It ain’t over quite yet: A self-published Florida poet who claimed Taylor Swift stole her words for her lyrics has filed a quick appeal after her copyright case was thrown out of court earlier this week.
Less than two days after Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case by ruling that the only similarities between Kimberly Marasco’s poems and Swift’s songs were generic words and ideas, the litigious poet filed a notice Tuesday (July 7) that she would ask a federal appeals court to overturn the decision.
The appeal will add yet another chapter to a legal battle against the world’s biggest pop star that has already dragged on for more than two years across two cases, both of which have now been summarily dismissed. Swift’s attorneys have called the lawsuits “absurd” and “harassing.”
Such appeals typically face long odds, particularly where, as Judge Cannon did, a court said the case was not a close call. Marasco’s specific arguments will be made in later filings and were not made public in Tuesday’s papers. A rep for Taylor did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday (July 8).
Marasco first sued Taylor’s company (Taylor Swift Productions) in 2024, claiming the star had lifted lyrics to “The Man,” “My Tears Ricochet,” “Illicit Affairs” and many other songs from earlier poems. Then early last year, Marasco filed another case against Swift herself over largely the same allegations.
But both cases have now been dismissed on the grounds that none of the similarities in Swift’s songs are the kind of things that can be protected under copyright law. In the ruling on Monday (July 6), Judge Cannon said the only overlaps were “basic ideas,” like the concept of “gaslighting,” as well as “ubiquitous metaphors” and “common observations.”
“These are quintessential themes, concepts, and isolated words — exactly the kind of material copyright law does not protect,” the judge wrote in her decision, obtained and first reported by Billboard. “The allegedly infringed material — basic ideas, themes, metaphors, isolated words, and short phrases — is not protected expression and cannot be infringed.”
Under federal court procedural rules, Marasco had 30 days to file her appeal. On Tuesday, she did so in less than 48 hours. “Plaintiff seeks review of all rulings, findings, and conclusions adverse to her interests contained in that order and judgment,” she wrote in her notice of appeal.
