternative methods” by either posting the notice in a public forum such as a newspaper or court website or the Subpoena left at the place of business where the defendant operates.”

The motion to quash denied Marasco's request for alternative methods, including publication.

Because defendants are not required to respond to the subpoena “until all defendants in this action have been served,” Swift's legal team was granted a two-week extension of time to file Marasco's amended complaint after the subpoena was properly served and the motion to vacate was decided.

In granting the request, Cannon told Marasco that she had until November 19 to properly serve Swift.

Newsweek emailed Swift's publicist and legal team for comment on Friday.

Statement by the plaintiff Newsweek

In a statement about it Newsweek On Friday, Marasco responded to the motion to repeal:

“The subpoena was delivered by a process server to an address listed on many public websites indicating that it belongs to Taylor Swift. Taylor Swift’s properties are held in trust, not in her name, making the process of proving actual ownership complex.”

“However, the lawyer assisting me in this case will remain anonymous for now and will try to remove this obstacle. Additionally, I would like to add the following.” [a previous Newsweek article] makes it look like I'm arguing over a pose on a chair and a snippet of text. This is not the case. These images were included in the evidence portion of the lawsuit only as evidence to support my claims. Choreography is more than just the medium used in a dance routine. Plus, it's not just the dance that hasn't even been shown yet, but also the lyrics.

“It is the distinctive expressions or movements that make art memorable that are protected by copyright. For the avoidance of doubt, the images were added as evidence only.”

“According to the website Copyright.gov, works are considered original if they are created independently by a human author and display a minimal level of creativity. Independent creation simply means creating it yourself without copying. That's what the Supreme Court said.” Be creative, a work must have a “spark” and a “minimum” of creativity.

“I have created my own unique and original expressions that are protected by copyright laws. Innovation and creativity are at the heart of American values. “I trust that the justice system will uphold the values ​​on which America was founded, including the individual’s right to be heard.” “We hope to move the process forward and not delay it any longer.”