The Core Allegations: Musical Similarities Under Scrutiny<\/h3>\n
The crux of the plaintiffs’ argument rests on the assertion that the first verse of "How Sweet" bears striking resemblances, both "quantitatively and qualitatively," to the first verse of their unselected demo, "One of a Kind." According to the legal complaint, the similarities extend beyond mere coincidence, delving into specific musical parameters. Both compositions, the lawsuit states, are in a 4\/4 meter and share the key of B flat minor. Furthermore, the plaintiffs allege that both works contain a "topline that includes an approximately eight-bar, 31-note melodic sequence consisting of four series." These technical details highlight a focused claim of direct musical appropriation rather than general stylistic influence.<\/p>\n
The process leading to the alleged infringement began in January 2024 when songwriter Audrey Armacost received an instrumental track from her publisher. She was invited to submit topline lyrics and melody for potential use by NewJeans. Armacost collaborated with the three other plaintiffs \u2013 Aidan Rodriguez, Adam Gokcebay, and Michael Campanelli \u2013 to develop and record "One of a Kind" over this instrumental. After submitting their demo to NewJeans’ representatives, the songwriters were informed that their track had not been selected. However, when "How Sweet" was released just four months later, the plaintiffs contend they immediately recognized elements of their original creation, leading them to pursue legal action. Their claim asserts that the defendants violated their intellectual property rights by failing to properly license the "One of a Kind" demo, despite incorporating its distinct features into a commercially successful song.<\/p>\n
A Detailed Chronology of the Dispute<\/h3>\n
The timeline of events is crucial in understanding the context of this lawsuit:<\/p>\n
- \n
- January 2024:<\/strong> Audrey Armacost receives an instrumental track and an invitation to submit a topline for NewJeans.<\/li>\n
- Early 2024 (Specific date not disclosed, but shortly after January):<\/strong> Armacost, along with Aidan Rodriguez, Adam Gokcebay, and Michael Campanelli, collaboratively write and record their demo, "One of a Kind," over the provided instrumental.<\/li>\n
- February-March 2024 (Estimated):<\/strong> The "One of a Kind" demo is submitted to NewJeans’ management. Subsequently, the songwriters are informed that their demo was not chosen.<\/li>\n
- May 2024:<\/strong> NewJeans officially releases their EP, How Sweet<\/em>, featuring the title track "How Sweet." The song rapidly gains global traction, charting significantly.<\/li>\n
- Thursday, May 7, 2025:<\/strong> The copyright infringement lawsuit is formally filed in the U.S. by Armacost, Rodriguez, Gokcebay, and Campanelli against ADOR, HYBE, and the NewJeans members.<\/li>\n
- Friday, May 8, 2025:<\/strong> Trevor Barrett, the attorney representing the four songwriters, issues a public statement to Billboard<\/em>, affirming his clients’ belief in the "blatant copying" of their work and their intent to seek vindication of their rights through the lawsuit.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
This chronology highlights a clear sequence from demo submission and rejection to the subsequent release of a highly similar, commercially successful track, forming the basis of the plaintiffs’ allegations of unauthorized use.<\/p>\n
![\"NewJeans](\"https:\/\/www.billboard.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/2064626447-e1778268851307.jpg?w=1024\")
<\/figure>\nThe Commercial Impact and Stakes of "How Sweet"<\/h3>\n
The commercial success of "How Sweet" is a central element in the plaintiffs’ claim for damages and a share of royalties. Upon its release, the song quickly resonated with global audiences, driven by NewJeans’ burgeoning international popularity. Its peak at No. 15 on the Billboard Global 200, which tracks the top songs based on streaming and sales activity from more than 200 territories worldwide, and its even higher placement at No. 7 on the Billboard Global Excl. U.S. chart, underscore its significant reach outside of the United States. Such chart performance translates into substantial revenue from streaming, digital sales, and potential licensing opportunities, making the royalty claims financially significant.<\/p>\n
The lawsuit explicitly references the "great commercial success" of "How Sweet" to emphasize the financial implications of the alleged infringement. For a hit song, royalties are distributed among various rights holders, including songwriters, composers, publishers, and performing artists. If the plaintiffs’ claims are validated, they would be entitled to a "pro rata share of the profits that defendants have each gained from the exploitation of ‘How Sweet’," as stated in the complaint. This could amount to millions of dollars, given the song’s global impact and NewJeans’ status as one of K-pop’s most prominent groups.<\/p>\n
Background Context: NewJeans’ Recent Internal Strife<\/h3>\n
This new copyright infringement lawsuit emerges at a particularly sensitive juncture for NewJeans and their management, as the group has been embroiled in its own complex internal legal battles. Formed in 2022 by ADOR, a subsidiary of entertainment giant HYBE, NewJeans rapidly rose to global prominence with their unique sound and aesthetic. However, 2024 saw significant turmoil within their camp.<\/p>\n
