Taylor Swift has achieved a definitive legal victory as a federal judge dismissed a poet’s second copyright lawsuit with prejudice, though the plaintiff Kimberly Marasco has immediately filed an appeal to overturn the ruling. This outcome matters profoundly to songwriters, publishers, and rights holders because it reinforces the strict boundary that copyright law protects specific creative expression, not generic ideas, common metaphors, or isolated words. The dismissal prevents Marasco from refiling the case, effectively ending a two-year legal battle that sought $25 million in damages and implicated major industry players including Universal Music Group and Republic Records.
Judge Rules Poems Lack Protectable Expression
US District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case on Monday, July 6, ruling that the material Marasco claimed Swift copied consisted entirely of unprotectable elements. The judge found that the alleged overlaps were limited to basic ideas such as the concept of gaslighting, common metaphors, and short phrases like “tears,” “fire,” and “love.” Cannon wrote explicitly that these are “quintessential themes, concepts, and isolated words – exactly the kind of material copyright law does not protect.” The court also noted that Marasco failed to plausibly allege that Swift had access to her poems or that the works were substantially similar, a requirement for proving copying. Because the dismissal was with prejudice, Marasco cannot amend her complaint or file a new suit on the same claims.
Appeal Filed Within 48 Hours of Dismissal
Despite the finality of the court’s order, Marasco, who represented herself without legal counsel, lodged a notice of appeal less than 48 hours after the ruling. In her filing, she stated she seeks review of all rulings, findings, and conclusions adverse to her interests. Marasco told USA Today immediately after the decision, “I disagree with the decision and will be appealing it.” However, legal analysts note that such appeals face long odds, particularly when a trial court has ruled that the underlying defects in the work cannot be fixed by amendment. This was not Marasco’s first attempt; a nearly identical lawsuit was dismissed in September 2025 on the same grounds that her poems contained no protectable expression.
The collapse of both cases against Swift marks the end of a dispute that began when Marasco claimed songs from albums including Lover, Folklore, Evermore, Midnights, and The Tortured Poets Department lifted from her poetry. The first suit failed due to improper service, while the second expanded the defendants to include Swift’s collaborators and label but ultimately failed for the same substantive reasons. The ruling serves as a clear precedent for the music industry that claims based on paraphrasing or minor word substitutions do not meet the substantial similarity standard required for copyright infringement.
For editorial consideration and industry coverage inquiries, contact Radio Facts.
