A federal judge ruled that common themes and everyday phrases cannot form the basis of a copyright infringement claim.
Taylor Swift has secured a legal victory after a federal judge dismissed a long-running copyright lawsuit accusing her of copying phrases from a Florida poet’s work.
The ruling brings an end to a two-year legal dispute that Swift’s attorneys previously described as “absurd” and “legally baseless.”
The lawsuit was filed by Kimberly Marasco, a self-published poet who claimed the singer borrowed lines and themes from her poems for more than a dozen songs across the albums ‘Evermore,’ ‘Folklore,’ ‘Midnights,’ ‘Lover,’ and ‘The Tortured Poets Department.’
Marasco also alleged similarities in earlier songs, including “The Man,” “My Tears Ricochet,” and “Illicit Affairs.” She initially filed her complaint in 2024 before later submitting a second lawsuit directly against Swift.
On Monday (06.07.26), federal Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the latest case in its entirety, ruling that the alleged similarities amounted to nothing more than shared, everyday language.
According to the ruling, the only common ground between Marasco’s poems and Swift’s lyrics involved broad references to “gaslighting,” “ubiquitous metaphors,” and “common observations.”
As reported by Billboard, Judge Cannon wrote: “These are quintessential themes, concepts, and isolated words, exactly the kind of material copyright law does not protect.
“The allegedly infringed material, basic ideas, themes, metaphors, isolated words, and short phrases, is not protected expression and cannot be infringed.”
Swift’s legal team has consistently denied the allegations, and the original lawsuit was dismissed last September on similar grounds.
At the time, attorney Douglas Baldridge called the case the “plaintiff’s second frivolous and harassing lawsuit against the artist,” adding that the claims were “absurd and legally baseless.”
Judge Cannon’s latest ruling also denies Marasco another opportunity to amend or refile her complaint.
The decision stated: “Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to plead her claims.
“The defects identified are not pleading defects curable by more careful drafting. They are defects in the underlying works themselves, which consist of ideas, themes, metaphors, and isolated words that no amendment can transform into protectable expression.”
The latest lawsuit focused primarily on Swift’s newer material, with Marasco alleging that songs such as “The Manuscript” and “I Can Do It With A Broken Heart” borrowed from her poetry.
However, the judge ruled that the phrases Marasco claimed were copied, including “it’s time to go,” “fire,” “rain,” “sky,” “tears,” “running,” and “love,” were too generic to qualify for copyright protection, noting they reflected “ideas, metaphors, contexts, and themes” that are far too broad to be protected.
The ruling concluded: “Each addition rests entirely on unprotectable content… In sum, none of plaintiff’s 12 counts identifies any protected expression.”
Marasco has said she disagrees with the decision and plans to appeal.
Hello, we are RGM. Love us with all of your heart, please!
Discover more from RGM
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