In a dramatic turn of events, all five original NewJeans members \u2013 Minji, Hanni, Haerin, Hyein, and Danielle \u2013 initiated efforts to sever their exclusive contracts with ADOR in 2024. Their intention was reportedly to become independent and operate under a new moniker, NJZ. This move was closely tied to the controversial firing of their mentor and ADOR CEO, Min Hee-jin, who had been instrumental in the group’s formation and artistic direction. The members’ attempt to depart led to a protracted legal dispute between the artists and their label.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, ADOR prevailed in the legal proceedings. A South Korean court ruled in October 2024 that the NewJeans members must honor their exclusive contracts, which are set to run until 2029. Following this ruling, three of the members\u2014Hanni, Haerin, and Hyein\u2014decided to return to ADOR and resume their activities with the label. However, the group’s future configuration remained uncertain. In December 2024, ADOR announced that Danielle would no longer be part of NewJeans, alleging that a member of her family bore "significant responsibility for causing this dispute." As of early May 2025, Minji’s potential return to the group was still under negotiation, with The Korea Herald<\/em> reporting that discussions were moving in a "positive direction."<\/p>\n
This backdrop of internal discord, contract disputes, and a changing lineup adds a layer of complexity to the new copyright lawsuit. It raises questions about how the various parties involved, already strained by previous legal battles, will manage this fresh challenge. The lawsuit could further complicate ongoing negotiations and potentially impact the group’s stability and public perception during a critical period of reorganization.<\/p>\n
Official Responses and Broader Industry Implications<\/h3>\n
Following the filing of the lawsuit, Trevor Barrett, the lawyer representing the four plaintiffs, issued a concise but firm statement on Friday, May 8, 2025, to Billboard<\/em>. He asserted, "Adam, Aidan, Audrey and Michael are accomplished songwriters who were deeply disappointed to discover this blatant copying of their original song, \u2018One of a Kind,\u2019 in New Jeans\u2019 \u2018How Sweet.\u2019 They look forward to having their rights acknowledged and vindicated via this lawsuit.\u201d This statement underscores the plaintiffs’ conviction in their claims and their determination to seek legal recourse.<\/p>\n
![\"NewJeans](\"https:\/\/www.billboard.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/newjeans-billboard-women-in-music-2024-billboard-1800_1c1773.jpg?w=237&h=147&crop=1\")
<\/figure>\nIn contrast, representatives from HYBE, the parent company of ADOR, had not immediately returned requests for comment on the claims at the time of publication. This is a common response in the early stages of high-profile litigation, as companies often adopt a cautious approach and refrain from public statements until they have fully assessed the legal situation and formulated a strategy.<\/p>\n
The implications of this lawsuit extend far beyond the immediate parties, sending ripples through the global music industry, particularly K-pop. As K-pop continues its meteoric rise and expands its global footprint, it increasingly operates under the scrutiny of international copyright laws. This case highlights several critical areas:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Growing Scrutiny:<\/strong> The increasing global reach of K-pop means that artists and labels are more exposed to legal challenges under various jurisdictions, particularly in major music markets like the U.S.<\/li>\n
- Songwriting Camps and Demo Submissions:<\/strong> The industry frequently utilizes songwriting camps and open calls for demo submissions to cultivate new tracks. This lawsuit underscores the crucial need for transparent processes, clear contractual agreements, and robust tracking mechanisms for all submitted material to prevent future disputes.<\/li>\n
- Balance Between Inspiration and Infringement:<\/strong> The line between musical inspiration and outright infringement is often debated in copyright law. Cases like this test the boundaries and could lead to more stringent industry standards for clearing musical elements.<\/li>\n
- Financial Stakes:<\/strong> The immense commercial success of K-pop tracks means that the financial stakes in copyright disputes are incredibly high, motivating plaintiffs to pursue litigation and labels to defend their intellectual property vigorously.<\/li>\n
- Precedent Setting:<\/strong> The outcome of this case could set important precedents for how K-pop entities handle songwriting credits, demo submissions, and intellectual property rights in the international arena, potentially influencing future practices across the industry.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The Legal Framework: Proving Copyright Infringement<\/h3>\n
In copyright infringement cases involving music, plaintiffs typically need to demonstrate two key elements: ownership of a valid copyright and unauthorized copying by the defendant. Proving unauthorized copying often involves showing:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Access:<\/strong> That the defendant had access to the plaintiff’s copyrighted work. In this case, the plaintiffs assert that their demo "One of a Kind" was explicitly submitted to NewJeans’ representatives, establishing a clear line of access.<\/li>\n
- Substantial Similarity:<\/strong> That there is a "substantial similarity" between the copyrighted work and the allegedly infringing work. This is usually assessed through two tests:\n
- \n
- Extrinsic Test:<\/strong> An objective comparison of specific musical elements (e.g., rhythm, harmony, melody, structure, lyrics) that can be analyzed by expert musicologists. The lawsuit’s detailed claims regarding meter, key, and melodic sequences directly address this test.<\/li>\n
