The decision, delivered by United States District Judge Aileen Cannon, brings an end to a legal battle that had stretched for more than a year. The lawsuit, filed by poet Kimberly Marasco, alleged that Swift borrowed language, imagery and themes from her poetry across more than a dozen songs.
Judge Cannon dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the claims cannot be refiled. The ruling also favored Swift's co-defendants, including songwriter Aaron Dessner, Republic Records and Universal Music Group.
In her judgment, Cannon concluded that Marasco's poems did not contain legally protectable expression under U.S. copyright law and that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence showing that Swift had copied her work.
"Plaintiff’s poems do not contain protectable expression and that, regardless, Plaintiff has failed to plausibly plead copying," Cannon wrote.
The court noted that Marasco acknowledged one of her poetry collections had sold only about 3,000 copies worldwide and was not actively promoted, making it difficult to establish that Swift or anyone involved in creating her music had access to the poems.
Judge Cannon also examined several examples presented by Marasco as evidence of alleged copying.
One claim centered on Swift's song "The Man," which includes the lyric:
"I'm so sick of running as fast as I can / Wondering if I'd get there quicker if I was a man."
Marasco argued the lyric infringed on her poem "Ordinary Citizen," which reads:
"I'm running behind / You say its His word against mine."
Another allegation involved Swift's "The Great War," featuring the line:
"Diesel is desire, you were playing with fire,"
which Marasco compared to her poem "The Fire," containing the words:
"Anger fuels our desire... I'm fighting fire with fire."
The judge found these similarities too broad to support a copyright claim.
According to Cannon, Marasco's lawsuit relied largely on common literary concepts rather than original creative expression. The court said the alleged similarities involved universal themes such as women navigating male-dominated workplaces, being gaslighted, overcoming adversity, and familiar metaphors including storms, rain, fire, tears and love.
The ruling stated:
"Such content amount[s] at most to ideas, metaphors, contexts, and themes — none of which is a proper subject of copyright protection."
Cannon further emphasized that copyright law protects the unique expression of an idea—not the idea itself.
Even if Swift had been aware of Marasco's poems, the judge said that alone would not have established infringement because the works were not substantially similar in the way copyright law requires.
The court noted:
"Although that conclusion is sufficient to require dismissal, the Court proceeds to the next step because Plaintiff's independent failure to plead copying further confirms that dismissal is warranted."
Addressing the amended complaint, Cannon observed that Marasco herself described many of the alleged similarities as "paraphrase[s]," "rephrase[s]," and instances of copying involving "minor word substitutions."
The judge ruled:
"Admitted differences of that kind cannot satisfy the substantial-similarity standard."
The court also agreed with arguments made by Swift's legal team that the lawsuit amounted to what is known as "shotgun pleading"—a legal term used when multiple claims are brought against several defendants without clearly identifying each party's specific role.
According to Cannon, the complaint repeatedly grouped Swift, her record label and its parent company together despite their distinct functions within the music industry, while also combining numerous songs and poems into single allegations.
Marasco has long maintained that Swift borrowed from her poetry. She expanded on those claims in two self-published books, including "Swift Reflections: Poetry Inspirations" and "Poetry Revelations: About the Woke Mob."
In the latter, Marasco pointed to examples she believed demonstrated similarities, including her line:
"With the clouds I rain, the smog consumes me"
which she compared to Swift's lyric:
"I was midnight rain."
She also cited another poem that reads:
"I heard her laughter echoing to us below, saying this is nothing but a sh** show"
and argued it resembled Swift's lyrics:
"She was laughing at us from hell"
and
"Screaming at the sky."
However, legal experts had expressed skepticism about the lawsuit well before the court's ruling.
Musicologist Brian McBrearty, who has testified in music copyright disputes, wrote last year that the case was fundamentally flawed because it focused on shared themes rather than protected artistic expression.
"Nothing in this matter is tethered to copyright law in any meaningful way," McBrearty wrote.
He added:
"No one owns themes... Copyright isn't meant to suppress that; it's meant to incentivize creation, and it does that by protecting expression, not ideas."
McBrearty further argued that the complaint lacked the musical elements typically examined in copyright disputes.
"These filings offer no melodic details, nothing rhythmic, nothing harmonic or structural. Nothing that would interest a musicologist in any serious forensic sense... Courts can't adjudicate vibes. They need claims rooted in authorship."
The ruling marks a significant legal victory for Swift and her collaborators, reinforcing long-established copyright principles that common words, themes, metaphors and general ideas cannot be exclusively owned under U.S. law.