What The Copyright Lawsuit Over BTS’s “Swim” Teaches Us About Music Publishing Risk

When a chart-topping global hit shares a title and core sonic elements with an unreleased demo, the music industry tends to take notice. But when that global hit belongs to K-pop powerhouse BTS, the resulting legal battle becomes an instant case study in copyright infringement, digital paper trails, and supply-chain liability in the creative arts.

What exactly happened?

In July 2026, American songwriters Steve Cooper, Jon Sandler, and Greylyn Johnson filed a high-profile federal copyright infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit targets K-pop giant HYBE, Big Hit Music, HYBE America, and prominent co-writers including OneRepublic lead singer Ryan Tedder and songwriter Derrick Milano. It alleges that BTS’s hit single “Swim” substantially copied an unreleased 2025 demo of the exact same name.

Unsurprisingly, HYBE and Big Hit Music have firmly rejected the claims as “unilateral and unsubstantiated.” However, the case highlights one of the most critical legal hurdles in modern music litigation: proving access in the age of digital music sharing.

The Anatomy of the Claim: Unsent Demos and Digital Footprints

The dispute centers on a demo titled “Swim” that the plaintiffs recorded in early 2025. According to the complaint, the three songwriters circulated their unreleased track to various industry contacts, including executives at Artist Publishing Group (APG), through the digital music-sharing platform Disco.ac.

The plaintiffs argue that representatives at APG listened to the track and shared it internally with other songwriters and producers, including writers who ultimately contributed to BTS’s version of “Swim” for their comeback album, Arirang. To support their claim, the plaintiffs attached digital analytics logs from the music platform showing that industry executives had accessed and played the demo file.

In addition to demonstrating a potential chain of access, the plaintiffs commissioned an expert musicologist, who concluded that the two tracks shared substantial, non-coincident similarities across their signature title hooks, harmonic structures, rhythms, and lyrics.

Notably, while BTS leader RM and producer Pdogg are credited co-writers on the final track, the plaintiffs intentionally excluded the individual band members from the lawsuit, targeting instead the corporate publishers, management entities, and Western co-writers involved in assembling the track.

Access vs. Independent Creation

Under U.S. copyright law, a plaintiff asserting copyright infringement for a musical work must prove two foundational elements:

1. Ownership of a valid copyright.
2. Unauthorized copying by the defendants of constituent elements of the original work.

Because direct evidence of copying (such as a confession) is exceedingly rare, courts typically evaluate copying through a two-pronged test: showing that the defendant had access to the original work, and that the two works are substantially similar.

The Access Requirement and the “Digital Paper Trail”

Historically, proving access required showing a plausible chain of transmission, such as proving a physical CD was handed directly to a producer. However, platforms like Disco, Box, and Dropbox have transformed copyright litigation by generating precise digital receipts.

In this case, the plaintiffs are not merely asserting that their song was “out there.” They are using platform access logs to construct a clear legal bridge from their private demo to named defendants. 

If a court finds that intermediate publishers or A&R representatives accessed the file and worked directly with the final credited songwriters, the burden shifts heavily toward the defendants to prove independent creation.

The Defense of Independent Creation

Big Hit Music and HYBE maintain that “Swim” is a completely independent, original creation. Under copyright law, even if two works sound remarkably similar, there is no infringement if the defendants can prove they composed their track independently without referencing or relying on the plaintiffs’ work.

Proving independent creation typically requires defendants to produce time-stamped project files, early voice memos, or session stems that document the step-by-step evolution of the song before any alleged access occurred.

Key IP Lessons for Creators, Publishers, and Agencies

The dispute surrounding BTS’s “Swim” provides vital takeaways for businesses navigating creative content, publishing, and collaborative licensing:

Digital Analytics Are Double-Edged Swords. Digital sharing tools make pitching creative content faster than ever, but they also create permanent legal evidence. Music publishers, production houses, and creative agencies must understand that tracking logs showing an employee listening to an unsolicited pitch can be used to establish access in future litigation.

Unsolicited Submission Policies Are Critical. To protect against “chain-of-access” lawsuits, entertainment and media companies should maintain strict internal protocols regarding unsolicited pitches. Creative teams working on active projects should ideally be wall-offed from A&R or corporate staff who review incoming, unsolicited demo submissions.

Audit Your Co-Writing and Licensing Supply Chains. When multi-million-dollar commercial projects involve dozens of international collaborators, the risk of an uncleared melody or unauthorized demo incorporation multiplies. Publishing contracts must include robust indemnification clauses, warranties of original authorship, and thorough vetting of all contributed stems and hooks.

As the lawsuit moves through the federal court system, it serves as a stark reminder to the global entertainment industry: in a hyper-connected digital marketplace, managing creative pipelines and maintaining clean paper trails is just as important as writing the next chart-topping hit.