The Life of a Copyright
On August 23rd, 2021, stand-up comedian Caroline Timoney posted a TikTok video where she stated, “I fear I may have girl bossed a little too close to the sun.”[1] The video went viral and, to this day, it is her most viewed post on the platform, with upwards of seven and a half million views as of October 13, 2025, and over twenty-four thousand videos reposted using her audio.[2] Taylor Swift’s twelfth and most recent album, The Life of a Showgirl, was released on October 3rd, 2025, and includes a song titled “CANCELLED!” featuring the lyric “Did you girlboss too close to the sun?”[3] Fans were quick to make the connection between Timoney’s TikTok and Swift’s song lyric. On the day of Swift’s album release, Timoney made a TikTok that appears satirical, in which she calls herself “Taylor Swift’s Shakespeare” and says that, after this release, she sees herself as a co-writer.[4]
On January 30th of 2025, before the release of “CANCELLED!”, political commentator Candace Owens posted a TikTok captioned “Girl bosses flew too close to the Sun,” discussing Swift’s alleged involvement in an ongoing lawsuit between Blake Likely and Justin Baldoni.[5] Owens goes on to discuss her opinion on Taylor Swift and Joe Alwyn’s breakup, stating she “didn’t like the girlboss vibes” and “This story is going to be remembered as girl boss flew too close to the sun.”[6]Although Owens does not claim to have coined the phrase, a spokesperson for Owens told Entertainment Weekly that the song was a reference to Candace’s podcast episode.[7] Swift has not commented publicly to affirm or deny reference to Owens in her song “CANCELLED!”; however, she has stated that this album was written and recorded in 2024 during the European leg of her Eras Tour.[8]
In the past, Swift’s team has sought co-writer credits from artists who have admitted to drawing inspiration from her music. More specifically, after Olivia Rodrigo mentioned in an interview that she took inspiration from the bridge of Swift’s wildly popular song “Cruel Summer” while writing her song “Deja Vu”, Swift’s team reportedly asked for co-writer credits on behalf of Taylor Swift, Jack Antonoff, and St. Vincent.[9] The decision to add the “Cruel Summer” authors as co-writers is reported to have resulted in a multimillion-dollar loss of royalties for Rodrigo.[10] Because Swift has previously requested co-writer credits when her work has inspired others, it follows logically that she would wish to offer some form of consideration to individuals who inspire her work.
Copyright protects only the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves.[11] Copyright ownership is unique in that it does not require the originator to register the copyright in order to be the owner of the work.[12] Although Owens believes the song is a reference to her, she has not claimed to be the originator of the phrase and, therefore, is highly unlikely to pursue legal action regarding intellectual property rights. If Timoney took legal action, she might argue that Swift’s song “CANCELLED!” is a derivative work of Timoney’s TikTok sound because of the similarity between Timoney’s phrase “I fear I may have girl bossed too close to the sun” and Swift’s lyric “Did you girl boss too close to the sun.”[13] Whether this argument would be sufficient in a court of law to prove infringement is a more complicated inquiry.
For a work to qualify for copyright protections under U.S. law, it must be an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression.[14] For purposes of the originality requirement, an author is defined as “the beginner . . . or first mover of anything . . . creator, originator.”[15] Timoney claims to have authored the phrase “Girl bossed too close to the sun” at the time she posted her TikTok video in 2021.[16] Musical works and sound recordings are both tangible mediums of expression protectable under copyright law. Timoney’s TikTok video meets the fixation requirement because her phrase was ‘fixed’ in a sound recording, and musical works and sound recordings are both tangible mediums of expression protectable under copyright law.[17]
To bring a successful claim of copyright infringement, the plaintiff must establish two elements: their ownership of a valid copyright in a work and the defendant’s infringement of the copyright.[18] A derivative work is defined as a work based on one or more preexisting works, including a sound recording, in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.[19] The Copyright Act of 1976 includes compilations and derivative works within the subject matter of copyright.[20] To prove infringement of a derivative work, one must incorporate the protected work “in some concrete or permanent form,” although it need not be fixed to meet infringement.[21]
It is highly debatable that Timoney’s phrase is sufficient to meet the originality requirement. If this issue were litigated, Timoney would likely argue that federal courts have ruled that phrases in song lyrics are copyrightable under some circumstances.[22] Furthermore, Timoney would use the 9th Circuit’s decision in Hall v. Swift in support of her argument. In Hall v. Swift, the Ninth Circuit ruled that 3LW’s lyrics “Playas, they gonna play / And haters, they gonna hate” might be sufficient to meet originality in an infringement suit against Swift for her use of the lyrics “’Cause the players gonna play, play, play, play, play / And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate” in her song “Shake It Off.”[23] Conversely, under regulations promulgated by the U.S. Copyright Office, “[w]ords and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans” are included in the list of materials not subject to copyright.[24] Swift’s attorneys would likely argue that the phrase alone is not copyrightable, relying on the Copyright Office’s regulations, and therefore nothing protectable was infringed upon. All in all, if this issue were litigated, it is uncertain how the court would rule.
