In a surprising turn of events, the music industry is abuzz with a lawsuit filed by three Los Angeles songwriters against HYBE and the writers behind BTS's chart-topping single 'SWIM'. The lawsuit alleges that 'SWIM' copied a demo the songwriters had written in early 2025, sparking a heated debate about the fine line between inspiration and plagiarism in the creative process.
Steve Cooper, Jon Sandler, and Greylyn Johnson, the plaintiffs, claim that 'SWIM' reproduces their composition of the same name, which they recorded as a demo in March 2025. The demo was sent to industry contacts, including the publishing company Artist Publishing Group (APG), who shared it with others, including Derrick Milano, a songwriter signed to APG and a credited co-writer of 'SWIM'.
The plaintiffs' attention to detail is remarkable. They sent the demo to Noreen Prunier-Winans, the head of A&R and publishing at ATG Group, who then shared it with other songwriters and producers. This meticulous approach to sharing and tracking the demo's journey is a testament to the plaintiffs' dedication to protecting their work.
The lawsuit highlights a complex web of connections between the industry players. APG representatives listened to the demo and shared it with Milano, who is credited as a co-writer of 'SWIM'. This chain of events raises questions about the transparency and ethical practices within the music industry.
The plaintiffs' decision to engage a musicologist, Alexander Stewart, to compare the two songs is a significant step in their legal strategy. Stewart's preliminary report reveals striking similarities between the plaintiffs' song and 'SWIM', including the signature phrase, unusual harmonies, and rhythmic and lyrical elements. His conclusion that 'SWIM' would not exist without the influence of the plaintiffs' work is a powerful statement.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction against further use of 'SWIM', along with damages and a share of the profits. The plaintiffs also ask to be credited as co-writers and awarded a significant portion of the profits generated by the song. This demand underscores the severity of their allegations and the potential impact on the music industry.
This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of originality and the consequences of intellectual property infringement. It raises deeper questions about the creative process, the role of industry players, and the need for transparency and ethical practices. As the lawsuit unfolds, the music industry awaits the outcome with bated breath, hoping for a fair resolution that respects the rights of artists and the integrity of the creative process.
