Hello. I am attorney Shin Jun-seon from the law firm Cheongchul.

When beatbox content comes out on Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts, you often find it hard to skip and end up watching it until the end, right? As of 2025, about 20 years after the trend of traditional drum and vocal improvisation, we now live in a world where beatboxers perform their beatbox tracks solo on music broadcasts with just a microphone, and even appear as guests on popular domestic shows like You Quiz on the Block. The protagonist of this trend is WING, a beatboxer leading the Korean beatbox scene, and his original beatbox track 'DOPAMINE'. WING's DOPAMINE video has nearly recorded tens of millions of views on YouTube, and the reaction video has already surpassed tens of millions of views, showing that beatbox has gained recognition as an independent major music genre among many people.

With challenges mimicking 'DOPAMINE' trending on Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts, various cover videos are flooding in, establishing beatbox as a new cultural phenomenon. In this context, I would like to address important legal questions related to it.

[Question] "Can beatbox really be protected by copyright? If so, would covering WING's 'DOPAMINE' in the same way be a copyright infringement?"

[Answer]

1. Is beatbox (BEATBOX) considered a work under copyright law?

Beatbox is a genre of musical expression that creates various rhythms and sounds using the human mouth, tongue, and throat. It has primarily developed by arranging components such as kicks (K), hi-hats (H), and snares (S), along with other elements. Recently, beatbox has reached a high level of quality where it is difficult to distinguish between tracks using actual instruments or electronic instruments. So, can a beatbox track composed only of sounds made by a person's mouth also be subject to copyright protection like general pop songs?

First, copyright law defines a work as a creation that expresses human thoughts or emotions (Article 2 of the Copyright Act). This means that to qualify as a work, it must ① possess creativity* (Supreme Court decision 2018. 5. 15. 2016Da227625) and ② be an expression of human thoughts or emotions.

* Creativity: An expression by the artist themselves that is not merely imitation, but is an original expression of thoughts or emotions.

Among these, a musical work is defined as “a work that creatively expresses a certain feeling or emotion by harmonizing the pitch, duration, and intensity of sounds” or “a work expressed by sound” (『Music and Copyright』, Korea Copyright Commission, 2010, p. 32). Furthermore, sounds from nature or mechanical recordings, basic scales, chords, and rhythms do not qualify for originality.

Regarding the creativity of musical works, case law states, “Musical works are generally composed of three elements: melody, rhythm, and harmony, and these three elements create a musical structure when selected and arranged in a certain order. Therefore, when judging the creativity of a musical work, it must be assessed with a focus on the melody expressed in the most specific and original form, along with a comprehensive consideration of rhythm, harmony, and other factors” (Supreme Court decision 2015. 8. 13. 2013Da14828).

In conclusion, in the case of WING's “DOPAMINE,” the original creator WING can be seen as having created an original piece by selecting and arranging the melody and rhythm, so it can be sufficiently recognized as a 'musical work'. Considering that 'a cappella' is also recognized as a form of music made solely with the human voice without any instrumental accompaniment, it makes it easier to understand.

Conversely, a beatbox track created solely with simple beats (basic elements) without the creativity of something like 'DOPAMINE' would likely not qualify for copyright.

In fact, WING's 'DOPAMINE' was made public last February and is registered as a musical work with the Korea Music Copyright Association (KOMCA). (However, copyright arises simultaneously with creation and does not require any specific procedure or method due to the 'formlessness principle', so copyright is not only recognized through registration. Nonetheless, registering it makes it easier to prove in case of copyright disputes, and allows for more straightforward resistance to copyright infringements even after the author's death.)

2. Cover (cover) and copyright issues

Many beatbox influencers have released content covering 'DOPAMINE', but mimicking it exactly as the original creator WING is quite difficult. This really makes one feel the difficulty of 'DOPAMINE' and WING's beatboxing skills.

