A Federal Judge Dismissed a Copyright Lawsuit Against Taylor Swift, Ruling That Themes, Metaphors, and Short Phrases Can’t Be Copyrighted

Kimberly Marasco, a self-published poet from Florida who represented herself in court, alleged that Taylor Swift lifted phrases, themes, and metaphors from about 11 of her poems into songs across 5 albums, from Lover to The Tortured Poets Department.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case. Marasco’s poems, she ruled, “do not contain protectable expression” and amount to “at most ideas, metaphors, contexts, and themes.” Copyright protects the specific way something is written, not the ideas, common metaphors, or short phrases underneath it.

The ruling came down to one of the oldest principles in copyright law. It protects the specific way an artist expresses something. The underlying idea stays free for anyone to use. Two writers can both write about heartbreak, gaslighting, or a secret affair. What the law covers is the exact language and arrangement, not the subject itself.

Kimberly Marasco, a self-published poet based in Florida, filed the suit herself without a lawyer. She claimed Swift copied from roughly 11 of her poems into tracks including “The Man,” “Illicit Affairs,” “My Tears Ricochet,” and “Fortnight,” spanning Lover, Folklore, Evermore, Midnights, and The Tortured Poets Department.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, in the Southern District of Florida, ruled that the poems “do not contain protectable expression” and consist of “at most ideas, metaphors, contexts, and themes.” The alleged overlaps, she found, came down to basic concepts like the idea of gaslighting, common metaphors, and isolated words and short phrases, none of which copyright covers. She also ruled that Marasco had not plausibly shown Swift ever had access to her work.

Swift’s attorneys had called the claims “absurd,” “meritless,” and “frivolous and harassing.” It was Marasco’s second suit against Swift-related parties. An earlier case was dismissed in September 2025 after she failed to serve Swift in time.

The dismissal was entered with prejudice, meaning Marasco cannot refile the same claims. She says she plans to appeal.

Thanks for reading. Follow Thought Catalog on Facebook for more stories like this, or explore our website.