After a protracted six-year legal battle spanning continents and captivating the attention of parents, children, and copyright experts alike, South Korea’s Supreme Court has delivered its final word on the viral children’s song “Baby Shark.” On August 14, 2025, the court dismissed a 30 million won (about $21,600 or €18,454) copyright claim brought by American composer Jonathan Wright, who had alleged that Pinkfong’s 2015 rendition of the song plagiarized his own 2011 version. The ruling marks the end of a saga that pitted the infectious “doo doo doo doo doo doo” hook against the boundaries of copyright law and the traditions of folk music.
At the heart of the case was a question that has long vexed musicians and legal scholars: when does a reimagined folk tune become an original work worthy of copyright protection? According to The Korea Herald and the Associated Press, the court sided with Pinkfong, the South Korean education startup now known as The Pinkfong Company, stating that Wright’s version—while perhaps novel in its approach—had not introduced substantial enough changes to the well-known children’s chant to merit copyright protection.
“In the case of a new song based on a pre-existing one, one needs to add sufficient revision for it to be socially accepted as a new work, in order for it to be protected as a copyrighted material,” the court stated, as reported by The Korea Herald. “Minor changes added to the original material cannot be considered an original creative work, and thus cannot be protected by the copyright law.” The decision reaffirmed earlier rulings from 2021 and 2023, consistently finding that Wright’s rendition, which had circulated in American summer camps for decades as a singalong, was not original enough to stand alone under copyright law.
Wright, also known as Johnny Only, first uploaded his version of “Baby Shark” to YouTube in 2011, featuring himself and children performing hand gestures that mimicked a shark’s mouth. His version, like Pinkfong’s, drew from a melody that has been a staple at children’s summer camps in the United States since at least the 1970s. Some accounts even trace the song’s roots to the era of “Jaws,” with various versions cropping up in Europe—including the French “Bébé Requin” and the German “Kleiner Hai”—well before either Wright or Pinkfong popularized it online.
Despite the common heritage, Wright maintained that his specific approach was unique. In a 2019 interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), he explained, “I deliberately rewrote the ‘Baby Shark’ chant to make it more suitable for young children, removing gory references to a shark-attack in versions that are popular in summer camps and online forums. Basically, Pinkfong’s version does the same thing.” Yet, the courts found that such changes, while thoughtful, did not rise to the level of creative originality required for copyright protection.
Pinkfong’s defense rested on the assertion that their “Baby Shark” was a “traditional singalong chant that has entered the public domain.” In a statement to the Associated Press, the company said it had given the tune “a fresh twist by adding an upbeat rhythm and catchy melody, turning it into the pop culture icon it is today.” The Supreme Court agreed, noting that “the plaintiff’s song did not involve substantial modifications to the folk tune related to the case to the extent that it could be regarded, by common social standards, as a separate work.”
The dispute intensified in 2019 when Wright decided to pursue legal action after learning Pinkfong had threatened legal proceedings against a South Korean political party for using “Baby Shark” in a campaign. “The wheels in my head start turning … Doesn’t that mean that my version also has copyright protection?” Wright recalled to CBC. He sought 30 million won in damages, but the courts in 2021 and 2023, and now the Supreme Court, all held firm in their view that neither his nor Pinkfong’s versions were sufficiently distinct from the original folk melody to warrant exclusive rights.
Pinkfong’s “Baby Shark” has become a global sensation since its release, racking up more than 16 billion views on YouTube and holding the title of the most-viewed video on the platform—far outpacing chart-toppers like “Despacito” by Luis Fonsi and Daddy Yankee. The video, which features vocals by then 10-year-old Korean-American singer Hope Segoine and child actors Park Geon Roung and Elaine Kim Johnston, spawned a worldwide dance craze, the #BabySharkChallenge, inspiring more than 700,000 cover videos across the globe.
The song’s reach extends far beyond YouTube. Pinkfong has leveraged its popularity into an expansive franchise, with the five-member shark family—Baby Shark, Mama Shark, Papa Shark, Grandma Shark, and Grandpa Shark—appearing in TV and Netflix shows, films, smartphone apps, and touring musicals. The company’s revenue in the first half of 2025 alone reached approximately 45.1 billion won (about $32.6 million), according to regulatory filings cited by The Guardian and Reuters. The tune has even found its way into Hollywood, with appearances in “The Angry Birds Movie 2” and the TV series “The Umbrella Academy.”
For Wright, the outcome was bittersweet. His South Korean attorney, Chong Kyong Sok, told reporters, “It’s a little disappointing. Anyway, the matter is now settled. It’s our work that came out first, so we can handle the licensing on our side and I guess we then each go our separate ways.” Despite the loss, Wright’s efforts have shone a light on the complexities of copyright law in the age of viral content and the enduring power of folk music traditions.
Legal experts say the ruling has broader implications for artists and creators who draw inspiration from public domain works. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores a longstanding legal principle: folk tunes and oral traditions, passed down through generations, belong to everyone unless a new version demonstrates substantial creative modification. As Pinkfong’s “Baby Shark” continues to echo in playgrounds, living rooms, and digital screens worldwide, the case serves as a reminder that the most infectious tunes often have the humblest of origins—and that, sometimes, the law sides with the chorus of the crowd over a single voice.