Judge dismisses Swift copyright suit over common words

A US federal judge has dismissed a copyright lawsuit against Taylor Swift brought by a Florida poet who claimed the pop star stole lyrics for over a dozen songs. Judge Aileen Cannon ruled on Monday that the alleged infringements consisted entirely of unprotectable material. The judge barred the plaintiff from refiling the case.

Kimberly Marasco, a self-published poet, alleged that lines from her work were used across Swift’s albums including ‘Evermore’, ‘Folklore’, ‘Midnights’, ‘Lover’ and ‘The Tortured Poets Department’. Marasco’s legal team pointed to specific tracks such as ‘The Man’, ‘My Tears Ricochet’, ‘I Can Do It With A Broken Heart’ and ‘The Manuscript’. However, the court found that the only common ground between the poems and the songs were vague references to “gaslighting” and what the judge termed “ubiquitous metaphors”.

For the European and global music publishing industry, the ruling reinforces a fundamental boundary in intellectual property law that carries significant financial implications. Copyright disputes over songwriting have increased in recent years, raising legal costs for publishers and artists, but courts continue to show reluctance to grant ownership over standard literary devices. By dismissing the claims, the ruling protects songwriters from litigation that attempts to lock up everyday language.

Judge Cannon noted that the disputed phrases included words like “fire”, “rain”, “sky”, “tears”, “running”, “love” and “it’s time to go”. “These are quintessential themes, concepts, and isolated words – exactly the kind of material copyright law does not protect,” the judge said. “The allegedly infringed material – basic ideas, themes, metaphors, isolated words, and short phrases – is not protected expression and cannot be infringed.”

This was Marasco’s second attempt to sue Swift. An initial lawsuit filed in 2024 against Taylor Swift Productions was thrown out in September, with a judge ruling the phrases were too common to be stolen. Swift’s attorney, Douglas Baldridge, called that first lawsuit “absurd and legally baseless”, labelling it a “frivolous and harassing lawsuit against artist”.

In refusing to allow Marasco to amend and refile her claims, the court highlighted that the flaws were inherent to the work itself. “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 judge wrote. Marasco has stated she disagrees with the decision and will appeal, while Swift’s representatives have not commented.