Taylor Swift Copyright Suit: Taylor Swift Defeats Kimberly Marasco’s Copyright Suit, Judge Dismisses Lyric Copying Charges on Hit Album English Movie News

A judge dismissed poet Kimberly Marasco’s lawsuit, ruling that the alleged similarities involved unprotected ideas, themes and common phrases. Image Source (Taylor Swift Instagram)

Taylor Swift has won a court ruling dismissing a copyright lawsuit brought by poet Kimberly Marasco, who accused her of plagiarizing lyrics from her poetry in multiple albums. Judge Erin Cannon granted the motion Monday, finding Marasco’s claims lacked merit.According to the lawsuit filed by Marasco in February 2025, Marasco accused Swift of plagiarizing lyrics from more than a dozen songs from her albums “Lover,” “Folklore,” “Evermore,” “Midnights” and “The Tortured Poets Department.” The poet’s complaint includes allegations of copyright infringement on multiple albums from Swift’s discography over the years. According to Global News, which obtained the order dismissing the motion, the judge’s ruling determined that the works shared only “basic ideas and themes,” such as women working in corporate settings, being subject to “gaslighting” and facing adversity.

The judge’s reasons for rejecting

In her ruling, the judge concluded that these types of concepts do not fall within the scope of copyright protection. “These are quintessential themes, concepts, and isolated words—exactly the kind of material that copyright law does not protect,” Cannon wrote in the order.The judge pointed to other commonalities between the works that did not constitute copyright infringement. Other essential concepts, the order states, include “ubiquitous metaphors (‘drown’ under water, ‘tears as weapons,’ ‘desire as fuel and fire,’ becoming ‘rain/storm’); and isolated common words and phrases (‘tears,’ ‘run,’ ‘fire,’ ‘rain,’ ‘sky,’ ‘love,’ ‘unseen,’ ‘cage me,’ ‘flesh and blood,’ ‘blood,’ ‘it’s time to leave'”).“Cannon hardened her stance on copyright law protections. “The allegedly infringing material — underlying ideas, themes, metaphors, isolated words and phrases — is not protected expression and cannot be infringed,” she wrote.

The judge also noted that Marasco had multiple opportunities to amend her complaint but failed to strengthen her case. “Plaintiff had an ample opportunity to defend her claims; she was expressly warned that the second amended indictment would be her last chance and further amendments would be futile,” the judge said, adding that no further amendments would be allowed.

Swift’s legal team stressed that the underlying concept cannot be copyrighted. They argued that “the concept of betrayal or the words ‘fire’ or ‘love’ cannot be owned by one person because they are ‘fundamental themes or words’ that are ‘not protected by copyright law.'”The lawyers concluded their arguments by emphasizing the resource drain of litigation. “Plaintiffs have wasted the time and resources of the artists, the other defendants, and this court for long enough. This case is legally and factually baseless and should once again be dismissed with prejudice,” Swift’s legal team wrote.

Related trademark litigation

In addition to the copyright case, Swift faces other legal challenges. She was also recently sued by a Las Vegas performer claiming her latest album infringed on trademark rights. The performer claimed in the complaint that marketing for Swift’s album could “overwhelm” her long-running stage show and asked the court to prevent confusion between Swift and her album’s title.Swift’s attorneys asked the court in May to dismiss the trademark infringement lawsuit, characterizing the case as “Plaintiff’s latest attempt to generate publicity by contacting Ms. Swift,” according to the defendants’ notice of motion and motion to dismiss.The ruling marks another legal victory for Swift, whose latest studio album, “The Tortured Poets Department,” remains one of the biggest commercial successes of her career.

Source link