SM Entertainment Under Fire: BTS Fans Allege Widespread Plagiarism Across Multiple SM Artists

SM Entertainment, one of South Korea’s most influential and long-standing entertainment agencies, is once again embroiled in a significant controversy, facing a barrage of serious plagiarism accusations from the fervent global fanbase of K-pop sensation BTS, known collectively as ARMY. The recent outcry, which has rapidly escalated across social media platforms, points to a pattern of alleged intellectual property infringement spanning several SM Entertainment artists, including NCT Wish, NCT Dream, and SuperM, and extending to visual concepts previously utilized by artists from other agencies like TXT and P1Harmony. This escalating dispute has reignited perennial debates within the K-pop industry concerning originality, creative inspiration, and the ethical boundaries of artistic influence.

The latest wave of accusations erupted on April 20, 2026, following the release of NCT Wish’s new album, Ode to Love. Within hours of its debut, vigilant BTS fans began to highlight striking resemblances, initially pointing out that at least two tracks on the album bore titles identical or remarkably similar to recent releases by BTS. This initial observation served as the catalyst, opening a floodgate of further allegations as fans delved deeper into SM Entertainment’s recent and past discographies, unearthing what they claim are numerous instances of uncredited appropriation. The immediate reaction on social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) saw fans sharing side-by-side comparisons, accumulating millions of views and fueling widespread outrage. The hashtag #SM_Plagiarized_BTS quickly trended worldwide, illustrating the collective power and reach of the ARMY fandom.

Chronology of Accusations: A Deep Dive into Allegations

The controversy began to metastasize with specific examples, each adding fuel to the fire.

• NCT Wish’s "2.0" and Lyrical Parallels (April 20, 2026):
  Beyond just song titles, fans quickly turned their attention to the lyrical content of NCT Wish’s track “2.0.” Accusations surfaced suggesting that the lyrics bore an uncanny resemblance to phrases and thematic elements found in BTS’s work. One widely circulated example highlighted a direct parallel: while BTS might express a sentiment like “I can’t,” NCT Wish’s lyrics for “2.0” were perceived by fans as a thinly veiled rephrasing, such as “I’m unable to can.” This specific comparison, though seemingly minor in isolation, was presented by fans as evidence of a deliberate attempt to mimic BTS’s unique lyrical style and emotional delivery, making the choice of song title appear less coincidental and more a strategic echo. The argument posited that these lyrical similarities, coupled with the similar title structure, demonstrated a pattern of not just inspiration, but outright copying.

• NCT Dream’s "Life Is Still Going On" and Visual Echoes (Resurfacing Allegations):
  The current controversy quickly brought older accusations back into the spotlight. Fans recalled the 2021 release of NCT Dream’s song “Life Is Still Going On.” Beyond the obvious titular parallel to BTS’s critically acclaimed 2020 hit “Life Goes On,” fans had previously noted significant visual similarities between the respective music videos. BTS’s “Life Goes On” was released during the global pandemic and featured a poignant, introspective visual narrative often filmed by the members themselves, emphasizing themes of resilience and continuity amidst adversity. Fans argued that elements within NCT Dream’s “Life Is Still Going On” music video, from camera angles and aesthetic choices to overall mood and conceptual framing, mirrored those of BTS’s production too closely to be accidental. This particular accusation garnered significant attention as it suggested a long-standing “obsession” or tendency within SM Entertainment to draw heavily from BTS’s creative output over a period of years, rather than it being an isolated incident.

• SuperM’s "We Do" and the "Dynamite" Reiteration (Resurfacing Allegations):
  Another prominent accusation that resurfaced involved SuperM, SM Entertainment’s supergroup composed of members from various NCT units, EXO, and SHINee. Fans pointed to SuperM’s English-language track “We Do” and its alleged resemblance to BTS’s global smash hit “Dynamite.” Released in 2020, “Dynamite” marked a pivotal moment for BTS, achieving unprecedented success on international charts and earning a Grammy nomination. Critics and fans alike noted that “We Do,” with its upbeat, retro-pop sound and English lyrics, appeared to be an attempt to replicate the formula that brought “Dynamite” its immense global appeal. While musical genres and influences can naturally overlap, the timing of “We Do” and its perceived stylistic parallels to “Dynamite” led many to conclude it was a calculated effort to capitalize on BTS’s breakthrough into the Western mainstream market. Fans shared comparisons of music video aesthetics and song structures, reinforcing the claim that SM was trying to "copy" the blueprint of BTS’s success.

