Blog Post | 114 KY. L. J. ONLINE | November 13, 2025
The Law of Similarity: The Legal Standards Behind Swift’s Showgirl Controversy
By: Claire Irish, Staff Editor, Vol. 114
Taylor Swift’s newest album, The Life of a Showgirl,[1] has once again placed Swift at the center of public discussion, but this time at the center of a new legal conundrum. Despite the initial success of the album—with record breaking numbers of albums sold[2]— the songs quickly faced backlash for apparent similarities between these new tracks and other popular songs. Ranging from mere fan disappointment in the album itself,[3] to talk of lawsuits against Swift,[4] several accusations of copying have surfaced. But what most fans, or should I say critics, do not know is the true legal standard behind a copyright infringement claim for musical works. Some of copyright law is seemingly common sense. For example, if you blatantly copy, you can expect to get sued.[5] However, when the more minor details of a song are copied, what is the standard?
Much of the controversy over the Showgirl album is that certain songs simply seem to sound a lot like other songs. For example, there are claims of apparent similarities between Swift’s title track, “Life of a Showgirl,” and “Cool” by the Jonas Brothers, or “Actually Romantic” and “Where Is My Mind” by the Pixies.[6] In cases like these, where basic elements like chord progressions and rhythms are all that is “copied” from the original, there can be no claim of copyright infringement.[7] This is because these elements alone are not “original enough to be protectable,”[8] and the hallmarks of copyright protection are originality and creativity.[9] These elements are more like the “building blocks” of music, and thus cannot be owned by anyone.[10] Instead, they belong in the public domain, and are free to be used by any songwriter.[11]
That is not to say that these elements can never be the basis of an infringement suit. It is only once enough of these unprotectable elements are put together that they receive protection under copyright law.[12] When Led Zepplin’s song, “Stairway to Heaven,” faced similar challenges, it was alleged that five separate elements of the song were copied.[13] While the claims failed, the court explained that copying the specific combination, or the way in which multiple elements were composed, could rise to the level of copyright infringement.[14] Another way to look at this is under the de minimis doctrine, which considers not whether the element of original work deserves protection, but rather if the element that was copied is so minimal that it cannot serve as the basis of such a claim.[15] Thus, even if an element like a chord progression is found to have independent protection, it can still be such minor element to the original work as to negate any claim of copying.
The good news for Swift is that the experts are on her side.[16] In the case of “Life of a Showgirl” and “Cool,” there are actually fewer similarities from a composition standpoint than an average listener would pick up on.[17] In reality, few notes are shared between the two, and each use “entirely different chord progressions,” making it a far cry from even the least successful of copyright infringement claims.[18]As for “Actually Romantic” and “Where Is My Mind,” the similarities only extend to the classic chord progression claim.[19] Here, experts explain that this particular chord progression “is not super common, [but] also not unique,”[20] thus illustrating the primary rationale for not extending copyright protection to such elements of musical works.[21] As these elements are more like the “building blocks” of music,[22] they are often repeated throughout popular songs,[23] and do not meet the standard of copyright protection.
Given the legal standards, the limited claims of copying, and the expert opinions surrounding Swift’s latest album, she is likely out of the woods this time. As claims such as these keep appearing, it is important to keep in mind the underlying rationale for limiting protection: there are only so many ways to arrange a limited number of chords.[24] As artists continue to push out new music, there will necessarily be other songs that share the underlying elements of composition.[25] These limits on copyright protection ensure that our favorite artists are able to continue creating without fear of being sued for using basic musical elements, thus striking the balance between the artist’s interest in protection of their work against the public’s interest in the creativity that flows from access to such protected works.[26] So, the next time you catch a similarity between a new hit and an longtime favorite, consider the legal balance that allows music to be both protected yet ever evolving.[27]
[1] Taylor Swift, The Life of a Showgirl (CD, Republic Recs. Oct. 3, 2025).
[2] Keith Caulfield, Taylor Swift Achieves Record-Shattering 4 Million Week With No. 1 Billboard 200 Debut of ‘The Life of a Showgirl’, Billboard (Oct. 13, 2025), https:// billboard.com/lists/taylor-swift-life-of-a-showgirl-number-one-billboard-200/largest-streaming-week-of-2025-fourth-biggest-of-all-time/.
[3] Would there be such backlash if Swift were instead a male artist? See Taylor Swift, The Man, on Lover (CD, Republic Recs. Aug. 23, 2019) (asking “when everyone believes in [you]… what [its] like”).
[4] Brittany Spanos, The Internet Thinks Taylor Swift Copied These Songs. But Did She?, Rolling Stone (Oct. 19, 2025), https:// rollingstone.com/music/music-features/taylor-swift-life-of-a-showgirl-plagiarism-jonas-brothers-1235443811/.
[5] See, e.g., Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 574 (1994) (finding that several copied elements would constitute clear copyright infringement, but holding the work was protected as parody).
[6] Spanos, supra note 4.
[7] Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Sheeran, 120 F.4th 1066, 1074 (2nd Cir. 2024).
[8] Id.; see also 17 U.S.C.S. § 102(b) (stating that copyright protection does not extend to any ideas, concepts or principles).
[9] Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 363 (1991).
[10] Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051, 1069 (9th Cir. 2020).
[11] Id.
[12] Id. at 1074; see also Mark Edward Blankenship Jr., Don’t Hate the Players (Nor the Haters), Hate the Game: A “Swift” Dismissal in Copyright Law and the Banalities of Lyricism, Ky. L. J. Online (May 20, 2018), https://www.kentuckylawjournal.org/blog/index.php/2018/05/21/dont-hate-the-players-nor-the-haters-hate-the-game-a-swift-dismissal-in-copyright-law-and-the-banalities-of-lyricism (“Although, combinations of unprotected elements, can protected by copyright, that is only if those elements are numerous enough and their selection and arrangement original enough that their combination constitutes an original work of authorship.”).
[13] Skidmore, 952 F.3d at 1074.
[14] Id. at 1075.
[15] See, e.g., Newton v. Diamond, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1244, 1256 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
[16] See Williams v. Gaye, 885 F.3d 1150, 1182 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that expert testimony is often essential in these cases).
[17] Spanos, supra note 4.
[18] Id.
[19] Id. (explaining that “the only similarity is the chord progression (E C#m G# A) and key center (E major)”).
[20] Id.
[21] See Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Sheeran, 120 F.4th 1066, 1074 (2nd Cir. 2024); Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 340 (1991) (explaining that “originality is the touchstone of copyright protection”).
[22] Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051, 1069 (9th Cir. 2020).
[23] See Spanos, supra note 5 (discussing the multiple songs that Swift’s challenged chord progressions have appeared in).
[24] Gaste v. Kaiserman, 863 F.2d 1061, 1068 (2nd Cir. 1988) (“[W]e are mindful of the limited number of notes and chords available to composers and the resulting fact that common themes frequently reappear in various compositions, especially in popular music.”)
[25] Structured Asset Sales, LLC, 673 F. Supp. 3d at 423 (“[A] songwriter only has finite options for playing a commonplace chord progression.”).
[26] See, e.g., EMI Entm't World, Inc. v. Priddis Music, Inc., 505 F. Supp. 2d 1217, 1220 (D. Utah 2007).
[27] But hey, “haters gonna hate, hate, hate.” Taylor Swift, Shake It Off (Taylor’s Version), on 1989 (Taylor’s Version) (Republic Recs. Oct. 27, 2023).