[Dispatch=Goo Min-ji] "To claim plagiarism, there must be at least some basis."

This was the judgment handed down by a U.S. court in the copyright lawsuit filed against BTS. Plaintiff Melissa Mays had not even completed copyright registration, and failed to present evidence of copying. The court ruled it a "frivolous claim."

The court even gave the plaintiff an opportunity to supplement her complaint. However, the outcome did not change. Even the "audio recording file" presented as key evidence could not be confirmed to exist. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of BTS and HYBE.

'Dispatch' has confirmed the ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On the 22nd of last month (local time), the court dismissed the copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Mays against BTS, HYBE, HYBE America, and BIGHIT MUSIC.

Mays filed the lawsuit on August 25. She claimed that BTS used her music without permission. She took issue with six tracks from the regular fifth album "ARIRANG." The damages sought amounted to over approximately 700 million won (500,000 dollars).

In the original complaint, the disputed works were identified as "SWIM," "Hooligan," "2.0," "Body to Body," "NORMAL," and "Animal."

Mays's claims date back to May 4, 2023. She stated that she was detained in Virginia at that time. She claimed that she performed there, and a sheriff recorded it. She explained that the sheriff had passed the recorded music to BTS.

However, BTS was not the only target of Mays's copyright infringement claims. She also filed a separate lawsuit against Jamaican artist Masicka, claiming that Masicka used four of her songs without authorization.

The two lawsuits had one thing in common: the date of the music recording that Mays claimed was May 4, 2023 in both cases. In both cases, she explained that law enforcement agencies recorded her music while she was detained.

On September 18, the court reviewed both cases together. However, it found that there was insufficient specific factual basis to support the plaintiff's claims. It dismissed both complaints and gave her until October 9 to file an amended complaint.

There were four main reasons why the court did not accept the plaintiff's claims.

① She had not even completed copyright registration.

Mays claimed that she created the music in question. However, when she filed the lawsuit in August, copyright registration had not been completed. The court noted that she failed to provide the registration number and effective date.

Mays stated only that she would submit it later. More than a month after filing the lawsuit, on September 29, she applied for registration with the U.S. Copyright Office. However, as of October 22 when the final decision was made, it was still under review. The court determined that she failed to meet the registration requirements necessary for a copyright infringement lawsuit.

② There was no basis that BTS had heard her music.

Mays claimed that BTS copied her music. However, she could not explain how BTS came to know of the music. The court noted that "she did not clarify when, where, or how the copyright infringement occurred."

In the amended complaint, nothing changed. Mays listed lyrics from BTS's song and claimed they copied her music. However, the court determined that such claims (lyrics) alone could not establish copying.

③ The audio recording file could not be verified.

Mays claimed that she attempted to deliver her music to BTS through a sheriff who recorded her music on May 4, 2023. However, the very existence of that recording file was unclear.

On May 27, Mays sent an email to Sheriff Dawkins. Claiming that BTS had stolen her song "SWIM," she requested the recording file needed for the lawsuit.

However, the sheriff only replied on June 2 that the request had been passed to the relevant department. She did not confirm whether the recording file existed.

Mays's freedom of information request also yielded no results. The agency concluded the process on June 18, stating "we cannot find the records you requested."

The court instead found problems in the materials Mays submitted. It noted that "the evidence submitted by the plaintiff suggests that no such recording exists."

The recording file that Mays claimed ultimately could not be verified. The court found no basis that the music had actually been delivered to BTS or HYBE.

④ The oral contract was also unclear in substance.

Mays also claimed that she had agreed to provide her music in exchange for compensation. She asserted that an agreement had been made orally. However, she did not even specify whom she had contracted with. She could not provide the contract date or how much she was to receive.

The court found insufficient specific facts to consider that the contract actually existed. Mays also requested that the court order disclosure of revenue-related materials from BTS and confirmation of copyright infringement. This request was not granted.

Even the amended complaint was not accepted. When the court dismissed the original complaint in September, it gave her one opportunity. Mays submitted an amended complaint in October. She reduced the six tracks at issue in the original complaint to five. She maintained the claim that BTS used her music without authorization.

The outcome did not change. The issues the court had identified remained unresolved. Copyright registration was not completed, and the recording file could not be verified. There was insufficient basis to support the claim of copying.

On the 22nd of last month, after reviewing the amended complaint, the court stated that "it is manifest that the claim should be dismissed as frivolous." It ordered the case terminated in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

The ruling stated "Judgment is entered in favor of the defendants." The court ruled in favor of all defendants including BTS, HYBE, HYBE America, and BIGHIT MUSIC. Mays was informed that she could appeal within 30 days if she wished to appeal the decision.

<Photo=Dispatch DB, HYBE>