Now, if there were someone who could truly cover 'DOPAMINE' exactly, would filming that cover and uploading it to social media, or performing it, constitute copyright infringement?

While the likelihood of legal disputes arising over copyright infringement for this reason seems low, the conclusion is that from a legal perspective, it could potentially be ruled as copyright infringement. The act of covering can be classified into concepts like cover, remake, and adaptation depending on the degree of similarity between the result and the original work. However, since beatbox is the subject here, let's first look at cover acts that closely replicate the original work with little alteration or new creativity.

① Character of cover content: Reproduction?  VS  Derivate work?

As a principle, if a cover song or cover performance merely reproduces the original work, it is viewed as a 'reproduction' rather than a 'derivative work'. The case law states, “Even if a work is not reproduced in its original form and has undergone some modifications or changes, if it does not add new creativity, it should be regarded as reproduction (Supreme Court decision 1989. 10. 24. 89DaKa12824), and on the other hand, in order to be protected as a derivative work under Article 5(1) of the Copyright Act, it must be based on the original work, maintain substantial similarity to the original work, and possess enough modifications to become a new creation (refer to Supreme Court decision 2002. 1. 25. 99Do863)”.

Therefore, the important point here is that to become a derivative work, creative elements must be added to the original work to create a new work. However, simply imitating the beatbox 'DOPAMINE' closely is more akin to reproduction than adding creative elements.

Of course, as mentioned earlier, while replication at the same level is virtually impossible, if we assume there is someone capable of covering it at that level, should that person record it and upload it to generate profit (use it commercially), issues of reproduction rights concerning WING’s track 'DOPAMINE' could arise, thus prior approval must be sought. This would also apply if they are performing it commercially.

For reference, if someone modifies the original work by adding their own creative elements, the question of whether they infringe the original creator's right to create derivative works will also be assessed based on the determination of 'substantial similarity'. Many remakes emerging from music auditions can be categorized as these derivative works. However, in the case of beatbox tracks, the intrinsic nature could lead to a significant reduction in substantial similarity if remakes or adaptations are performed, thereby being regarded as a separate song. This is my personal opinion as a lawyer.

② Infringement of copyright in cover content?

So, is every cover content a copyright infringement?

Article 29 of the Copyright Act states that non-profit performances or broadcasts of works are allowed, but since this blog is examining the uploading of cover videos for commercial purposes, it does not seem to apply.

Conversely, Article 35-5 of the Copyright Act acknowledges the fair use of a work as long as it does not unduly harm the legitimate interests of the author. Whether fair use applies is judged by considering ① the purpose and nature of the use, whether it is for profit or not; ② the type and use of the work; ③ the proportion and significance of the utilized part of the work in relation to the whole work; ④ the impact of the use on the present or potential market value of the work.

Therefore, if an individual simply mimics 'DOPAMINE' at home for personal enjoyment or uploads a video for personal archiving and it does not harm the market value of the original 'DOPAMINE', the likelihood of it being considered copyright infringement appears low.

However, if a cover video is posted on social media platforms like YouTube, Instagram, or TikTok to increase views or followers, ultimately gaining commercial benefits, it is highly likely that this would be judged as copyright infringement, exceeding the bounds of fair use. Some major platforms, like YouTube, have copyright protection programs (e.g., Content ID) that help prevent disputes, so verifying and using them in advance can be effective.

3. Conclusion

Beatbox is a unique expression created solely with the voice, but legally, it is subject to copyright protection like other musical works. A beatbox track arranged with unique rhythms and patterns, such as WING's 'DOPAMINE', can have its creativity recognized and receive complete copyright protection.

As seen, not only beatbox but also uploading cover videos for commercial purposes on social media can lead to copyright issues, so it is important to obtain permission from the original authors before using the works, and to check the copyright protection regulations of each platform.

Shin Jun-seon has extensive consulting experience in the field of intellectual property rights. If you need legal advice regarding copyright protection or infringement of creative works, please feel free to contact me.