Annabel Haddock is a Second Year Law Student at Cardozo School of Law and a Staff Editor at the Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal. Annabel is interested in patent litigation, trademark, and copyright law. She is also the treasurer of the Intellectual Property Law Society.
_________________________________________________________________
[1]Caroline Timoney (@carol.ine3), TikTok (Aug. 23, 2021), https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8A9cFxq/. [https://perma.cc/CS6L-QH8U].
[2] Id.
[3] Taylor Swift, CANCELLED! (Republic Records 2025).
[4]Caroline Timoney (@carol.ine3), TikTok (Oct. 3, 2025), https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8A9vuKE/ [https://perma.cc/G7N8-MWKB].
[5] Candace Owens (@candaceoshow), TikTok (Jan. 30, 2025), https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8A9ErgK/ [https://perma.cc/U43S-96E7].
[6] Id.
[7] Emlyn Travis, Candace Owens thinks Taylor Swift is quoting her on her new song ‘Cancelled!’: ‘I love it’ (exclusive), Entertainment Weekly (October 3, 2025 7:05 PM), https://ew.com/candace-owens-thinks-taylor-swift-cancelled-lyrics-quote-her-life-of-a-showgirl-11824182?_gl=1*rp8gfa*_ga*MjQwOTM3NTExLjE3NjA1NTUzNjI.*_ga_DK3GDWHWJH*czE3NjA1NzUwNjckbzQkZzEkdDE3NjA1NzU3MjEkajMyJGwwJGgw. [https://perma.cc/4D2M-NUZZ].
[8] New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce, Taylor Swift on Reclaiming Her Masters, Wrapping the Eras Tour, and The Life of a Showgirl, Spotify, (Aug. 12, 2025), https://open.spotify.com/episode/0bTQAikJGr83iNztYJlajW?si=v2ORrvg9SjmtU40A2_6Iuw. Given that Owens’ video and podcast referencing Swift were not created or published until 2025, it is doubtful the song is alluding to her.
[9] The Editors, A Full Timeline of Taylor Swift and Olivia Rodrigo’s Friendship, Cosmopolitan, (Oct. 7, 2025), https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a45101702/olivia-rodrigo-taylor-swift-drama-explained/.
[10] Kristin Robinson, Split Decisions: Olivia Rodrigo has given up Millions in Publishing Royalties, Billboard (Sept. 1, 2021), https://www.billboard.com/pro/olivia-rodrigo-royalties-song-credits-sour/.
[11] Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879), ATC Distribution Group, Inc. v. Whatever It Takes Transmissions & Parts, Inc., 402 F.3d 700 (6th Cir. 2005).
[12] Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109.
[13] Timoney, supra note 1; Swift, CANCELLED! (Republic Records 2025).
[14] 17 U.S.C. §102.
[15] Remick Music Corp. v. Interstate Hotel Corp. of Neb., 58 F. Supp. 523 (D. Neb. 1944), aff’d, 157 F.2d 744 (8th Cir. 1946).
[16] Timoney, supra note 1. See also, A work is considered ‘fixed’ when its embodiment is “sufficiently stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.” 17 U.S.C. § 101.
[17] 17 U.S.C. § 102(a).
[18] Feist Pub’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
[19] 17 U.S.C. § 101.
[20] 17 U.S.C. § 103(b).
[21] Lewis Galoob Toys v. Nintendo of America, 964 F.2d 965 (9th Cir. 1992).
[22] Jeanne C. Fromer & Chrisopher Jon Sprigman, Copyright Law Cases and Materials, 44 (7th Ed. 2025).
[23] Hall v. Swift, 786 Fed. Approx. 711 (9th Cir. 2019).
[24] 37 C.F.R. § 202.1.