• Broader Patterns and Creative Direction:
  As more instances were highlighted, a clear narrative began to emerge among fans: that SM Entertainment was not merely drawing inspiration from industry trends but was actively using BTS’s creative direction as a direct blueprint. Tweets from fans underscored this perception, stating, "While some brush these off as ‘trends,’ the tight timing and blatant overlaps point to a clear pattern. SM seems to be using BTS’s creative direction as a direct blueprint, ‘borrowing’ their success to guarantee their own hits." Another tweet bluntly proclaimed, "SM SAID: FVVK ORIGINALITY!! I’M GONNA PLAGIARIZED BTS, PROUDLY," encapsulating the sentiment of deliberate and unapologetic appropriation felt by many. This collective sentiment highlights the significant emotional investment fans have in the creative integrity of their favorite artists and their frustration when that integrity is perceived to be undermined.

Expanding the Scope: Plagiarism Beyond BTS

The current furor has also brought to light past allegations involving SM Entertainment and artists from other agencies, suggesting a broader systemic issue rather than just a specific focus on BTS.

• TXT’s "Nap of a Star" MV vs. NCT Wish’s "Find My Wish" MV (Visual Plagiarism):
  One of the most damning accusations came directly from within the industry. Wonmo Seong, the acclaimed director of TXT’s music video “Nap of a Star” (produced by Digipedi), publicly called out the production team behind NCT Wish’s music video for “Find My Wish.” Seong explicitly accused them of plagiarizing the entire visual concept of “Nap of a Star.” In a pointed statement, Seong lamented, “The advertising industry is ruined, the gaming industry is ruined, and now those people and their systems are flocking here to ruin K-pop. I won’t share the details but let’s just not…” This direct accusation from a respected professional in the field lends significant weight to the claims, moving beyond fan speculation to professional condemnation. It highlights a troubling trend where established visual concepts are allegedly being reused without proper attribution or creative transformation, raising serious questions about artistic ethics in K-pop’s highly visual landscape.

• NCT Dream’s "Countdown (3, 2, 1)" and TXT Producer (2021 Beat Incident):
  Another incident from 2021 involving NCT Dream and TXT producers was recirculated amidst the recent controversy. It was alleged that SM Entertainment used a beat for NCT Dream’s song “Countdown (3, 2, 1)” that was nearly identical to a pre-existing work by a producer associated with HYBE Corporation (TXT’s agency). Rather than engaging in a public legal battle, which could have resulted in a definitive “guilty” verdict and significant reputational damage, SM Entertainment reportedly resolved the issue quietly. Fans claim that months after the song’s release, the original HYBE producers were silently added to the credits, a move seen by many as an admission of guilt without a formal acknowledgment, effectively avoiding a public legal judgment while still addressing the infringement. This incident further solidifies the perception of a pattern of behavior from SM Entertainment in handling such intellectual property disputes.

• NCT 127’s "Lemonade" vs. P1Harmony’s "Nemonade" (Title and Concept):
  The allegations also extended to other groups. Fans highlighted a past instance involving NCT 127’s song “Lemonade,” released on September 9, 2021. This track bore a striking resemblance in both title and thematic concept to P1Harmony’s earlier song “Nemonade,” which was released on October 28, 2020. The proximity of the release dates and the near-identical titles, combined with similar lyrical or visual undertones, led to accusations that NCT 127’s release was an unoriginal echo of P1Harmony’s work. This demonstrates that the alleged pattern of appropriation extends beyond just HYBE artists, encompassing other labels and their intellectual property.

