Newlywed Taylor Swift Wins Explosive Copyright Battle After Judge Finds No 'Protectable Expression'

Another victory has arrived for Taylor Swift. Days after marrying NFL star Travis Kelce, the singer-songwriter secured a major courtroom win after a US federal judge dismissed a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Florida-based self-published poet Kimberly Marasco, who accused Swift of copying material from two of her poetry collections.

The court found that the alleged similarities did not involve legally protectable expression, handing the 14-time Grammy winner another legal victory while reaffirming established principles of US copyright law.

Taylor Swift Copyright Lawsuit Dismissed

The Taylor Swift copyright lawsuit ended on 6 July after Judge Aileen Cannon of the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the case with prejudice. Marasco's lawsuit also named songwriter Aaron Dessner, Republic Records and Universal Music Group as defendants.

A dismissal with prejudice means Marasco cannot pursue the same copyright claims again before the trial court. She has said she intends to appeal, meaning the dispute could still be reviewed by a higher court.

The case began in February 2025 when Marasco alleged that lyrics from songs including The Man, The Great War, Down Bad and I Can Do It with a Broken Heart, among others, borrowed material from two of her poetry collections. After amendments to the complaint and further legal arguments, Judge Cannon issued her final decision on 6 July 2026, bringing the case to a close.

Why Judge Cannon Dismissed the Lawsuit

The Taylor Swift copyright case centred on whether the alleged similarities amounted to copyright infringement under US law. Marasco argued that Swift's lyrics copied elements of her poems, while the defence maintained the alleged overlaps involved ideas, themes and language that copyright law does not protect.

Judge Cannon sided with the defence, concluding that the complaint failed to establish copyright infringement under the applicable legal standards.

In her ruling, Cannon found that Marasco's poems did not contain the type of protectable expression required to support an infringement claim. Instead, she determined that the alleged similarities consisted of broad ideas, familiar themes, common observations, 'basic ideas and themes,' 'ubiquitous metaphors' and isolated words or short phrases that are generally not protected by copyright.

The judge also found that Marasco failed to demonstrate the level of substantial similarity required between the poems and the challenged lyrics. According to the ruling, many of the examples amounted to paraphrasing or minor word substitutions rather than copying original creative expression. The court further agreed with defence arguments that the complaint did not clearly distinguish the alleged conduct of the individual defendants.

What's Next in the Copyright Case?

The ruling marks another legal victory for Swift, whose catalogue has sold more than 200 million records worldwide. While her recent marriage to Kelce has dominated entertainment headlines, the court's decision shifts attention back to the copyright dispute.

Marasco has publicly disagreed with the ruling and plans to appeal. If an appeal is filed, a federal appeals court will review whether the district court correctly applied US copyright law. Until then, Judge Cannon's decision remains in effect, giving Swift, Aaron Dessner, Republic Records and Universal Music Group a significant victory at the trial court level.

For now, Judge Cannon's order brings the current Taylor Swift copyright lawsuit to a close in the trial court while reaffirming the legal distinction between protected creative expression and shared ideas, common themes and everyday language under US copyright law.