One of 2026’s most closely watched music-copyright disputes is between three Los Angeles-based songwriters, Steve Cooper, Jon Sandler, and Greylyn Johnson and the companies behind the global supergroup BTS, namely, HYBE, HYBE America, Big Hit music, Artist Publishing Group and credited songwriter. Former hit group, OneRepublic’s frontman, also a Grammy-winner, Ryan Tedder happens to be one of the writers. Notably, no BTS member is named as a defendant, even though RM holds a writing credit on the track. Notably, neither BTS nor any of its members is named as a defendant, although RM holds a writing credit on “SWIM”. The dispute raises an interesting and relatively unusual question under US copyright law: can a claim of infringement succeed where the allegedly copied work was an unreleased demo that circulated privately within the music industry.
The three songwriters filed a federal copyright infringement suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 8, 2026. The plaintiffs allege that they wrote and recorded their own version of “Swim” in early 2025 and circulated it to industry contacts, including Artist Publishing Group (APG), , in an attempt to secure a placement. Around the same time, BTS was reportedly developing material in Los Angeles for its comeback album – Arirang, which was also briefly mentioned in the Netflix documentary BTS: The Return. The album was released in March 2026 and debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard, while the lead single, “Swim” topped the Hot 100. HYBE has so far dismissed all the claims as one-sided and unproven, alleging that the song was created independently.
Most music-copyright disputes involve two works that can be compared directly. The “SWIM” dispute presents a different evidentiary challenge because the plaintiffs’ version was never commercially released. Under US copyright law, a plaintiff generally must establish ownership of a valid copyright and demonstrate that the defendant copied protected elements of the work. Where copying is not established through direct evidence, courts may consider circumstantial evidence, including whether the defendant had access to the allegedly infringed work and whether the two works are substantially similar in their protectable expression. The question is therefore not merely whether the two songs sound alike, but whether the similarities concern elements protected by copyright and whether the defendants had a reasonable opportunity to encounter the plaintiffs’ work before creating the allegedly infringing song.
Because the plaintiffs’ “Swim” never publicly released, access cannot be inferred from radio play, streaming or chart history. Instead, the plaintiffs need to trace a chain of custody, from their 2025 demo, through industry intermediaries such as APG, to the people who eventually wrote and produced the BTS version. If a court accepts that an intermediary passed the file to someone connected with the final song, the burden may shift onto the defendants to prove independent creation. To support their similarity argument, the plaintiffs hired musicologist Alexander Stewart, who compared the two tracks and found the overlapping title hook, harmony, texture, and rhythmic phrasing extensive enough to rule out independent creation. Stewart has been an expert witness in two of the biggest music-copyright trials of the last decade, the Ed Sheeran “Thinking Out Loud” case and the Led Zeppelin “Stairway to Heaven” dispute, and juries ruled against the plaintiffs in both. Expert musicological testimony could be useful but historically has not been sufficient on its own.
The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction, damages and a share of the profits, or, alternatively, recognition as co-writers with a corresponding share in the royalties and copyright ownership. The dispute also highlights the complexity of modern pop songwriting, where a single track may pass through multiple songwriters, topliners, producers, publishers, and other industry intermediaries across jurisdictions before its final release.
The significance of the “SWIM” litigation may ultimately extend beyond the songs themselves. If the plaintiffs can establish access to an unreleased demo through industry intermediaries and connect that access with substantial similarities in protectable expression, the case could provide useful guidance on the type of evidence that may be sufficient to establish access to an unpublished musical work. Conversely, if the claim fails for want of sufficient evidence of access or copying, it would underscore the evidentiary difficulties faced by creators whose unreleased works circulate privately within the music industry. Either outcome could have implications for how songwriters, publishers, and music companies document and protect the circulation of demos and other unpublished works.