Taylor Swift has yet another new thing to celebrate. <\/p>\n
Now in her newlywed era, the pop superstar\u2019s concert film, \u201cThe Eras Tour: The Final Show,<\/a>\u201d earned five Emmy nominations<\/a> Wednesday. This includes nods for variety special (pre-recorded), sound mixing for a variety series or special, directing for a variety special, picture editing for variety programming, and technical direction and camerawork for a special. <\/p>\n The nomination for variety special (pre-recorded) means Swift herself is a nominee as the performer and a producer of the concert film, which showcased the final performance<\/a> of her record-breaking<\/a> tour. This marks the \u201cThe Life of a Showgirl<\/a>\u201d singer-songwriter\u2019s second career Emmy nomination. She previously won in 2015 in the category of creative achievement in interactive media \u2014 original interactive program, as the executive producer of the mobile app AMEX Unstaged: Taylor Swift Experience. <\/p>\n The accolades come just five days after Swift married beau Travis Kelce<\/a> in an extravagant \u2014 yet secretive \u2014 Manhattan affair at Madison Square Garden. The Kansas City Chiefs tight end has spoken about his failed attempt to slide Swift his phone number<\/a> (via friendship bracelet) when he attended an Eras tour<\/a> concert in 2023. <\/p>\n The Emmy nominations follow her latest legal win. On Monday, a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice a copyright lawsuit that accused Swift of plagiarizing a self-published poet. <\/p>\n In February 2025, Kimberly Marasco, representing herself, filed a lawsuit<\/a> that alleged Swift copied \u201cunique expressions\u201d such as short phrases and specific words from her poetry in numerous songs, including \u201cThe Man,\u201d \u201cDown Bad,\u201d \u201cI Can Do It With a Broken Heart,\u201d \u201cHoax,\u201d \u201cGuilty as Sin?\u201d and \u201cIt\u2019s Time to Go.\u201d A similar lawsuit<\/a> Marasco filed against Swift and other named defendants was dismissed by the same judge last September. <\/p>\n Swift\u2019s lawyers called the lawsuit \u201cabsurd and legally baseless\u201d in their filings. \u201cFor instance, the concept of betrayal or the words \u2018fire\u2019 or \u2018love\u2019 cannot be owned by one person, as basic themes or words are not protectable by copyright law,\u201d reads the motion to dismiss submitted by attorneys James Douglas Baldridge and Katherine Wright Morrone, who also represented co-defendants Republic Records and Universal Music Group. <\/p>\n In her order granting Swift and her record label\u2019s motion, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon agreed, reiterating that \u201cthe allegedly infringed material \u2014 basic ideas, themes, metaphors, isolated words, and short phrases \u2014 is not protected expression and cannot be infringed.\u201d <\/p>\n Cannon mentioned these allegedly plagiarized words and phrases included \u201ctears,\u201d \u201crunning,\u201d \u201cfire,\u201d \u201crain,\u201d \u201csky,\u201d \u201clove,\u201d \u201cinvisible,\u201d \u201ccaged me,\u201d \u201cflesh and blood\u201d and \u201cit\u2019s time to go.\u201d <\/p>\n Even if they were protected expressions, \u201cthe works are not even substantially similar \u2014 a point Plaintiff effectively concedes by characterizing the alleged copying as \u2018paraphrase[s],\u2019 \u2018rephrase[s],\u2019 and copying with \u2018minor word substitutions,\u2019\u201d Cannon wrote. <\/p>\n