Judge Throws Out Copyright Lawsuit Against Taylor Swift After Poet Claimed Singer Copied Her Work

Three days after marrying Travis Kelce, Taylor Swift picked up one more wedding gift: a federal judge permanently threw out a self-published poet's copyright lawsuit accusing the singer of stealing her words.

US District Judge Aileen M Cannon dismissed the case with prejudice on Monday, meaning Florida poet Kimberly Marasco cannot refile her claims against Swift. Marasco, who represented herself without a lawyer, had accused Swift, producer Aaron Dessner, Republic Records and Universal Music Group of lifting phrases from her poetry across more than a dozen songs, spanning albums from 'Lover' to 'The Tortured Poets Department'.

'Quintessential Themes' the Law Doesn't Protect

Marasco's lawsuit argued that Swift had copied what she called her 'distinctive and quintessential themes', including 'the woman in a male-dominated office', 'fire as metaphor for desire', and 'comparing a person to a mathematical equation'.

The problem, according to the ruling: Marasco called theft what was really just common language.

'Poets, songwriters, and artists frequently draw inspiration from the world around them, including from life experiences, relationships, and observations,' Cannon wrote in her order.

'Even if a poet writes a poem expressing her unique thoughts and feelings about a particular subject, the underlying ideas and themes are not copyrightable. They are available for all to use.'

Fire, Equations, and a Woman in an Office

To demonstrate why the case failed, Cannon cited specific examples from Marasco's work and Swift's lyrics side by side.

Marasco claimed Swift stole the line 'diesel is desire' from her poem 'Diesel and Desire'. But the judge noted the phrase 'you were playing with fire' has appeared across hundreds of songs — and that Swift's lyric was 'diesel is desire, you were playing with fire'.

Similarly, Marasco argued that Swift's lyric 'I'm a mirrorball' infringed her poem 'I Am a Mirrorball' — language Cannon found 'too unoriginal' to protect.

The judge also dismissed Marasco's claim that Swift had stolen the concept of 'a woman in a male-dominated office', noting this was a 'common scenario'. Even the plaintiff's accusation that Swift had copied her comparison of a person to a mathematical equation was rejected — 'Elon=MC2', Cannon observed, 'has been repeatedly used in popular culture'.

Her Own Words Sank the Case

Perhaps the most damaging evidence came from Marasco's own complaint. She had repeatedly used words like 'paraphrases' and 'rephrases' to describe the alleged copying.

Cannon suggested these amounted to an admission that there was no direct copying at all.

She noted Marasco was also claiming isolated common words including 'sparks', 'fire', 'breath' and 'burn', elements that copyright law has long held cannot be monopolised.

Why These Lawsuits Keep Failing

The dismissal follows a familiar pattern for Swift, who has faced multiple copyright lawsuits over the years. Most have been dismissed and often on the same grounds: that the alleged similarities are too vague, too common, or too generic to constitute infringement.

Earlier this year, a separate lawsuit over Swift's 'Shake It Off' lyrics was dismissed after a judge ruled the phrase 'players gonna play' was not original enough to copyright.

A Second Strikeout for Marasco

This was Marasco's second attempt at the claim. She first sued in May 2024, and that case was also dismissed with prejudice in September 2025. Cannon allowed her to file a second amended complaint but warned it would be her final opportunity, noting further amendment would be 'futile'. Marasco had also named Jack Antonoff in earlier filings but dropped him from the case, while the court had previously dismissed Dessner as a defendant.

Marasco has said she disagrees with the ruling and plans to appeal.