Taylor Swift Prevails in Poet’s Plagiarism Lawsuit, as Florida Judge Dismisses Case With Prejudice

Taylor Swift’s recent run of success has been further bolstered by a legal victory, arriving just days after her marriage to Travis Kelce. A federal judge has dismissed with prejudice a copyright lawsuit filed over a year ago by an obscure Florida poet, Kimberly Marasco. Marasco had alleged that Swift lifted phrases from her poetry for more than a dozen songs. The case was thrown out by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a jurist who has become a well-known figure in legal circles. Appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump in 2020, Cannon previously drew attention for blocking the release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report on Trump’s handling of classified documents. Her name has also surfaced in discussions about potential future Supreme Court nominees, should another vacancy arise under a Republican administration. Legal experts note that such high-profile dismissals often hinge on the inability to demonstrate substantial similarity, a key hurdle in copyright claims.

In her ruling, Cannon determined that Marasco’s poems did not contain protectable expression and that the plaintiff failed to provide a credible case for copying. The judge highlighted that Marasco admitted one of her poetry collections had sold roughly 3,000 copies worldwide, with no active marketing behind it. Cannon specifically addressed claims like the allegation that Swift’s song “The Man” copied Marasco’s poem “Ordinary Citizen” because both depict a woman navigating a male-dominated workplace. Another claim compared “The Great War” and “The Fire,” noting both use the metaphor of desire as fuel. Cannon dismissed these as “basic ideas and themes,” “ubiquitous metaphors,” and “isolated common words and short phrases,” none of which qualify for copyright protection. She stressed that even if Swift had drawn inspiration from the poet’s concepts, it would not amount to infringement. The judge also criticized the lawsuit as a “shotgun pleading,” pointing out that it failed to distinguish between the responsibilities of Swift, her record label, and the parent company, despite their distinct roles in the music industry. This ruling aligns with precedents where courts have rejected claims based on vague thematic similarities rather than concrete textual copying.

The outcome aligns with earlier assessments from legal experts. In December, musicologist Brian McBrearty, who has served as an expert in music copyright cases, published a column titled “Marasco v. Taylor Swift Was and Is Doomed.” He argued that the case relied not on musical elements but on thematic similarities between Swift’s lyrics and Marasco’s poetry. “No one owns themes,” McBrearty wrote, noting that copyright law protects specific expression, not general ideas. He observed that the filings contained no melodic, rhythmic, harmonic, or structural evidence that a musicologist would find relevant. “Courts can’t adjudicate vibes,” he added. “They need claims rooted in authorship.” McBrearty also noted that the case faced delays throughout much of 2025 due to challenges in serving Swift with legal papers, but he expressed hope it would proceed to a proper dismissal. The judge’s decision has now made that outcome final, as the dismissal with prejudice prevents the case from being refiled. For Swift, this marks another legal win in a career that has seen her successfully defend against multiple copyright claims, often reinforcing the principle that broad concepts and common phrases remain free for artistic use.