Entertainment

Taylor Swift Copyright Lawsuit. Taylor Swift defeats Kimberly Marasco’s copyright case as judge dismisses lyrical plagiarism claims over hit albums | English Movie News:

waseemmehar2026@gmail.com4 days ago05 mins

Taylor Swift defeats Kimberly Marasco's copyright case as judge dismisses claims of copying lyrics on hit albums

A judge has dismissed poet Kimberly Marasco’s lawsuit, ruling the alleged similarities involved indefensible ideas, themes and common phrases. Image credit (Taylor Swift Instagram)

Taylor Swift has won a court decision to dismiss a copyright lawsuit filed by poet Kimberly Marasco, who alleged that the singer copied lyrics from her poems on several albums. Judge Aileen Cannon granted the motion on Monday, determining that Marasco’s claims lacked legal merit.Marasco alleges that Swift copied lyrics from his poems for more than a dozen songs featured on her albums ‘Lover’, ‘Folklore’, ‘Evermore’, ‘Midnights’ and ‘The Tortured Poets Department’, according to her lawsuit filed in February 2025. According to Global News, which obtained the order on the motion to dismiss, the judge’s ruling determined that the works only shared “basic ideas and themes” such as a woman working in a corporate environment, who was “gaslighted” and faced hardship.

Judge’s reason for dismissal:

In his decision, the judge concluded that these types of concepts fall outside of copyright protection. “These are quintessential themes, concepts, and isolated words — exactly the kind of material copyright law cannot protect,” Cannon wrote in the order.The judge recognized further similarities between the works that did not constitute copyright infringement. The order specifies that other basic ideas include “Ubiquitous metaphors (being ‘submerged’ under water, ‘tears as weapons,’ ‘desire as fuel and fire,’ becoming ‘rain/storm’); and isolated common words and short phrases (‘tears,’ ‘running,’ ‘fire,’ ‘rain,’ ‘sky,’ ‘love,’ ‘invisible,’ ‘invisible,’ walk’).“Cannon reinforced his position on what is protected by copyright law. “The allegedly infringed material — basic ideas, themes, metaphors, isolated words, and short phrases — is not protected expression and cannot be infringed,” he wrote.

Gisalikway sa huwes ang kaso sa copyright ni Kimberly Marasco batok kang Taylor Swift<br />” msid=”132255869″ width=”” title=”The court found that the alleged overlaps between Marasco’s poems and Swift’s lyrics did not qualify for copyright protection. Image credit (Taylor Swift Instagram)” placeholdersrc=”https://static.toiimg.com/photo/83033472.cms” imgsize=”” resizemode=”4″ offsetvertical=”0″ placeholdermsid=”47529300″ type=”thumb” class=”” src=”https://static.toiimg.com/photo/msid-132255869/judge-throws-out-kimberly-marascos-copyright-case-against-taylor-swiftbr.jpg” data-api-prerender=”true”/></p>
<p>The court found that the alleged overlaps between Marasco’s poems and Swift’s lyrics did not qualify for copyright protection. Image credit (Taylor Swift Instagram)</p>
</div>
</div>
<p><h2>Comprehensive court analysis</h2>
</p>
<p>The judge’s decision addressed the nature of the allegedly copied material and Marasco’s inability to demonstrate copying. “The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s poems do not contain protectable expression and that, regardless, Plaintiff has failed to reasonably request reproduction. <!-- -->Dismissal is warranted on independent grounds, and the Court need not reach Defendants’ remaining arguments,” Cannon wrote.<span class=

The judge also noted that Marasco was given several opportunities to amend his complaint but failed to strengthen his case. “The plaintiff had ample opportunity to plead his claims; he was expressly warned that the Second Amended Complaint was his last chance and further amendments would be futile,” said the judge, indicating that no further amendments would be permitted.

Si Taylor Swift miiskor og legal nga kadaugan sa copyright dispute<br />” msid=”132255882″ width=”” title=”Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that the complaint failed to establish copyright infringement and dismissed the case. Image credit (Taylor Swift Instagram)” placeholdersrc=”https://static.toiimg.com/photo/83033472.cms” imgsize=”” resizemode=”4″ offsetvertical=”0″ placeholdermsid=”47529300″ type=”thumb” class=”” src=”https://static.toiimg.com/photo/msid-132255882/taylor-swift-scores-legal-victory-in-copyright-disputebr.jpg” data-api-prerender=”true”/></p>
<p>Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that the complaint failed to establish copyright infringement and dismissed the case. Image credit (Taylor Swift Instagram)</p>
</div>
</div>
<p><h2>The arguments of Taylor Swift’s legal team</h2>
</p>
<p>In December 2025, Swift’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss calling Marasco’s claims “absurd and legally baseless.” Lawyers described the situation as a pattern of frivolous litigation. “This is the second frivolous and harassing case by the Plaintiff against the Artist expressing claims of copyright infringement. Even though there is no conceivable case against the Artist, and after this Court was clearly informed that his allegedly infringing ‘expressions’ are not protected under copyright law, the Plaintiff filed another frivolous lawsuit and expanded his rejection campaign to GI and Republic. read.<span class=

Swift’s legal team emphasized that basic 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 themes or words’ that are ‘not protected by copyright law.'”The lawyers concluded their arguments by emphasizing the resource drain of litigation. “Plaintiff has wasted the time and resources of the Artist, the other Defendants, and this Court for far too long. This case is legally and factually without merit and should, again, be dismissed with prejudice,” Swift’s legal team wrote.

Gipildi ni Taylor Swift ang kaso sa pagkopya sa liriko ni Kimberly Marasco<br />” msid=”132255900″ width=”” title=”Swift’s legal team has argued that the claims are legally groundless, saying that common themes and words cannot be copyrighted. Image credit (Taylor Swift Instagram)” placeholdersrc=”https://static.toiimg.com/photo/83033472.cms” imgsize=”” resizemode=”4″ offsetvertical=”0″ placeholdermsid=”47529300″ type=”thumb” class=”” src=”https://static.toiimg.com/photo/msid-132255900/taylor-swift-defeats-kimberly-marascos-lyric-copying-lawsuitbr.jpg” data-api-prerender=”true”/></p>
<p>Swift’s legal team has argued that the claims are legally groundless, saying that common themes and words cannot be copyrighted. Image credit (Taylor Swift Instagram)</p>
</div>
</div>
<p><h2>Marasco’s response and appeal plan</h2>
</p>
<p>Despite the court’s decision, Marasco indicated his intention to pursue further legal action. The poet told Rolling Stone that he disagrees with the decision and will appeal the judge’s decision, suggesting that he plans to continue his legal challenge against Swift.<span class=

Related trademark lawsuit:

Swift faces additional legal challenges beyond the copyright case. He was also recently sued by a performer in Las Vegas who claimed his latest album violated trademark rights. The performer alleged in her complaint that sales of Swift’s album threatened to “drown” her long-running stage show and asked the court to block Swift from creating confusion with her album title.Swift’s attorneys asked the court to dismiss the trademark infringement lawsuit in May, describing the case as “just the latest attempt by the Plaintiff to generate publicity by associating himself with Ms. Swift” according to the defendant’s notice of motion and motion to dismiss.The decision marks another legal victory for Swift, whose latest studio album ‘The Tortured Poets Department’ continues to be one of the biggest commercial successes of her career.

Source link