Background Context and SM Entertainment’s History of Controversies

These mounting allegations are not an isolated phenomenon for SM Entertainment. The agency has a long history of facing various controversies, including previous accusations of plagiarism and intellectual property issues. In the past, SM Entertainment idols have been "exposed" for allegedly "copy-pasting" lyrics from Black artists, raising concerns about cultural appropriation and uncredited sampling. Such incidents contribute to a broader narrative that the company, despite its veteran status and significant influence in the K-pop industry, has a problematic track record concerning originality and ethical sourcing of creative material.

The sensitivity surrounding these accusations is further amplified by BTS’s unprecedented global success. As a group that has consistently broken barriers and achieved historic milestones, BTS and their agency, HYBE Corporation (formerly Big Hit Entertainment), have cultivated a strong brand built on authenticity, self-production, and deep lyrical meaning. ARMY, having witnessed the group’s journey from a relatively small company to global superstardom, are fiercely protective of BTS’s creative integrity and intellectual property. Any perceived attempt to co-opt or imitate their unique style and success is met with swift and organized resistance, fueled by a desire to protect the artistic legacy of their idols.

The competitive landscape of the K-pop industry also plays a significant role. With numerous groups debuting annually and vying for global attention, the pressure to produce hit songs, innovative concepts, and trending visuals is immense. This environment can sometimes lead to what critics describe as a "borrowing" culture, where influences blur the lines into outright imitation. However, when these alleged "borrowings" come from a dominant industry leader like SM Entertainment, targeting globally impactful acts like BTS and TXT, the accusations carry heavier weight and spark more intense debate about fairness and creative ethics.

Official Responses and Industry Implications

As of the time of this report, SM Entertainment has not issued an official statement regarding the recent and resurfaced plagiarism accusations. This silence is not uncommon in the K-pop industry, where companies often choose to avoid direct engagement with fan-driven controversies, particularly those that lack formal legal complaints. In some past instances, as seen with the NCT Dream/TXT producer incident, resolutions have been made quietly behind the scenes, such as adding credits without a public admission of wrongdoing. However, the sheer volume and persistence of the current allegations, coupled with the involvement of industry professionals like Wonmo Seong, make a sustained silence increasingly difficult to maintain.

The implications of these accusations are multifaceted.

• Reputational Damage: For SM Entertainment, a company that prides itself on being a pioneer and leader in K-pop, these allegations can significantly tarnish its brand image, particularly among international fans who prioritize artistic integrity and originality. It risks eroding trust and goodwill that has been built over decades.
• Fan Engagement and Fandom Relations: The controversy exacerbates existing tensions between different K-pop fandoms. While ARMY is at the forefront of the accusations, fans of NCT, SuperM, and other SM artists often defend their groups, leading to intense inter-fandom clashes online. This toxic environment can negatively impact the overall K-pop community.
• Creative Integrity and Industry Standards: The ongoing debate raises crucial questions about creative integrity within the K-pop industry. If established companies are perceived to be engaging in widespread imitation, it could stifle genuine innovation and discourage emerging artists from developing unique styles, fearing their originality might be appropriated. It challenges the industry to establish clearer guidelines and enforce stronger protections for intellectual property.
• Legal Ramifications (Potential): While direct lawsuits are rare in such cases due to their complexity, expense, and potential for negative publicity, the threat of legal action always looms. The quiet resolution of the 2021 NCT Dream/TXT beat incident suggests that companies prefer to avoid definitive "guilty" verdicts, highlighting the legal complexities of proving plagiarism in creative works, especially when the lines between inspiration, trend, and direct copying can be ambiguous. However, a pattern of such incidents could make future legal challenges more viable.

The controversy surrounding SM Entertainment and the widespread allegations of plagiarism serve as a stark reminder of the intense scrutiny and high expectations placed upon K-pop agencies and artists in the global arena. As the industry continues its rapid expansion, the demand for originality, ethical practices, and transparent communication will only grow stronger, challenging agencies to adapt and uphold the creative integrity that defines the genre. The eyes of millions of fans, and indeed the broader music industry, will remain fixed on how SM Entertainment navigates this latest, and perhaps most extensive, challenge to its artistic credibility.