2024-04-03
Full Text of CEO Min Hee-jin’s Protest Email to HYBE / BELIFT LAB
To the Esteemed CEO Park Ji-won of HYBE Inc. and CEO Kim T of BELIFT LAB Inc.,
Our company has received a letter with the following content from the parents who are the artists’ legal guardians. Pursuant to Articles 1, 2, 5, and 11 of the exclusive contract signed between our company and the artists,
our company has the duty and responsibility to take action on these demands.
Please respond to each and every matter raised without omission.
Additionally, in order to maintain transparent written communication regarding this matter, the parents have been included as CC recipients on this email, so please reply to all with your response.
(Contents of the Statement of Opinions from the Members’ Parents Submitted to ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin on 2024-03-31)
In relation to the above content, ADOR clearly states that we have never received any request for cooperation from HYBE / BELIFT LAB regarding XXX’s content, and we have never consulted, compromised, confirmed, or accepted the matters raised.
Furthermore, as a copyright holder and producer, ADOR is equally deeply displeased with the brand infringement issue. We urgently need a response from HYBE and the relevant label, along with corresponding measures, regarding the plagiarism and direct use of choreography without the subsidiary’s permission, consultation, request, or consent; the imitation of concepts; and the arbitrary exploitation of the artist’s name and issues. We request a prompt response.
Under the guise of benchmarking, after gaining attention through similarities, gradually emphasizing differences while subtly steering the mood and flow, and then responding with denial once popularity has been established later—the prevalence of such behavior is a prime example of unwholesome practices in this industry, particularly those fundamentally based on imitation.
Ironically, the public now knows that the more plagiarism is intended, the more they avoid copying 100% of everything exactly the same.
When too many coincidences accumulate and repeat, they are no longer coincidences but inevitabilities. Because there is a truth that the overall context and circumstances reveal, I clearly state that this is not a matter that can be evaded by pointing to one or two differences among ten things as an excuse.
🔗 A critic reviewing XXX’s album expressed it as “Min Hee-jin style,” “Min Hee-jin-like.” No one can deny that NewJeans comes to mind from XXX’s debut promotion. And everyone knows that XXX went viral to the extent of the unnecessarily dragged-out mentions of NewJeans.
It is problematic that the method expanded the volume of mentions by using NewJeans, who has nothing to do with XXX, without considering the damage NewJeans or ADOR would suffer. But what is guarded and concerning is that over time, the discernment regarding plagiarism may become diluted, and around the time the public becomes weary of excessive viral marketing, they will create slight variations and form another public opinion of “See? I told you it was different.”
The intention to cunningly exploit and then deny may be even more ethically problematic.
This is because such behavior breaks the will of creators who want to try new things, rationalizes imitation, leads to only safe choices, and makes the industry stagnant.
To put it bluntly, if you can just copy successful teams and works, who would struggle and take risks to try something new?
Chairman Bang Si-hyuk once said, “I cannot overlook the irrationalities and injustices in the music industry,” and “That anger has become my calling.”
If HYBE claims to be truly angry about the irrationalities and injustices in the music industry and to be interested in music industry workers receiving fair evaluations and proper treatment, they should reflect on whether they are currently doing so themselves.
That is why it is only right to regard the current XXX plagiarism controversy and so-called aggro marketing matter as a challenge that must be changed for a healthy creative environment.
Not only is there no visible respect for other creators’ work, but even industry insiders are sending numerous questions and contacts out of bewilderment. We take similar cases at other companies seriously, so what is this situation at the parent company?
This can only be explained as tyranny of a parent company against its subsidiary.
To whom was the anger about the industry’s injustices directed?
The original purpose of the multi-label system as I understood it was to respect diverse creative activities and pioneer new paths to create more possibilities—not an agreement that the parent company can freely take from subsidiaries whenever it wants.
Such behavior not only violates corporate ethics but also degrades the industry and hinders diversity, so ultimately it will not benefit HYBE.
HYBE’s RW document proposes the following:
“We provide feedback on opinions or ideas that would benefit the company, even in situations with opposition or discomfort. Dissenting opinions are presented through open discussion or documentation. (We explain/persuade dissenting opinions and utilize data and supporting materials when necessary.)”
We attach the materials compiled by ADOR.
As this matter is clear in its circumstances and not something where right and wrong need to be determined, we note that we have primarily compiled the public’s reactions to it.
We request a prompt response.
April 3, 2024
Min Hee-jin, CEO of ADOR Inc.