the picture translation:
“Did Aylit really copied New Genes?
Guest Reporter Hyejin Yoon 2024.05.22
Min Hee-jin, CEO of Adore, said at a press conference, “When I raised the issue of Ayletcopying New Jeans, they are trying to fire me.” So, are Eyelet and New Jeans really similar?
Eyelet, whose debut song was on Billboard's 'Hot 100', has been of the opinion since their debut that although the details such as music and costumes are different, the overall feel is a reference to New Jeans.
Girl group Eyelet, who debuted with their 1st mini album 'SUPER REAL ME' on March 25th, is under Hybe's label Belif Lab. The members were selected through the survival program 'RU Next', and Chairman Bang Si-hyuk produced their debut album. Although Aillet debuted about 6 months after the end of the audition program, they received extensive publicity as 'Hybe's youngest daughters' and a song with a TikTok feel that created 'super attraction' among teenagers. It reminded us of the Y2K era, which was the center of the trend, but also made Alpha. The concept of 'dreamy innocence' combined to create various new records.
The reason why New Jeans was evaluated as fresh was not because it presented something that had never been seen before, but because it combined it well and showed a different texture than before.
However, it is an undeniable fact that even before this incident broke out, there were opinions that the concept was similar to New Genes. First of all, When looking at the area, there are three things that the public may feel are similar. Number of people, hairstyles, choreography. Both groups consist of 5 members, including 2 foreign members each. The number of people is an element that can give a similar feeling in choreography formations or group pictorials. In addition, all five members of Illit are unified in long black hair style to maximize their innocence, which is similar to when New Jeans first appeared in front of the public with their debut song 'Attention'. Of course, long black straight hair is not the only original style introduced by New Jeans. However, it is a different story when the girls group together with their long hair flowing and using it as a point in the choreography. In fact, the choreography in Aillet's song 'My World' in which the members turn their hips and sweep their hair is similar to the choreography in New Jeans' 'Attention'. In addition to this movement, NewJeans' Movements similar to those seen in 'Ditto' and Le Seraphim's 'EASY' became a hot topic. Additionally, hand movements similar to New Jeans' McDonald's CM song choreography can be seen in Aillet's recent follow-up song 'Lucky Girl Syndrome (Sped Up)'.
The choreography can be seen as a strategy aimed at creating buzz by intentionally imitating it ‘overtly’. The fact that there is a lot of talk about the concept, which can be said to be the group's identity, is a challenge that Aylet, who has just debuted, must solve. The consensus among experts is that New Jeans is emerging from Aillet in general, including music videos, concept photos, and promotional methods, excluding music.
The concept may be similar, but it is difficult to prove legally. However, it is not easy to judge it as plagiarism just because the concept is similar. Kim Tae-hwan, an attorney specializing in intellectual property rights at Daeryun Law Firm (Lihan), said, “When looking at Eyelet and New Jeans as individual products, there is a high possibility that they are similar,” adding, “However, despite being
quite similar in terms of concept, based on legal judgment, To see, check whether it is infringing on copyright or violating the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. “It has to be done,” he explained.
First of all, concepts are in the realm of ‘ideas’ and are not protected under copyright law. In copyright, this is called the 'dichotomy between ideas and expressions', but copyright limits the object of protection to 'expression' and does not protect 'ideas'. In this case, if substantial similarity and a relationship of reliance are recognized in the area of other works such as music, choreography, and photography, which are individual elements that make up the concept, rather than the overall concept, the copyright is valid.
It may be a violation of rights. However, attorney Kim Tae-hwan said, "The two groups' song lyrics and melodies are different, and there are many parts where the individual choreography according to the flow of the music is expressed in detail," and "If this is filed as a copyright infringement lawsuit, there is no legal defense logic." “It is believed that there will be many, so it will not be easy to recognize copyright infringement,” he said.
Even if you look at it from the perspective of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, it is ambiguous. In the case of New Jeans and Eyelet, the clauses that will be problematic include acts of confusion such as sales signs, There are acts of theft, unauthorized theft of achievements, etc. Regarding this, attorney Kim Tae-hwan said, "The victim must prove that 'the person who stole the idea did not know about the idea or that it was not widely known in the same industry,' but it is not easy because it has to be proven that it is special or unique." He expressed the opinion that “it may be difficult to prove the ‘unique performance’ aspect of whether the concept is subject to protection.” This is because it is not easy to prove that all the individual elements that make up the concept are new and have not been announced.
There is nothing new under the sun. However, you still have to make an effort to make a difference, and if you can see that effort, you will feel that it is similar. No one will take issue with the point. Therefore, the plagiarism controversy between Aylit and New Genes is also connected to the issue of Hybe’s morality.
Attorney Kim Tae-hwan said, "Copying a concept in areas such as creation or art is morally problematic. The fact that a parent company, which is not a competitor, copied the concept appears to be a sufficient situation to be criticized in terms of moral and ethical awareness. "he said. Is similarity under one roof a given? In fact, aside from the degree of similarity in concept, opinions are divided among industry officials on the question of 'whether it is okay for labels with the same parent company to cause such a plagiarism controversy.' Critic Kim Young-dae said on the 'Amplified' podcast, "Currently, Hybe is in a position to lead the world, but rather than feeling like they are presenting something, they are (repeatedly) creating the most perfect state they can create."
However, there is also a view that there is no problem because they are the same Hybe labels. An industry official said, "Just as Samsung refers to previous works when making the next version of its mobile phone, similarities should be allowed between idol groups released by the same company. Other entertainment companies also have similarities among their groups." He continued, "CEO Min Hee-jin is currently leading Adore, but she originally joined Hybe as Chief Brand Officer (CBO) in 2019. Hybe will naturally utilize Min Hee-jin's capabilities throughout the group.
