Taylor Swift copyright lawsuit: Taylor Swift defeats Kimberly Marasco’s copyright lawsuit as judge rejects claims of copycat lyrics on hit albums | Film news in English

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

Taylor Swift has won a court ruling to dismiss a copyright lawsuit filed by poet Kimberly Marasco, who alleged the singer copied lyrics from her poems on several albums. Judge Aileen Cannon granted the motion Monday, ruling that Marasco’s claims lacked legal merit.Marasco had alleged that Swift copied lyrics from his poems on more than a dozen songs that appear 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 across several years of albums. According to Global News, which obtained the order on the dismissal motion, the judge’s ruling determined that the works shared only “basic ideas and themes” such as a woman working in a corporate environment, being “enlightened” and facing adversity.

Judge’s motivation for dismissal

In her ruling, the judge concluded that these types of concepts fall outside copyright protection. “These are quintessentially isolated subject matter, concepts, and 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 core ideas included “Pervasive metaphors (being ‘submerged’ under water, ‘tears as weapons,’ ‘desire as fuel and fire,’ becoming ‘the rain/storm’); and common words and short isolated phrases (‘tears,’ ‘run,’ ‘fire,’ ‘rain,’ ‘sky,’ ‘visible love” ‘time to go.’)“Cannon reinforced his position on what copyright law protects. “The allegedly infringing material (basic ideas, themes, metaphors, isolated words and short sentences) is not protected expression and cannot be infringed,” he wrote.

The judge also noted that Marasco had been given multiple opportunities to amend his complaint, but was unable to strengthen his case. “Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to plead her claims; she was expressly advised that the Second Amended Complaint would be her last opportunity and a further amendment would be futile,” the judge said, indicating that no further amendments would be permitted.

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 a person because they are ‘basic subject matter or words’ that are ‘not protectable under copyright law'”.The lawyers concluded their arguments by highlighting the exhaustion of litigation resources. “Plaintiff has wasted the time and resources of the Artist, the other defendants and this Court for long enough. This case lacks legal and factual merit and, again, should be dismissed with prejudice,” Swift’s legal team wrote.

Lawsuit related to registered trademarks

Swift faces additional legal challenges beyond the copyright case. She was also recently sued by a Las Vegas performer who claimed her latest album violated trademark rights. The performer alleged in her complaint that Swift’s album marketing threatened to “drown” her long-running stage show and asked the court to stop Swift from creating confusion with her album title.Swift’s lawyers asked the court to dismiss the trademark infringement suit in May, characterizing the case as “simply the latest attempt by the plaintiff to generate publicity by associating 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’ remains one of the biggest commercial successes of her career.

Source link