Full Breakdown
Taylor Swift Wins Dismissal of Poet’s Copyright Lawsuit
7/8/2026, 8:07:31 AM
Core Event: Federal Judge Throws Out Claim with Prejudice
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in the Southern District of Florida dismissed the copyright infringement suit filed by self-published poet Kimberly Marasco against pop star Taylor Swift and co-defendants Republic Records, Universal Music Group, songwriter Aaron Dessner and producer Jack Antonoff. The July 6, 2026 order barred any further amendment or re-filing of the complaint.
Background & Context: Prior Filings and Legal Standards
Marasco first sued Swift’s production company in 2024, alleging that more than a dozen songs—including “The Man,” “The Great War,” “Down Bad,” and “I Can Do It with a Broken Heart” from the 2024 album *The Tortured Poets Department*—borrowed lines, ideas, or metaphors from her poems. A September 2025 dismissal of that case set a precedent that the alleged overlaps were “basic ideas, themes, metaphors, and isolated words” not protected by copyright. The 2026 suit was a second amended complaint seeking at least $25 million in damages.
Key Figures & Groups
- Taylor Swift – recording artist and defendant.
- Kimberly Marasco – Florida poet and pro se plaintiff.
- Judge Aileen Cannon – presiding federal judge.
- Republic Records and Universal Music Group – record-label defendants.
- Aaron Dessner and Jack Antonoff – co-writers named in the suit.
- Douglas Baldridge – Swift’s lead attorney.
Data & Statistics
- Songs cited: >12 tracks across five albums (Lover, Folklore, Evermore, Midnights, The Tortured Poets Department).
- Counts in complaint: 12 alleged infringements.
- Damages sought: Minimum $25 million.
- Poetry sales: Approx. 3,000 copies worldwide for the collection containing the contested lines.
- Dismissals: Two rulings—September 2025 and July 2026—both with prejudice.
Official Statements & Responses
Judge Cannon concluded that Marasco “failed to plausibly allege either access or substantial similarity, each of which is independently required to plead copying.” She also noted the complaint “closely mirrors” the earlier filing and therefore “cannot be amended.” Swift’s legal team, represented by Douglas Baldridge, called the suit “frivolous and harassing,” asserting that the plaintiff “has no conceivable case.” Marasco, contacted by email, said she “disagrees with the decision and will appeal.”
Criticism & Opposition
Baldridge’s filing labeled the action “second frivolous and harassing lawsuit against Artist,” emphasizing that “the claims are absurd and legally baseless.” The judge herself criticized the pleading as “shotgun,” because it grouped multiple defendants and songs without specifying each party’s alleged role.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Marasco maintains that Swift copied specific phrases and that the poet’s work was accessible, yet the court found no evidence of exposure—citing the modest sales figure and lack of marketing. No independent source confirmed Swift’s actual access to the poems, creating a factual gap between the plaintiff’s assertions and the evidentiary record.
Verbatim Quotes
- “These are quintessential themes, concepts, and isolated words – exactly the kind of material copyright law does not protect.” — Judge Aileen Cannon
- “ "As this Court already determined in Marasco I, the allegedly infringed material-basic ideas, themes, metaphors, isolated words, and short phrases- is not protected expression and cannot be infringed," Cannon wrote, referencing Marasco's initial lawsuit.” — Judge Aileen Cannon
- “They further claimed that Marasco had failed to establish either access to her works or the substantial similarity required to infer copying.” — Judge Aileen Cannon
- “This is Plaintiff’s second frivolous and harassing lawsuit against Artist asserting copyright infringement claims,” — Douglas Baldridge, attorney for Taylor Swift
- “the works are not even substantially similar – a point plaintiff effectively concedes by characterising the alleged copying as ‘paraphrase’, ‘rephrase’ and copying with ‘minor word substitutions’.” — Judge Aileen Cannon
What’s Next
Marasco has filed a notice of appeal, indicating the dispute will move to the Eleventh Circuit. Swift’s team expects the appellate court to uphold the dismissal, given the clear statutory distinction between protectable expression and unprotectable ideas. The case remains a reference point for future copyright claims involving lyrical content and literary works.
