The Murky Waters of Musical Inspiration: BTS, Copyright, and the 'SWIM' Saga
The music industry is no stranger to controversy, but the recent lawsuit against HYBE and the writers of BTS’s hit single SWIM has sparked a particularly intriguing debate. Three Los Angeles songwriters—Steve Cooper, Jon Sandler, and Greylyn Johnson—claim that SWIM is a carbon copy of a demo they wrote and shared with industry contacts in early 2025. Personally, I think this case goes beyond a simple copyright dispute; it’s a reflection of the complex dynamics of creativity, ownership, and influence in the modern music landscape.
The Allegations: More Than Just a Coincidence?
What makes this particularly fascinating is the level of detail in the plaintiffs’ claims. They allege that their demo, completed in March 2025, was shared with Artist Publishing Group (APG), whose representatives then passed it along to Derrick Milano, a co-writer of SWIM. A musicologist, Alexander Stewart, even concluded that the similarities between the two songs are “unequivocal,” citing identical hooks, harmonies, and rhythmic elements. From my perspective, this isn’t just about a few shared notes—it’s about the systemic way ideas circulate in the industry.
One thing that immediately stands out is the timing. BTS worked on their Arirang album in Los Angeles in 2025, the same year the plaintiffs’ demo was making the rounds. If you take a step back and think about it, the music industry is a small world where demos often change hands multiple times before landing in the right studio. What many people don’t realize is that this blurs the line between inspiration and theft, especially when artists and producers are under pressure to deliver hits.
The Broader Implications: A Pattern Emerging?
This isn’t HYBE’s first rodeo with copyright claims. In May, four songwriters sued the company over NewJeans’ How Sweet, alleging their rejected demo was repurposed. Then, just a day before the SWIM lawsuit, another publisher filed a complaint over NewJeans’ ETA. In my opinion, this pattern suggests a deeper issue within HYBE’s creative process—or perhaps the industry at large. Are these isolated incidents, or is there a systemic problem with how demos are handled?
What this really suggests is that the music industry’s current model for sharing and developing ideas may be broken. Demos are often passed around like currency, with little accountability for how they’re used. A detail that I find especially interesting is that the plaintiffs tried to resolve the issue privately before filing the lawsuit. The fact that HYBE didn’t respond or reach a resolution raises questions about their willingness to address these claims transparently.
The Human Side: Creativity vs. Commerce
At the heart of this controversy are the songwriters—the unsung heroes of the music industry. For Cooper, Sandler, and Johnson, this isn’t just about money; it’s about recognition and the integrity of their work. Personally, I think this case highlights the power imbalance between established artists and lesser-known creators. When a BTS track hits No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100, the spotlight is on the group, not the writers behind the scenes.
This raises a deeper question: How do we ensure that creativity is rewarded fairly in an industry driven by profit? From my perspective, the current copyright system is ill-equipped to handle the nuances of musical influence. While Stewart’s analysis is compelling, the court will have to decide whether SWIM is a case of copying or coincidence. What many people don’t realize is that even if the plaintiffs win, the damage to their careers may already be done.
Looking Ahead: What’s Next for HYBE and BTS?
The lawsuit is still in its early stages, but its implications are far-reaching. If the plaintiffs succeed, it could set a precedent for how demos are handled in the industry. In my opinion, HYBE needs to address these claims head-on, not just for legal reasons but to maintain its reputation as a leader in the global music scene.
One thing is certain: this case will keep music fans and industry insiders alike on the edge of their seats. What makes this particularly fascinating is how it intersects with BTS’s legacy. As one of the most influential groups of their generation, any controversy involving them is bound to spark debate. If you take a step back and think about it, this lawsuit isn’t just about SWIM—it’s about the future of music itself.
Final Thoughts: The Thin Line Between Inspiration and Theft
As someone who’s followed the music industry for years, I’ve seen my fair share of copyright disputes. But this one feels different. It’s not just about the legalities; it’s about the ethics of creativity. Personally, I think the SWIM saga is a wake-up call for the industry to reevaluate how it treats the people who make the magic happen behind the scenes.
In the end, this case leaves us with more questions than answers. Are we doing enough to protect songwriters’ rights? How can we ensure that inspiration doesn’t cross into exploitation? And most importantly, what does this mean for the future of music? One thing is clear: the waters of musical inspiration have never been murkier—and it’s time we started navigating them with more care.
