In a landmark ruling, South Korea’s Supreme Court today dismissed allegations that the globally viral children’s song “Baby Shark” plagiarised an earlier version by American composer Jonathan Wright, concluding a six-year legal battle. The court affirmed that Wright’s adaptation of the traditional folk melody lacked sufficient originality to qualify for copyright protection, thereby clearing Pinkfong, the South Korean entertainment company behind the hit, of infringement claims.
The legal dispute originated in 2019 when Wright, who performs under the name Johnny Only, sued Pinkfong for 30 million won (approximately $21,600) in damages. He contended that the company’s 2016 version of “Baby Shark” copied key elements of his 2011 recording, which he marketed as a “non-dismemberment version” to remove violent themes from earlier folk adaptations. Both compositions trace their roots to a campfire tune popular in American summer camps since the 1970s, believed to have been inspired by the blockbuster film “Jaws.”
Central to the court’s decision was the assessment of originality. The Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings that Wright’s interpretation did not demonstrate “substantial alteration” from the traditional melody to constitute a distinct, copyrightable work. Under South Korean copyright law, arrangements of public domain material require significant creative modification to earn protection. The justices determined that Wright’s changes—primarily tempo adjustments and child-friendly lyrics—remained within the bounds of conventional folk song adaptations.
Pinkfong’s “Baby Shark” achieved unprecedented global success following its YouTube debut in 2016. Its accompanying dance routine propelled it to become the platform’s most-viewed video, surpassing 10 billion views by 2021. The song spawned translations in over 100 languages, merchandise, live tours, and an animated series, evolving into a cultural phenomenon dubbed “K-pop for the next generation” by Pinkfong’s marketing team.
Wright’s legal strategy faced challenges from the outset. He initiated the suit after learning that Pinkfong had threatened legal action against a South Korean political party for using the song, reasoning this implied the company recognized copyright claims. However, courts consistently found that Pinkfong’s enforcement efforts targeted specific commercial misappropriation rather than asserting ownership over the underlying composition.
The ruling reinforces legal principles regarding derivative works based on folk traditions. By denying copyright protection to Wright’s version, the judgment affirms that minor modifications to public domain material cannot restrict others from creating their own interpretations. This precedent may influence future cases involving traditional songs or cultural heritage.
For Pinkfong, the decision removes a lingering legal cloud over its flagship intellectual property. The company can now continue expanding the “Baby Shark” franchise without infringement concerns. Meanwhile, Wright faces not only the dismissal of his claim but potential liability for legal costs. The case underscores the complexities of copyright in the digital age, where viral content often builds on pre-existing cultural foundations.