We invite you to read the column written by our senior associate in the Intellectual and Industrial Property Group, Carlos Lazcano, on copyright in the music industry.
The recent controversy over the alleged similarities between Taylor Swift’s “Opalite” and Luis Miguel’s classic “1 + 1 = 2 enamorados” reopens the debate on the boundaries between inspiration and plagiarism in music. Although there has been no formal complaint, the case highlights the fine line between legitimate creativity and copyright infringement and the importance of preventive management in the music industry.
In recent days, social media has been abuzz with an unexpected comparison: Taylor Swift’s new song, “Opalite,” included on her album The Life of a Showgirl, bears striking similarities to the 1980s classic “1 + 1 = 2 enamorados,” performed by Luis Miguel.
Although there has been no formal accusation of plagiarism, at least not yet, the debate has once again raised a recurring question: where does inspiration end and copyright infringement begin?
Similarities between songs are not, in themselves, synonymous with plagiarism. In music, melodic or harmonic coincidences can be inevitable: there are certain combinations of musical notes that are pleasing to the ear and styles common to entire genres. The law does not protect ideas or styles, but rather the specific and original expression of those ideas.
Therefore, for an infringement to occur, there must be a substantial similarity and/or significant copying of the protected work, such that the creative essence of the original work has been reproduced without authorization.
In such a case, there could be a copyright infringement, with legal consequences including cessation of use, payment of damages, and even criminal penalties in serious cases.
In Chile, Law No. 17,336 on Intellectual Property protects musical works from the moment of their creation, without the need for registration. The author retains exclusive rights over their work, including reproduction, public communication, transformation, and distribution, which can only be transferred or licensed with express authorization.
However, each jurisdiction has different criteria for what constitutes “plagiarism.” In some courts, it is sufficient to prove that the similarity is “recognizable by an average listener”; in others, a technical analysis by experts and musicologists is required.
Despite this, in the entertainment world, the consequences of a plagiarism accusation are often more reputational than legal. Just remember the case of “Blurred Lines,” where Marvin Gaye’s heirs won a million-dollar lawsuit, or the more recent confrontation involving Ed Sheeran over “Thinking Out Loud,” where the artist was ultimately acquitted.
For figures of Taylor Swift’s stature, damage to their image or simply media debate can be reason enough to take preventive measures: from attributing additional credits to reaching out-of-court settlements, without necessarily admitting infringement.
It is common to see that many conflicts of this nature could be avoided with proper preventive management, taking measures such as conducting a similarity analysis or musical clearance to detect problematic similarities before publishing a work; if there are fragments of third-party works, obtain the corresponding licenses or authorizations.
In any case, it is always useful to keep evidence of the creative process. Keep sketches, preliminary recordings, or composition files in order to be able to demonstrate the independence of the work in the event of any claims.
The controversy between “Opalite” and “1 + 1 = 2 enamorados” is, for now, more of a media phenomenon than a legal one. But it serves a valuable purpose: reminding us that creativity and respect for the work of others are not mutually exclusive, but complementary.
