A copyright lawsuit filed against Taylor Swift by poet Kimberly Marasco has been dismissed by a federal judge. Marasco had alleged that some of Swift’s lyrics were a copyright infringement of her poems.
U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon ruled that “the allegedly infringed material—basic ideas, themes, metaphors, isolated words, and short phrases—is not protected expression and cannot be infringed.” The decision permanently resolves the case against the singer-songwriter.
Additionally, in order to prove copyright infringement, a plaintiff needs to provide direct evidence of copying by showing that “(a) that Defendants had access to her works and (b) that the works are ‘so substantially similar… that an average lay observer would recognise the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the original work.’”
In this case, however, the court ruled that Marasco “has failed to plausibly allege either access or substantial similarity, each of which is independently required to plead copying.”
The dismissal specifically cited Swift's track "The Man" against "Ordinary Citizen," a poem by self-published author Marasco.
Also read: Taylor Swift’s lawyers slam Maren Wade’s trademark lawsuit
The song lyrics say: “I’m so sick of running as fast as I can/ Wondering if I’d get there quicker if I was a man,” which Marasco alleged is similar to the line in her poem that reads, “I’m running behind/ You say its His word against mine.”
The lawsuit noted that the concept of “a woman working in a corporate environment” under the category of “basic ideas and themes,” and such content is not “a proper subject of copyright protection.”
Judge Cannon’s ruling, which comes just three days after Swift tied the knot with Travis Kelce in New York City, also dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning Marasco cannot refile a lawsuit with the same claims in the future.
According to the court documents, Marasco previously filed a similar lawsuit against Swift and received an explicit judicial warning that this would be her final opportunity to present her claims, noting that any “further amendment would be futile.”
“The defects identified are not pleading defects curable by more careful drafting,” Judge Cannon pointed out of the issues she identified within the case, adding, “they are defects in the underlying works themselves, which consist of ideas, themes, metaphors, and isolated words that no amendment can transform into protectable expression.”
Swift’s legal team had earlier argued to have the case dismissed. “This is plaintiff’s second frivolous and harassing lawsuit against the artist. Plaintiff’s claims are, as in her last lawsuit, absurd and legally baseless,” Swift’s attorney Douglas Baldridge said in a December filing.
Follow us
