Taylor Swift secured a federal victory after Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed Kimberly Marasco’s two‑year copyright claim, ruling the alleged similarities were commonplace language and unprotectable under copyright law.
Taylor Swift has secured a legal victory after a federal judge dismissed a long‑running copyright case accusing her of lifting phrases from a Florida poet’s work.
The ruling ends a two‑year dispute that Taylor’s legal team previously labelled “absurd” and “legally baseless”.
The lawsuit was brought by Kimberly Marasco, a self‑published writer who claimed the singer borrowed lines and themes from her poems for more than a dozen tracks across albums including Evermore, Folklore, Midnights, Lover and The Tortured Poets Department.
She also alleged similarities in earlier songs such as The Man, My Tears Ricochet and Illicit Affairs, filing her first complaint in 2024 before later submitting a second case directly against Taylor.
In court on Monday (06.07.26), federal judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the latest filing in full, ruling that the supposed overlaps were nothing more than shared, everyday language.
According to the decision, the only common ground between Marasco’s poems and Taylor’s lyrics were broad references to “gaslighting”, “ubiquitous metaphors” and “common observations”.
As reported by Billboard, the judge 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.”
Taylor’s lawyers have consistently rejected the allegations, and the first lawsuit was dismissed last September on similar grounds.
At the time, attorney Douglas Baldridge criticised the claims as “plaintiff’s second frivolous and harassing lawsuit against the artist”, adding that the accusations were “absurd and legally baseless.”
Judge Cannon’s latest ruling goes further, refusing to allow Marasco another chance to amend or refile her complaint.
It 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 most recent case centred on Taylor’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.
But the judge found that the phrases she claimed were stolen – including “it’s time to go”, “fire”, “rain”, “sky”, “tears”, “running” and “love” – were too generic to be copyrighted, noting they reflected “ideas metaphors, contexts, and themes” that were far too vague to be protected.
The ruling added: “Each addition rests entirely on unprotectable content […] In sum, none of plaintiff’s 12 counts identifies any protected expression.”
Marasco “disagrees” with the outcome and is planning to appeal.
