One of the world’s longest-running copyright disputes and fights of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) over a children’s tune has finally reached its conclusion. South Korea’s Supreme Court, on August 14, 2025, handed down its final decision in the six-year legal struggle surrounding the global phenomenon “Baby Shark,” concluding the conflict between Jonathan Wright (Johnny Only) and Pinkfong (South Korea’s brand). Giving the final judgement, which is, Pinkfong’s song is different enough from Wright’s to avoid infringement. To understand the reasons behind this judgment, keep reading.
Who Owns Baby Shark? Background of the Copyright Dispute Between Wright and Pinkfong
This case started in 2011, when American musician Jonathan Wright posted his version of the song “Baby Shark” on YouTube. His video showed kids singing with hand motions and included the famous “doo doo doo”. A few years later, in 2015–2016, the Korean company Pinkfong released its own bright and fast-paced animated version of the song. Wright was unhappy about this, feeling that Pinkfong copied too much from his work without giving him credit. In 2019, he filed a lawsuit in Seoul, asking for recognition. The main issue was whether Wright’s 2011 video could be protected by copyright laws, since the Baby Shark tune itself is an old children’s song in the public domain, while Pinkfong’s success came from their unique style, animation, and branding. Anyway, Wright claimed his version had been imitated and, in 2019, took the case to a Seoul court, seeking compensation of 30 million won (roughly $21,600).
Final Ruling: Pinkfong Wins Six-Year Baby Shark Copyright Battle in Korea
The case formally started in 2019. After years of appeals, the Supreme Court sided with Pinkfong. The Supreme Court found that Jonathan Wright’s 2011 version of Baby Shark did not contain enough originality to be protected. The judges emphasized that the melody traces back to a long-standing folk chant from U.S. summer camps and playgrounds, which is firmly in the public domain. Because Wright’s arrangement closely resembled the traditional tune and offered no substantial transformation, it could not qualify as a protected secondary work, even though he released his version years before Pinkfong.
By contrast, the court concluded that Pinkfong’s production stood apart, noting its distinctive rhythm, visuals, choreography, and branding. These creative additions turned a simple chant into a unique cultural product, making the Korean version “different enough” to be treated as an independent work. Legal experts highlighted that the case reinforces a key principle: originality, not priority, decides copyright, and Pinkfong’s reinterpretation cleared that bar while Wright’s did not.
Read Also: Delhi HC Hears Parle Agro vs PepsiCo Trademark Dispute on Use of ‘Fizz’ in 7Up Packaging
What Was Pinkfong’s Response to Winning the Baby Shark Copyright Case?
Pinkfong celebrated the outcome; this final judgment proved that Baby Shark is a fresh cultural creation rather than an imitation. The company emphasized how its “Baby Shark Dance” had grown beyond a song into a worldwide brand, spawning animated shows, toys, concerts, and even a movie.
Jonathan Wright’s representatives expressed regret over the judgment but acknowledged it as the definitive conclusion. Wright had hoped the court would validate his 2011 version as original, yet he has resolved to keep producing music and managing his catalog on his own terms.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision ends the six-year dispute, confirming Pinkfong’s Baby Shark as a distinct creation while Jonathan Wright’s claim falls short. The ruling secures Pinkfong’s place behind the global hit and reaffirms that only true originality earns protection in copyright law. This case is an excellent example of IP protection and understanding of IP laws.