To be fair, it wasn’t much of a surprise, and indeed it’s a present Swift was entitled to expect. An excerpt from today’s decision by Judge Cannon in Marasco v. Swift:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this lawsuit in February 2025, alleging federal copyright infringement against Defendants Taylor Swift [and others] …. Plaintiff is the author of two books that contain various poems—Dealing with a Chronic Illness: Vestibular Neuritis (“Dealing“) and Fallen from Grace (“Fallen“), which Plaintiff alleges was later renamed Songs of the Unsung—together with a standalone poem, “Noah.” Plaintiff concedes her books “are not presently being marketed,” and pleads specific sales figures only for Songs of the Unsung (the renamed Fallen), alleging “approximately 300 copies” sold globally.
Sprawling twelve counts, Plaintiff alleges that a variety of Defendants’ songs infringe her exclusive rights in various poems. To illustrate, Count I alleges that Defendants’ song “The Man” (containing 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”) infringes Plaintiff’s poem “Ordinary Citizen” (“I’m running behind/You say its His word against mine”) because both describe a woman working in a male-dominated office environment. Count X alleges that “The Great War” (“Diesel is desire, you were playing with fire”) infringes “The Fire” (“Anger fuels our desire … I’m fighting fire with fire”) because both use the metaphor of “desire as fuel and fire.” Similar allegations populate the remaining counts….
All of Plaintiff’s claims for works previously addressed in Marasco I [an earlier case filed by Marasco against Swift and many of the same additional defendants -EV] fail for the reasons articulated there. The Second Amended Complaint largely reprises Marasco I, alleging infringement of the same poems—including “Ordinary Citizen,” “Whirlwind,” “Scorpion,” “Beams of Light,” “Gaslight,” “Innocence Lost,” “Sky Tinted Water,” “Devious Minds,” “Stagnate,” “Delusional Reality,” “Invisible Matter,” and “The Fire”—through the same categories of asserted similarity: basic ideas and themes (a woman working in a corporate environment, being “gaslighted,” confronting adversity); ubiquitous metaphors (being “submerged” under water, “tears as weapons,” “desire as fuel and fire,” becoming “the rain/storm”); and isolated common words and short phrases (“tears,” “running,” “fire,” “rain,” “sky,” “love,” “invisible,” “caged me,” “flesh and blood,” “it’s time to go”).
As this Court already explained in that related case, such content “amount[s] at most to ideas, metaphors, contexts, and themes—none of which is a proper subject of copyright protection under 17 U.S.C. § 501(a).” … “Ideas and themes are often the type of material that we have determined are not copyrightable.” …. “Words and short phrases are not copyrightable, nor are ordinary phrases.” …
To the extent the Second Amended Complaint adds a few additional allegations of infringement, none of those supplemental allegations serve to state a claim for relief. For example, three counts add a new allegedly infringing song—Count II (“I Can Do It With a Broken Heart”), Count III (“Mastermind”), and Count VI (“The Manuscript”)—and Count XI adds a new poem, “Ingenue.”
Each addition rests entirely on unprotectable content: the theme of “creative resilience” and the words “art” and “heart” (Count II); the concept of “people as equations” (Count III); a shared reference to musical connection (Count VI, comparing “Tears fell in synchronicity with the score” to “[w]e need to come together like musical notes to poetry”); and the common observation that leaves turn “gold” (Count XI). These are quintessential themes, concepts, and isolated words—exactly the kind of material copyright law does not protect.
James Douglas Baldridge and Katherine Wright Morrone (Venable LLP) represent defendants.