- Intrinsic Test:<\/strong> A subjective assessment of whether an "ordinary observer" would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work. This evaluates the overall feel and concept.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
The plaintiffs’ legal complaint, with its detailed comparison of musical elements, is strategically crafted to meet these legal standards. Expert musicologists are often called upon in such cases to provide detailed analyses, breaking down chord progressions, melodic contours, rhythmic patterns, and lyrical content to support or refute claims of substantial similarity. The burden of proof lies with Armacost, Rodriguez, Gokcebay, and Campanelli to convincingly demonstrate that "How Sweet" is not just similar, but substantially copied from "One of a Kind" without proper authorization or compensation.<\/p>\n
The Future of NewJeans and ADOR Amidst Legal Battles<\/h3>\n
The new copyright lawsuit compounds the challenges already facing NewJeans and ADOR. For the group, which has been navigating a period of significant internal change and uncertainty regarding its lineup, this external legal battle could be a major distraction. It might impact their ability to focus on new music production, promotional activities, and maintaining their public image, which is crucial in the highly competitive K-pop industry. The departure of Danielle and the ongoing negotiations with Minji already mean that the group’s future configuration and artistic direction are in flux. Adding a high-profile copyright lawsuit could further strain resources and attention.<\/p>\n
For ADOR and HYBE, the lawsuit represents a financial and reputational risk. Beyond potential monetary damages, a finding of copyright infringement could tarnish the image of both the label and the artists, raising questions about ethical practices in songwriting and production. It could also lead to more stringent internal review processes for all demo submissions and songwriting credits, potentially slowing down creative pipelines. The case will undoubtedly be closely watched by legal professionals and music industry stakeholders globally, as it underscores the increasing complexity of intellectual property rights in an interconnected music market.<\/p>\n
In conclusion, the copyright infringement lawsuit against NewJeans, ADOR, and HYBE over "How Sweet" marks a significant development in the K-pop landscape. It not only highlights the financial and creative stakes involved in global hit songs but also places renewed emphasis on the ethical and legal responsibilities within the music creation process. As the legal proceedings unfold, the outcome will undoubtedly have lasting implications for the involved parties and the broader international music industry, particularly concerning the increasingly globalized nature of K-pop and its production practices.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A significant legal challenge has emerged for K-pop sensation NewJeans and their management, ADOR, alongside its parent company HYBE, as four songwriters have filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":8842,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[555],"tags":[5295,6253,54,1953,6256,1373,56,576,55,3086,880,4935,6254,5771,57,2374,6255],"class_list":["post-8843","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-music-industry-business-finance","tag-ador","tag-allege","tag-business","tag-copyright","tag-demo","tag-face","tag-finance","tag-hybe","tag-industry","tag-infringement","tag-lawsuit","tag-newjeans","tag-plagiarism","tag-songwriters","tag-streaming","tag-sweet","tag-unselected"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/empire-music.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8843","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/empire-music.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/empire-music.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/empire-music.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/empire-music.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8843"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/empire-music.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8843\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/empire-music.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8842"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/empire-music.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8843"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/empire-music.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8843"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/empire-music.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8843"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
- Intrinsic Test:<\/strong> A subjective assessment of whether an "ordinary observer" would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work. This evaluates the overall feel and concept.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
- Substantial Similarity:<\/strong> That there is a "substantial similarity" between the copyrighted work and the allegedly infringing work. This is usually assessed through two tests:\n
- Songwriting Camps and Demo Submissions:<\/strong> The industry frequently utilizes songwriting camps and open calls for demo submissions to cultivate new tracks. This lawsuit underscores the crucial need for transparent processes, clear contractual agreements, and robust tracking mechanisms for all submitted material to prevent future disputes.<\/li>\n
- Early 2024 (Specific date not disclosed, but shortly after January):<\/strong> Armacost, along with Aidan Rodriguez, Adam Gokcebay, and Michael Campanelli, collaboratively write and record their demo, "One of a Kind," over the provided instrumental.<\/li>\n