Taylor Swift Granted Motion to Dismiss ‘Absurd’ Copyright Lawsuit Where Woman Claimed Pop Star Copied Her Poems

A US federal judge has dismissed a copyright lawsuit filed by self-published poet Kimberly Marasco against pop music icon Taylor Swift. The ruling, given on July 6, rejected Marasco’s claims that Swift had appropriated lyrics from her poetry in multiple songs across several of Swift’s albums, including “Lover,” “Folklore,” “Evermore,” “Midnights,” and “The Tortured Poets Department.”

Judge Aileen Cannon determined that the elements Marasco alleged were infringed upon, including basic themes such as “gaslighting” and various common metaphors, did not qualify for protection under copyright law. According to court documents obtained by PEOPLE, Cannon stated that these ideas and expressions were too generic and, thus, not eligible for copyright protection.

The judge expressed in her ruling that, “the allegedly infringed material—basic ideas, themes, metaphors, isolated words, and short phrases—is not protectable expression and cannot be infringed.” Cannon proceeded to dismiss the case “with prejudice,” meaning Marasco cannot bring the case back to court. She cited Marasco’s previous attempts to pursue similar legal action that had already been dismissed as further reason to prevent an appeal.

Previously, Marasco had accused Swift of stealing lyrics from a number of her poems, alleging that Swift had incorporated them into songs such as “The Man,” “Illicit Affairs,” and “My Tears Ricochet.” Last year, Marasco filed another lawsuit that included many of the same allegations still outstanding at the time of this ruling.

Swift’s legal team has consistently denied any allegations of wrongdoing. In September 2025, the initial lawsuit against Swift was dismissed, prompting Swift’s attorneys to push for a final resolution, arguing that Marasco had “no conceivable case” against the singer. In a strongly worded statement, one of Swift’s attorneys, Douglas Baldridge, labelled Marasco’s lawsuits as “absurd and legally baseless.”

Judge Cannon’s ruling mirrors those dismissals, concluding that the phrases Marasco claimed were copied—such as “tears,” “rain,” and “love”—are common language and are thus not protected from use by others. The judge noted that further amendment of the complaint would be “futile,” suggesting that Marasco had been given ample opportunity to substantiate and clarify her claims.

According to the most recent court filing, Marasco’s latest lawsuit introduced allegations related to songs like “I Can Do It with a Broken Heart” and “The Manuscript.” However, Judge Cannon found that these claims lacked the necessary legal grounding to proceed.

The ruling has sparked debate in the literary and music communities about the limitations of copyright law, particularly regarding the protection of ideas versus expression. While artistry often draws upon shared themes and experiences, the question remains as to where the line is drawn between inspiration and infringement.

Swift, who has won 14 Grammy Awards throughout her career, continues to dominate the music industry landscape. As for Marasco, her legal struggles serve as a reminder of the complexities involved in the realm of intellectual property, especially in creative fields where inspiration is subjective and widely shared.

As details of the case unfold, it underscores the challenges faced by individuals in defending their work against high-profile figures in the entertainment industry. The dismissal of Marasco’s lawsuit against Swift marks another chapter in a long-standing discussion about the boundaries of copyright and the protection of original creative expression.