THE APEX TIMES
Judge Dismisses Poet’s Copyright Suit Against Taylor Swift Over Lyrics, Saying Claims Target Unprotectable Ideas
Federal judge Aileen Cannon rejected a lawsuit filed by Florida poet Kimberly Marasco, ruling that alleged similarities between Marasco’s poems and Swift’s songs were generic themes, isolated words, and common observations that cannot be copyrighted.
A federal judge on Monday dismissed a copyright infringement case accusing Taylor Swift of stealing lyrics from a self-published Florida poet, finding that the alleged overlaps were not protectable expression under copyright law. The ruling, reported by Billboard, came in a lawsuit brought by Kimberly Marasco, who claimed Swift used wording or phrases from her poems in more than a dozen songs across multiple albums.
According to the report, the case focused on alleged similarities between Marasco’s poetry and Swift’s lyrics spanning Lover, Folklore, Evermore, Midnights, and The Tortured Poets Department. Marasco argued that her poems supplied the source material for Swift’s songwriting, an argument Swift and her attorneys sought to defeat through a pretrial motion to dismiss.
Billboard reported that Judge Aileen Cannon rejected the lawsuit after concluding that the only similarities identified by Marasco involved generic words and broad concepts. The judge wrote that alleged connections included “basic ideas” such as the concept of “gaslighting,” along with “ubiquitous metaphors” and “common observations,” and that this kind of material is not protectable expression and therefore cannot form the basis of an infringement claim.
In the decision, Cannon characterized the allegedly infringed content as themes, concepts, metaphors, isolated words, and short phrases, saying that these elements are not safeguarded by copyright law. The judge also declined to give Marasco another opportunity to fix her pleadings, an outcome that matters in copyright cases where courts sometimes permit amended filings after identifying defects.
The report said Cannon cited the procedural history of Marasco’s litigation and noted that the plaintiff had already seen previous lawsuits against Swift thrown out of court, and that she had been “expressly warned” the pending case would be her final chance. Billboard reported that Cannon determined Marasco had ample opportunity to present her claims, and that the defects were not curable through more detailed drafting.
A separate report from Music Business Worldwide last year described Swift’s attempt to end the case early, including a motion arguing Marasco’s claims were “frivolous and harassing.” That motion, filed in December 2025, argued that Marasco expanded her theory beyond Swift to add other defendants, including Universal Music Group and Republic Records, after earlier court guidance, and that the complaint still relied on material not protected by copyright.
The July 6 dismissal means the copyright case is over at the district-court level unless Marasco pursues further review, such as an appeal. Swift has not been named as a continuing defendant in the dismissed matter, and the ruling establishes that the court viewed Marasco’s allegations as an attempt to claim ownership over unprotectable ideas rather than specific protected text.
For the music industry, the decision underscores a recurring threshold issue in lyric-related copyright suits: plaintiffs must point to protectable expression rather than common phrases, generalized themes, or short, conventional words that appear across everyday language and creative writing. When courts treat the alleged overlap as generic, dismissal can follow without a trial on the merits of how songs were written or how audiences might perceive similarities.
Why It Matters
- The ruling clarifies that copyright protection does not extend to generic concepts, commonly used metaphors, or brief conventional wording, which can accelerate dismissal of similar lyric and poetry comparison cases.
- Because the court denied leave to amend, the plaintiff’s procedural path narrowed immediately, potentially limiting what issues could be revisited later in the case.
- The dismissal affects the alleged works and parties tied to the lawsuit, including any claims involving additional music-industry defendants mentioned in earlier filings.
- For creators and publishers, the decision reinforces that infringement claims need specific, protectable expression rather than broad thematic overlap that can arise independently in writing.
- The case highlights how courts handle repetitive litigation, noting that prior warnings and earlier dismissals can influence whether plaintiffs receive further opportunities to correct pleadings.
Sources
Key Facts
- A federal judge, Aileen Cannon, dismissed a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Florida poet Kimberly Marasco against Taylor Swift.
- The lawsuit alleged Swift stole lyrics derived from Marasco’s poems across more than a dozen songs tied to Lover, Folklore, Evermore, Midnights, and The Tortured Poets Department.
- Cannon found that the similarities identified in the case were “basic ideas,” “ubiquitous metaphors,” “common observations,” and other unprotectable elements such as isolated words and short phrases.
- The judge ruled the allegedly infringed material was not protected expression and therefore “cannot be infringed.”
- Cannon refused to allow Marasco another chance to replead, citing that Marasco had already been expressly warned it was her final opportunity after prior dismissals.
- Swift’s attorneys previously sought dismissal and described the lawsuit in filings as “frivolous and harassing,” according to Music Business Worldwide.