{"id":11102,"date":"2026-07-06T18:09:12","date_gmt":"2026-07-06T18:09:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/star-wins-copyright-lawsuit-over-lyrics\/"},"modified":"2026-07-06T18:09:12","modified_gmt":"2026-07-06T18:09:12","slug":"star-wins-copyright-lawsuit-over-lyrics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/star-wins-copyright-lawsuit-over-lyrics\/","title":{"rendered":"Star Wins Copyright Lawsuit Over Lyrics"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\n\tTaylor Swift has finally shaken off a copyright lawsuit over song lyrics that her attorneys had called \u201cabsurd.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tA federal judge on Monday (July 6) dismissed an infringement case filed by Kimberly Marasco, a self-published Florida poet who claimed that the superstar stole lyrics from her poems for more than a dozen songs, spanning Lover, Folklore, Evermore, Midnights <\/em>and The Tortured Poets Department.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tIn her ruling, Judge Aileen Cannon<\/strong> said the only similarities between Marasco\u2019s poems and Swift\u2019s songs were generic words \u2014 including \u201cbasic ideas\u201d like the concept of \u201cgaslighting,\u201d as well as \u201cubiquitous metaphors\u201d and \u201ccommon observations.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThese are quintessential themes, concepts, and isolated words \u2014 exactly the kind of material copyright law does not protect,\u201d the judge wrote in her decision, obtained and first reported by Billboard<\/em>. \u201cThe allegedly infringed material \u2014 basic ideas, themes, metaphors, isolated words, and short phrases \u2014 is not protected expression and cannot be infringed.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tFederal judges often give accusers like Marasco a chance to fix and refile their cases. But in her ruling Monday, Judge Cannon refused to do so, citing the fact that Marasco had already seen previous lawsuits against Swift thrown out of court and had been \u201cexpressly warned\u201d that it was her final chance.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cPlaintiff has had ample opportunity to plead her claims,\u201d the judge wrote. \u201cThe defects identified are not pleading defects curable by more careful drafting \u2014 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tBarring a reversal on appeal \u2014 the odds of which are extremely low \u2014 Monday\u2019s ruling should finally end Marasco\u2019s litigation against Swift, which has dragged on for more than two years across two cases. She did not immediately return a request for comment. A rep for Swift declined to comment.<\/p>\n

\n\tMarasco first sued Taylor\u2019s company (Taylor Swift Productions) in 2024, claiming the star had lifted lyrics to \u201cThe Man,\u201d \u201cMy Tears Ricochet,\u201d \u201cIllicit Affairs\u201d and many other songs from earlier poems. Then early last year, Marasco filed another case against Swift herself, over largely the same allegations.<\/p>\n

\n\tSwift\u2019s legal team always strongly denied any wrongdoing, and the first case was dismissed in September. At the time, Judge Cannon ruled that Marasco didn\u2019t own any rights to the \u201ccommon\u201d phrases she claimed Swift had copied.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn December, Swift\u2019s lawyers pressed to end the entire dispute \u201conce and for all,\u201d arguing Marasco had \u201cno conceivable case\u201d against the superstar, particularly after her first lawsuit had already been dismissed.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThis is plaintiff\u2019s second frivolous and harassing lawsuit against artist,\u201d Swift\u2019s longtime attorney, Douglas Baldridge<\/strong>, wrote at the time. \u201cPlaintiff\u2019s claims are, as in her last lawsuit, absurd and legally baseless.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tIn Monday\u2019s decision, Judge Cannon agreed. She repeatedly cited her earlier decision, ruling that Swift\u2019s use of common words and phrases like \u201ctears,\u201d \u201crunning,\u201d \u201cfire,\u201d \u201crain,\u201d \u201csky,\u201d \u201clove,\u201d \u201cinvisible,\u201d \u201ccaged me,\u201d \u201cflesh and blood,\u201d \u201cit\u2019s time to go\u201d could not possibly amount to copyright infringement.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cAs this court already explained in that related case, such content amount at most to ideas metaphors, contexts, and themes \u2014 none of which is a proper subject of copyright protection,\u201d Cannon wrote.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe newer case included accusations about several new Taylor songs, including \u201cI Can Do It With a Broken Heart\u201d and \u201cThe Manuscript\u201d from Tortured Poets<\/em>. But the judge said those allegations would fare no better than the original claims.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cEach addition rests entirely on unprotectable content,\u201d the judge writes, saying Marasco was trying to sue over things like \u201cthe theme of \u2018creative resilience,\u2019\u201d and the \u201ccommon observation\u201d that leaves turn colors: \u201cIn sum, none of plaintiff\u2019s 12 counts identifies any protected expression.\u201d<\/p>\n


\"Billboard
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Taylor Swift has finally shaken off a copyright lawsuit over song lyrics that her attorneys had called \u201cabsurd.\u201d A federal judge on Monday (July 6) dismissed an infringement […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":11103,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[429,303,2272,839,882],"class_list":["post-11102","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-copyright","tag-lawsuit","tag-lyrics","tag-star","tag-wins"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11102","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11102"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11102\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11103"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11102"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}