Swift's Copyright Victory
Federal Judge Dismisses Copyright Suit Against Taylor Swift Over Unprotectable Language
Key Points
The court found that Swift did not have access to Marasco's poems, which undermines the central copyright claim.
Judge Cannon described the alleged copying as Marasco presenting 'paraphrases' or 'rephrases' with 'minor word substitutions,' a characterization the court said weakens the claim.
Marasco represented herself in the suit, and reports note her poetry books had limited commercial reach — with one title selling about 3,000 copies.
The judge dismissed the case with prejudice, blocking any amended complaint or refiling against Swift and co-defendants such as Aaron Dessner, Republic Records, and Universal Music Group.
The rulings stress that the disputed material centers on common language and non-protectable elements—basic ideas, themes, and isolated words (e.g., gaslighting, ubiquitous metaphors) are not protected by copyright.
A federal judge has thrown out a copyright lawsuit against Taylor Swift, ruling the Florida poet who sued her had no case. International Business Times reported that Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the suit with prejudice — meaning it cannot be refiled — finding that Swift did not copy any protectable material from poet Kimberly Marasco's work.
The ruling came just three days after Swift's widely reported wedding to NFL star Travis Kelce. Sportskeeda noted the timing, calling it a significant legal win for the pop star fresh off her nuptials.
What Marasco Claimed and Why It Failed
Marasco, a self-published poet from Florida, accused Swift of copying phrases from her poetry books for over a dozen songs. She represented herself in court. MEAWW reported that her books had limited reach — one title sold about 3,000 copies. She filed the suit roughly 14 months before the dismissal.
Judge Cannon found that Marasco failed to show Swift ever had access to the poems. Without access, a copyright claim falls apart. Vijesti reported the court ruled Marasco had not proven the basic elements needed to make her case stick.
Judge Finds No Protectable Expression in the Poems
Copyright law does not protect basic ideas, themes, or common words. Judge Cannon ruled that what Marasco claimed Swift copied fell into exactly those categories. International Business Times noted the judge found no 'protectable expression' in the disputed material — things like the word 'gaslighting' or widely used metaphors cannot be owned by any one writer.
The judge also described Marasco's comparisons as little more than 'paraphrases' or 'rephrases' with 'minor word substitutions.' That is a weak basis for a copyright claim. Courts require what is called 'substantial similarity' — a close enough match that copying is the only real explanation. The judge found no such match here.
Swift's Co-Defendants Also Win as Case Ends Permanently
Swift was not the only target of the lawsuit. Marasco also named producer Aaron Dessner, Republic Records, and Universal Music Group as defendants. Sportskeeda reported that all defendants argued the case was a 'shotgun pleading' — a legal term for a lawsuit that throws out vague accusations without enough specific facts. Judge Cannon agreed.
Because the case was dismissed with prejudice, Marasco cannot refile or amend her complaint. The case is over. MEAWW reported that Swift's team did not immediately comment on the ruling.
A Broader Warning for Music Copyright Cases
This ruling fits a pattern in music copyright law. Courts have grown stricter about what counts as copying. To win, a plaintiff must show two things: that the defendant had access to their work, and that the two works are substantially similar in protectable ways. Marasco could show neither.
International Business Times said the case underscores a key point — common language belongs to everyone. Isolated words and everyday themes cannot be locked up by copyright. For songwriters and artists, the ruling is a reminder that not every shared phrase is stolen.
Sentiment
Mostly NegativePublishers
26
Articles
78
Reach
104
