Taylor Swift and Universal Music have urged a court in Florida to dismiss an “absurd and legally baseless” lawsuit filed by a woman called Kimberly Marasco, who claims that lyrics in various Swift songs rip off poems she previously wrote and published.
It’s not the first time Marasco has filed a lawsuit making that claim - she previously unsuccessfully sued one of Swift’s companies - which, a new court filing from Swift and Universal insists, makes this newer lawsuit all the more “frivolous” and akin to “harassment”.
“Despite having no conceivable case against Swift, and after being expressly informed by this court that her allegedly infringed ‘expressions’ are not protectable under copyright law”, they write, Marasco filed “yet another meritless lawsuit” and also “expanded her groundless campaign” by pulling Universal into the litigation.
In her most recent lawsuit, Marasco identifies twelve incidents where she believes one or more of her poems was incorporated into one or more of Swift’s songs, with the allegedly infringing lyrics appearing on four of Swift’s albums, including ‘Lover’, ‘Folklore’, ‘Midnights’ and ‘ The Tortured Poet’s Department’.
However, Swift and Universal argue, while there may be some similarities between Marasco’s poems and Swift’s lyrics, those similarities relate to generic themes or common words and phrases, none of which are protected by copyright.
Many of Marasco’s claims, they say, relate to “ubiquitous metaphors and themes found throughout the world in countless works of art and human experiences, including ideas about a ‘female worker navigating a patriarchal corporate system’, a woman being ‘gaslighted’, and ‘being submerged under water’”.
Other claims relate to “individual words or short phrases which are not afforded copyright protection in any circumstance”, and which Marasco has “plucked from random spots within the works”. That includes words and phrases like “love”, “tears", “running”, “laughter”, “time”, “rain”, “sky”, “invisible”, “flesh and blood” and “it’s time to go”.
The new court filing also argues that Marasco has failed to credibly demonstrate how Swift and her co-writers would have had access to the earlier poems before writing their songs.
However, they add, given that the allegedly infringed elements of Marasco’s poems are not protected by copyright - as a court confirmed in the earlier dispute - the judge should dismiss this new lawsuit with immediate effect, without even having to consider the access point.
The new filing concludes that Marasco’s “shotgun second amended complaint for copyright infringement should be dismissed with prejudice”, which would mean no further legal claims could be made in relation to these allegations.