The musicologist enlisted by the plaintiffs in the copyright lawsuit against BTS’ new song “SWIM” has come under renewed scrutiny after it emerged that he previously testified in several landmark plagiarism cases that were ultimately rejected by U.S. courts.
According to the music industry on July 15, three American songwriters recently filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States, alleging that BTS’ “SWIM” copied elements from one of their demo tracks.
To support their claim, the plaintiffs submitted an expert opinion prepared by Professor Alexander Stewart, a musicologist at the University of Vermont. However, Stewart has previously appeared as an expert witness in two of the music industry’s most closely watched copyright disputes, where courts ultimately dismissed the arguments supported by his testimony.
Among the most notable cases were the copyright lawsuit involving legendary British rock band Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven” and the plagiarism case surrounding Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud.”
The Led Zeppelin dispute, brought by the American band Spirit, centered on allegations that the iconic opening guitar riff of “Stairway to Heaven” copied material from one of Spirit’s songs. The lawsuit attracted worldwide attention because it challenged one of rock music’s most recognizable compositions more than four decades after its release.
During the trial, Stewart testified on behalf of the plaintiffs, arguing that 80% of the first 18 notes in the two songs matched and that both works shared an unusually similar descending bass-line harmonic structure. Despite those claims, the plaintiffs ultimately lost after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear their final appeal, leaving the lower court’s ruling in Led Zeppelin’s favor intact.
Stewart’s testimony also became the subject of controversy during the proceedings. Critics accused him of altering musical notation by changing note durations in his analysis to emphasize similarities between the songs. While the adjustments were presented as analytical tools, some figures in the music industry argued that the method artificially exaggerated the resemblance between the compositions.
A similar outcome followed in the lawsuit accusing Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” of infringing on a song by soul legend Marvin Gaye.
In that case, Stewart presented quantitative analysis claiming that the two songs were highly similar in both melody and chord progression, arguing that their harmonic rhythm matched by roughly 70%. However, the jury ultimately concluded that Sheeran had created the song independently rather than copying Marvin Gaye’s work, and the court ruled in the singer’s favor.
The trial also drew widespread attention after Sheeran personally appeared in court and performed the song on guitar to challenge Stewart’s conclusions. The British singer argued that the analysis pieced together common chord progressions in a way that falsely suggested plagiarism, calling the methodology “criminal.”
Music publication Billboard also recently noted that Stewart had been retained by the plaintiffs in both the Led Zeppelin and Ed Sheeran copyright cases, but juries rejected the infringement claims in each instance.
Within the music industry, experts generally agree that technical and quantitative analysis by musicologists remains an important part of evaluating similarities in copyright disputes involving melodies and chord progressions.
However, Stewart’s previous involvement in controversial cases particularly criticism surrounding the objectivity and reliability of his analytical methods has raised questions about how much weight his expert opinion will carry as the BTS “SWIM” copyright lawsuit moves forward.
Sources: Naver
You must be logged in to post a comment.