He said, "Since the relationship is between the parent company and its subsidiaries, would there be a legal problem if it utilized New Genes' success grammar to seek group-level profits? Currently, each label under Hybe is in charge of content production. Attorney Kim Tae-hwan, who is in charge of public relations and legal affairs as the parent company,
said, "Hybe may have decided to actively utilize the process of reproducing similar content for the company's 'stable sales.'" As a precedent, the SPP Shipbuilding ruling handed down in 2017 was introduced. At the time, former SPP Shipbuilding Chairman Lee Nak-young was accused of breach of trust by purchasing materials for an affiliate company with funds from SPP Shipbuilding under the management of creditors and transferring SPP Shipbuilding scrap metal to another affiliate company. However, the Supreme Court accepted reasonable management.
The intentional breach of trust was not recognized as it was judged to have been done within the scope of the company's discretion. It was the first Supreme Court ruling that stated that support between affiliates within a group cannot be considered a breach of trust if it is for the common benefit of the group rather than for a specific person or company.
Attorney Kim Tae-hwan said, "When applying this precedent, although the field is different, it is a 'crime of breach of trust' depending on whether Hybe (the parent company) can be seen as an act of support for Aylet, and if so, whether there is room to see it as for the group's common benefit." “It seems there is room to influence whether it is established or not,” he said. If the support from the parent company is correct and it is judged to be in the group's common
interest, New Jeans' method of success can be seen in Eyelet now, but next time, Eyelet's method of success may be found in the next group.
THE COMMENTS:
- 🤦♀️
- They're building it up terribly; everyone can see through it. 😂
- Wow, why was it deleted? There were a lot of arguments in the comments.
- If similarity is natural under the same roof, why create labels?
- It's very similar, but legally not a problem. First, they release an article, then accuse Min Hee-jin of plagiarism to cause disruption and sue her.
- Megjins->hard to prove plagiarism->lawsuit. That’s what they were aiming for. 😂
- Seriously, HYBE is so annoying. They’re ruining K-pop.
- Why was it deleted?
- ☞8, They probably deleted it because it wasn't working.
- the original poster insisted it wasn't similar, got criticized, and deleted it. The last comment was epic.
- The buildup is ridiculous. 😂😂😂
- I swear, HYBE has hired trolls.
- Goodbye, Source and Belift.
- Why is similarity considered natural? That makes no sense.
- Just that image alone is plagiarism.
- Does it matter if it’s legally an issue or not? 😂😂😂
- I wrote that. You’re deep into conspiracy theories. The main poster knows I'm not a troll. I was on Min Hee-jin’s side, but after seeing her lies, I turned against her. I can prove I bought the NewJeans album, felt deceived, and then canceled it. 😂
- What lie?Other companies aren't multi-label, but even if the vibe is similar due to the agency’s influence, the concepts are different. If one label copies another, it harms the original’s interests and value.
- If similarity under one roof is natural, why do we have separate labels? Each label is supposed to be independent.
- We do have eyes, you know.
- Wow, HYBE is really disgusting.
- The media play is insane, why delete it?
- The company sucks, the label sucks, the knockoff idols suck, and the fans suck. Everyone’s at the same low level.
- Coordinates are against the rules too, so why so confident? 😂
- Why are they freaking out? It's just an article before a lawsuit. 😂
- If they saved the money spent on media play, their first-quarter profit would have been better.
- HYBE has so many hired guns.
- I don't support Min Hee-jin, but as a neutral party, it does seem like Hive's viral marketing. Though I can do the same kind of proof.
- This is pathetic, making me laugh out loud.
- Of course, it's legally tough. Are you kidding?
- Using all means, Hive's plagiarism, manipulation, fake news, and media play with money and power. Is all this okay?
- I saw a few posts saying it's not a problem because it was copied within Hive's labels. Isn't that more bizarre? The company fans' mindset is really strange.
- What is that, haha.
- Those who criticize Min Hee-jin always say they were fans but turned away because of lies after the press conference. They all have the same copy-paste approach.
- All comments under the title "Did you copy?" were replied with a simple "Yes" and got deleted, haha.
- If it were me, I would feel so ashamed of the company I supported opening up to Rekka, but if you believe that, I understand the comments too much, sigh. Some agencies go all the way to America to catch Rekka, but isn't it ridiculous that some would leak sources to Rekka, saying they'll kill one girl? Haha.
- Within that article, experts have already acknowledged the similarity by quoting professional opinions. Even a lawyer says it would be difficult to receive legal copyright protection, and ethically, it's a problem.
- With this situation, a lawsuit? Since it's difficult to prove legally, they won't care ethically, right?.
- But isn't the similarity between One Roof groups is a bit too much, especially forcing the consumption of an idol image from an agency that's only about three years old;;; It's like eating one's own flesh.
- After getting advice that it's difficult to prove legally, they spread it in the community and then post a lawsuit notice? Trash.
- Seeing this, SM really did well... Looks like they got eaten up, they already put away Aespa and debuted with Japespa, with four members already.
- Why is Hybe acting like such losers, haha.
- Copy~ Copy~ Copy~
- [Overall, experts agree that NewJeans is reminiscent of Aespa at Aileet.] [However, it's not easy to determine plagiarism just because the concept is similar.]
- This content is already based on the assumption of similarity, but legally, it's not easy to determine plagiarism. But after this post went up, there was a lawsuit notice for plagiarism? The timing is funny. 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
- I'll never consume Hybe in the future.
ORIGINAL POST HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment