Stock Markets July 6, 2026 06:09 PM

Federal Judge Dismisses Copyright Claim Against Taylor Swift

Judge Aileen Cannon rules poems at center of suit lack protectable expression; dismissal is with prejudice

By Jordan Park
Share
Twitter Reddit Facebook LinkedIn

On July 6, a federal judge dismissed a pro se lawsuit alleging Taylor Swift lifted phrases from a Florida poet's work for more than a dozen songs. The court found the challenged material consisted of unprotectable ideas, themes, metaphors and isolated words, and concluded the plaintiff failed to show Swift had seen the poems or that the songs and poems are substantially similar. The dismissal is with prejudice.

Federal Judge Dismisses Copyright Claim Against Taylor Swift
Summarize with
ChatGPT Perplexity Claude Grok Gemini

Key Points

  • Judge Aileen Cannon ruled the poems did not contain protectable expression and that the plaintiff did not show Swift had seen the poems.
  • Court found similarities limited to unprotectable ideas, themes, metaphors and isolated words rather than substantial similarity.
  • Dismissal was with prejudice, barring amendment of the complaint.

Overview

On July 6, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit in which a Florida poet accused pop star Taylor Swift of copying lines from her poems for more than a dozen songs. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon concluded the plaintiff did not demonstrate that her poems contain protectable expression or that Swift had access to the poems and produced songs that an ordinary observer would find substantially similar.

Plaintiff and representation

The plaintiff, Kimberly Marasco, represented herself in the matter. According to court filings and follow up communication, Marasco said by email that she disagreed with the court's decision and intends to appeal.

Defendants and response

Named defendants included Taylor Swift and music industry entities such as Republic Records and Universal Music Group. Lawyers for Swift and the other defendants did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Works at issue

Marasco alleged that Swift copied details from her poetry collections for songs on Swift's 2024 album The Tortured Poets Department, specifically citing "Down Bad" and "I Can Do It with a Broken Heart." Judge Cannon found that any overlap between the poems and the songs amounted to unprotectable elements - ideas, themes, metaphors and isolated words - rather than protectable expression.

Court's reasoning and examples

The judge provided multiple illustrations of the distinction, noting commonalities such as confronting adversity, the experience of being "gaslighted," or images of being submerged under water. Those similarities, the court said, fall into categories that are not eligible for copyright protection.

Procedural history

Judge Cannon previously dismissed an earlier version of Marasco's complaint in September. Where the plaintiff added new allegations in the amended filing, the court found the works still were not substantially similar. The opinion observed that the plaintiff herself characterized the alleged copying as "paraphrase[s]," "rephrase[s]," and copying with "minor word substitutions," undercutting the claim of substantial similarity.

Disposition and location

Monday's dismissal was entered with prejudice, barring Marasco from again amending her complaint. Judge Cannon's chambers are in Fort Pierce, Florida.

Personal note

Separately noted in filings and public reporting, Taylor Swift, 36, was married on July 3 to Travis Kelce, 36, the Kansas City Chiefs tight end, in a ceremony at Madison Square Garden in Manhattan.


Key points

  • The court found the plaintiff failed to show her poems contained protectable expression or that Swift had access to them.
  • The alleged similarities were characterized as unprotectable ideas, themes, metaphors and isolated words, not substantially similar expression.
  • The dismissal was with prejudice, preventing further amendments to the complaint.

Risks and uncertainties

  • The plaintiff has said she will appeal, so the legal process may continue in appellate court.
  • Because the complaint was dismissed with prejudice, further district-court amendments are not permitted; any future challenge would require a successful appeal.

Risks

  • The plaintiff plans to appeal, so the dispute could proceed to an appellate court, extending legal uncertainty - impacts legal and entertainment sectors.
  • Because the dismissal is with prejudice, the plaintiff cannot amend the complaint in district court; any further challenge hinges on an appeal - impacts litigation outcomes and rights holders.

More from Stock Markets

Japan Businesses Sound the Alarm as China Restricts Rare-Earth Shipments Jul 6, 2026 Viking Acquisition Corp. II Raises $230 Million in NYSE IPO Jul 6, 2026 Rivian Shares Drop After Surprise Equity Offering; Q2 Results Mixed with Delivery Beats Jul 6, 2026 HHS Announces Over $281 Million for Addiction, Overdose and Mental Health Programs Jul 6, 2026 Exyn Technologies Posts Q1 2026 Results After Nasdaq Listing Jul 6, 2026