A judge dismissed poet Kimberly Marasco’s lawsuit, ruling that the alleged similarities involved common ideas, themes and phrases that were unprotectable. Image credit (Taylor Swift Instagram)
Taylor Swift has won a ruling dismissing a copyright lawsuit brought by poet Kimberly Marasco, who claimed the singer copied lyrics from her poems across multiple albums.
Judge Eileen Cannon granted the motion Monday, ruling that Marasco’s claims lacked legal merit.Marasco alleged that Swift copied lyrics from her poems for more than a dozen songs that appeared on her albums “Lover,” “Folklore,” “Evermore,” “Midnights” and “The Tortured Poets Department,” according to the lawsuit filed in February 2025. The poet’s complaint included specific allegations of infringement across multiple albums spanning several years of Swift’s work.
According to Global News, which obtained an order on the motion to dismiss, the judge’s ruling determined that the works only shared “core ideas and themes” such as women working in a corporate environment, “gaslighting” and facing adversity.
The judge’s justification for dismissal
In her ruling, the judge concluded that these types of concepts fall outside copyright protection. “These are substantive isolated topics, concepts, and words — exactly the kind of material not protected by copyright law,” Cannon wrote in the order.
The judge identified additional commonalities between works that do not constitute copyright infringement. The order specified that other key ideas include “ubiquitous metaphors (“submerged” underwater, “tears as weapons,” “desire as fuel and fire,” becoming “rain/storm”), isolated common words and short phrases (“tears,” “running,” “fire,” “rain,” “sky,” “love,” “invisible,” “they locked me up,” “flesh and blood,” “time to go”).
“Canon has strengthened its position on what is protected by copyright law. “The allegedly infringing material — basic ideas, themes, metaphors, isolated words, and short phrases — is not protected expression and cannot be infringed,” she wrote.
Comprehensive analysis of the court
The judge’s decision addressed the nature of the material allegedly copied and Marasco’s inability to prove copying. “The Court concluded that Plaintiff’s poems did not contain protectable expression, and regardless of this, Plaintiff had failed to reasonably require copying.
“Dismissal is justified on these independent grounds, and the court need not access Defendants’ remaining arguments,” Cannon wrote.The judge also noted that Marasco was given multiple opportunities to amend her complaint but failed to strengthen her case. “Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to defend her claims; she has been expressly warned that the second amended complaint would be her last chance and that any further amendment would be futile,” the judge stated, noting that no further amendments would be allowed.
Arguments of Taylor Swift’s legal team
In December 2025, Swift’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss, calling Marasco’s claims “absurd and legally baseless.” Lawyers described the situation as a pattern of frivolous lawsuits. “This is Plaintiff’s second frivolous and harassing lawsuit against Artist asserting claims of copyright infringement. Despite having no conceivable case against Artist, and having been expressly informed by this court that her allegedly infringing ‘expressions’ were not protectable under copyright law, Plaintiff filed another meritless lawsuit and expanded her baseless campaign to include Defendants UMGI and Republic,” the motion to dismiss states.Swift’s legal team emphasized that underlying concepts cannot be subject to copyright protection. They argued that “the concept of betrayal or the words ‘fire’ or ‘love’ cannot be owned by one person because they are ‘topics or keywords’ not protected by copyright law.”The lawyers concluded their arguments by emphasizing the exhaustion of the lawsuit’s resources. “Plaintiff has wasted the time and resources of the artist, the other defendants and this court for long enough.
“This case has no legal and factual merit and should again be dismissed with prejudice,” Swift’s legal team wrote.
Marasco Response and Appeal Plans
Despite the court’s decision, Marasco indicated her intention to pursue further legal action. The poet told Rolling Stone that she disagrees with the ruling and will appeal the judge’s decision, indicating that she plans to continue her legal challenge against Swift.
Related trademark suit
Swift faces additional legal challenges beyond the copyright issue.
She was also recently sued by a Las Vegas artist who claimed her latest album violated her trademark rights. The artist alleged in her complaint that marketing for Swift’s album threatened to “cancel” her long-running stage show and asked the court to prevent Swift from creating confusion with her album’s title.Swift’s lawyers asked the court to dismiss the trademark infringement suit in May, calling the case “merely Plaintiff’s latest attempt to generate publicity by associating herself with Ms. Swift,” according to the defendant’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss.The ruling represents another legal victory for Swift, whose latest album, “The Tortured Poets Department,” remains one of the biggest commercial successes of her career.