Taylor Swift, Evermore Theme Park Dispute Escalates As Swift's Team Countersues

from the swift-response dept

In early February, we discussed an extremely dumb lawsuit brought by a theme park in Utah called Evermore against Taylor Swift, who recently released an album called Evermore. The whole thing is buckets of stupid, with the Evermore theme park claiming that because it released a couple of songs on Apple Music, this somehow puts them in the same marketplace as Taylor Swift. Then there were complaints that Swift’s album pushed search results down for the theme park, which doesn’t trademark infringement make.

Swift’s response dismantled the claims the theme park made, but when on to note that Evermore theme park had actually gone on social media and responded to messages about Swift’s album trying to associate the park with the album. In other words, the only potential for public confusion appears to have been generated by the theme park itself.

And now this is going to escalate further as Swift’s management company has countersued the park for the unauthorized use of Swift’s music.

Now, her company TAS Rights Management has countersued, alleging that the park played Swift songs on its grounds “without authorisation or license agreement”. They allege that the park “blatantly ignored the numerous notices from [US performance rights organisation] BMI and opted instead to continue to benefit from the free and unauthorised public performance” of three Swift songs.

Specifically, TAS alleges that one of the attractions of the park is a section where several park actors perform and sing copyrighted music, including a couple of Swift songs. From the filing:

At a section of Evermore Park known as “the Burrows,” two actors regularly and routinely perform copyrighted songs, including the Works at issue in this action, to large crowds of patrons at Evermore Park. These unlawful musical performances are marketed as a central attraction of Evermore Park. For instance, Evermore Park’s website advertises that visitors can “[c]reate fanciful music” with Park actors and describes one of the Park’s main activities as “Musical Character Performances.”

Also noted in the filing, and perhaps most damning, is that the Evermore park reached out to BMI once this lawsuit became imminent and attempted to get a retroactive license to cover these past performances of copyrighted works. Combined with exhibits brought by Swift’s team detailing the several times that BMI has informed Evermore that its use of copyrighted songs was infringing, all of which were ignored by the park, the suit makes the case that the park’s infringement was willful. Frankly, it’s hard to formulate much of an argument against that assertion.

Which makes it useful to reiterate that all of this appears to be a result of Evermore theme park first filing a ridiculous trademark lawsuit of its own. In other words, they decided to poke the hornet’s nest and are now getting stung.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: evermore, tas rights management

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Taylor Swift, Evermore Theme Park Dispute Escalates As Swift's Team Countersues”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
That One Guy (profile) says:

Should have left well enough alone...

Nothing like suing a famous singer claiming trademark infringement and potential customer confusion only to have them hit back hard by pointing out that the only confusion likely to be in play is due to your own actions(twice over now with the playing of her music at the park) and damning accusations backed by evidence that you’ve been using their music for commercial gain without paying for it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

To play Devil’s Advocate… Swift lives in Hollywood I believe, and has acted in Disney movies.

Of course, while she was represented by BMI, TAS Holdings was set up specifically to methodically peel back the rights she gave away to movie and audio studios so that she could control them herself.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

"Swift lives in Hollywood I believe"

I don’t think it was her postal address he was complaining about.

He was just using the lazy shorthand of "Hollywood". While that’s already a lazy enough shorthand to refer to movies (given the huge amount of them that are not made by the 6 major US studios to which the term would normally apply), it’s extraordinarily lazy and misleading when people attempt to apply it to the entertainment industry as a whole.

Samuel Abram (profile) says:


*sees BMI in the post*

???????? Uh-oh, did my performing rights organization do anything wrong? ????????

*goes on to read post*

Oh, phew! They didn’t screw up and act maximalist like ASCAP. I’m glad I signed on with them! I guess all of you see why as well; I see them as the lesser of two (now three, if you include SESAC) evils.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: "mandated fees"

Federal copyright law requires a licence fee be paid to "publicly perform" a given work covered by copyright. In the case of music, there are 2 specific fees owed – the composition copyright which needs to be paid to the owner of the rights for writing the music, and the Performance fee, paid to the owner of the specific recording being used.

Practically, you pay a bulk licence to a Performing Rights Organization (PRO), of which ASCAP and BMI are the major US orgs, and they are supposed to pay the rights holders in question. Taylor swift’s music is licensed from BMI.

These licensing fees are not explicitly required by law and some might consider the phrasing "Federally Mandated Licensing fees" a misnomer. However, the terms comes from a legal brief, made by a lawyer. So I pose that the statement Federally mandated modifies Licensing.

So federal law mandates licensing, and they have not paid fees the rightsholder requires for federally mandated licensing. That’s what Federally Mandated License fees are: Fees required to issue a federally mandated license for the public performance of a work covered by copyright.

Also, when you quote the underlying legal brief and use a phrase not used in the commentary article you might want to clarify where you get it from.

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Re: Re: "mandated fees"

Also, when you quote the underlying legal brief and use a phrase not used in the commentary article you might want to clarify where you get it from.

The filing is included in the article (in this very page). Item #1 summary, paragraph 2 says mandated licensing fee. I’m not sure what other reference is needed seeing as it’s right there.

However, you now know "If you read the original article and see the embedded filing and see that first section – summary – and go paragraph number two" you’ll see it.

If I got it from a different website or the filing directly on RECAP or whatever… I would have posted that link.

Thanks for explaining that "mandating" means one thing to me "must be done" and another to lawyers (not sure what).


Toom1275 (profile) says:

"Ooh, look what you made me do
Look what you made me do
Look what you just made me do
Look what you just made me do

The world moves on, another day another drama, drama
But not for me, not for me, all I think about is karma
And then the world moves on, but one thing’s for sure
Maybe I got mine, but you’ll all get yours"

  • What Swift might have been singing as she files the countersuit

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...