Taylor Swift has won a court ruling to dismiss a copyright lawsuit filed by poet Kimberly Marasco, who alleged that the singer copied lyrics from her poems across multiple albums. Judge Aileen Cannon granted the motion on Monday, determining that Marasco’s claims lacked legal merit.Marasco had alleged that Swift copied lyrics from her poems for more than a dozen songs featured on her albums ‘Lover’, ‘Folklore’, ‘Evermore’, ‘Midnights’ and ‘The Tortured Poets Department’, according to her lawsuit filed in February 2025. The poet’s complaint included specific claims of infringement across multiple albums spanning several years of Swift’s discography. According to Global News, which obtained the order on the motion to dismiss, the judge’s ruling determined that the works shared only “basic ideas and themes” such as a woman working in a corporate environment, being “gaslighted” and confronting adversity.
Judge’s rationale for dismissal
In her ruling, the judge concluded that these types of concepts fall outside copyright protection. “These are quintessential themes, concepts, and isolated words—exactly the kind of material copyright law does not protect,” Cannon wrote in the order.The judge identified additional commonalities between the works that do not constitute copyright infringement. The order specified that other basic ideas included “Ubiquitous metaphors (being ‘submerged’ under water, ‘tears as weapons,’ ‘desire as fuel and fire,’ becoming ‘the rain/storm’); and isolated common words and short phrases (‘tears,’ ‘running,’ ‘fire,’ ‘rain,’ ‘sky,’ ‘love,’ ‘invisible,’ ‘caged me,’ ‘flesh and blood,’ ‘it’s time to go’).“Cannon reinforced her position on what copyright law protects. “The allegedly infringed material — basic ideas, themes, metaphors, isolated words, and short phrases — is not protected expression and cannot be infringed,” she wrote.
The court found that the alleged overlaps between Marasco’s poems and Swift’s lyrics did not qualify for copyright protection.Image credit (Taylor Swift Instagram)
Court’s comprehensive analysis
The judge’s decision addressed both the nature of the allegedly copied material and Marasco’s inability to demonstrate copying. “The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s poems do not contain protectable expression and that, regardless, Plaintiff has failed to plausibly plead copying. Dismissal is warranted on those independent grounds, and the Court need not reach Defendants’ remaining arguments,” Cannon wrote.The judge also noted that Marasco had been given multiple opportunities to amend her complaint but failed to strengthen her case. “Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to plead her claims; she was expressly warned that the Second Amended Complaint would be her final opportunity and further amendment would be futile,” the judge stated, indicating that no further amendments would be permitted.
Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that the complaint failed to plausibly establish copyright infringement and dismissed the case.Image credit (Taylor Swift Instagram)
Taylor Swift’s legal team’s arguments
In December 2025 Swift’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss calling Marasco’s claims “absurd and legally baseless.” The attorneys characterized the situation as a pattern of frivolous litigation. “This is Plaintiff’s second frivolous and harassing lawsuit against Artist asserting copyright infringement claims. Despite having no conceivable case against Artist, and after being expressly informed by this Court that her allegedly infringed ‘expressions’ are not protectable under copyright law, Plaintiff filed yet another meritless lawsuit and expanded her groundless campaign to include Defendants UMGI and Republic,” the motion to dismiss read.Swift’s legal team emphasized that fundamental 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 ‘basic themes or words’ that are ‘not protectable by copyright law.'”The attorneys concluded their arguments by emphasizing the resource drain of the litigation. “Plaintiff has wasted the time and resources of Artist, the other Defendants, and this Court for long enough. This case is legally and factually meritless and should, again, be dismissed with prejudice,” Swift’s legal team wrote.
Swift’s legal team had argued the claims were legally baseless, saying common themes and words cannot be copyrighted.Image credit (Taylor Swift Instagram)
Marasco’s 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 be appealing the judge’s decision, suggesting she plans to continue her legal challenge against Swift.
Related trademark lawsuit
Swift faces additional legal challenges beyond the copyright case. She was also recently sued by a Las Vegas performer who claimed her latest album violates trademark rights. The performer alleged in her complaint that marketing for Swift’s album threatened to “drown out” her long-running stage show and asked the court to block Swift from creating confusion with her album title.Swift’s lawyers requested that the court dismiss the trademark infringement lawsuit in May, characterizing the case as “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 marks another legal victory for Swift, whose latest studio album ‘The Tortured Poets Department’ continues to be one of the biggest commercial successes of her career.
