Experts Say ILLIT Copying NewJeans Is a Serious Infringement of Creation

The dispute between HYBE and ADOR was largely fueled by the controversy surrounding HYBE’s label, Belift Lab, and their debut artist ILLIT. ADOR’s CEO Min Hee-jin expressed her frustration, stating that HYBE’s cultural achievements and their artist NewJeans were being severely infringed upon by the blatant copying of ILLIT in all aspects, from hairstyles and makeup to costumes, choreography, photos, videos, and even event appearances.

It is a well-known fact that ILLIT has been compared to NewJeans ever since their debut. Despite being signed under different labels of HYBE, both groups consist of five members and made their debut with energetic electronic songs. They also shared a dreamy school uniform concept, similar choreographies, and were invited to perform at fashion brand events shortly after their debut.

Moreover, there were striking similarities between the album cover and artwork of NewJeans and ILLIT, including photocards within the albums and 2D illustrations portraying the members as animated characters.

Besides netizens, professionals in the music business also acknowledged the resemblances between NewJeans and ILLIT. The CEO of a music agency remarked, “The concept is the heart of an idol. While there may be slight variations, the general concepts of these two groups are quite similar. This could potentially be seen as a violation of intellectual property.”Another CEO from a different company stated, “There seems to have been a mistake in scheduling, as both groups with comparable concepts were allowed to promote simultaneously under the same parent company. One debuted in March and the other is set to make a comeback in May.”

Several music experts also noted that NewJeans had a strong influence on the imagery used by ILLIT. A well-known visual artist, who preferred to remain anonymous, expressed their opinion saying, “While homage and parody can be acceptable in art, directly copying original works should be criticized.”They also added, “After comparing the fonts and artworks of both NewJeans and ILLIT albums, I am convinced that it crosses the line of infringing on the creators’ hard work. This matter has caused frustration not just among the general public, but also among fellow creators.”

According to a brand marketing manager for a global brand, the issue surrounding the resemblance between the two groups goes beyond just sharing similar ideas. It appears that ILLIT has duplicated NewJeans’s winning formula to the point of “copying”. The manager further explained that ILLIT seemingly adopted NewJeans’s success formula in its entirety, from the Y2K nostalgia, to the youthful and dreamy pastel visuals, and even HYBE’s marketing strategy.

This individual expressed their disapproval towards HYBE, stating that the company appears to mindlessly adhere to a predetermined formula for success, leading them to neglect the basic sense of pride and morality that creators should possess. Such actions can also reflect on the ethical standards of the entire K-pop industry.

Additionally, there were those who claimed that the resemblance between NewJeans and ILLIT was in fact a loophole in the legal system.

According to attorney Noh Jeong-eon, if HYBE, the parent company, has indeed replicated the concept and choreography of their label ADOR, the label would have no means of defending itself as outlined in the shareholder agreement. Despite the potential theft of ideas and dances by the parent company, it may be challenging for the label to defend itself given the absence of applicable provisions. Additionally, CEO Min Hee-0jin has referred to this arrangement as a “slave contract,”highlighting the immense difficulty for a creator to be subjected to such unjust treatment without any recourse.

The lawyer also noted that a potential issue in the shareholder agreement is the absence of regulations for situations where the parent company illegally takes ideas from its labels. They also emphasized that concepts and choreographies are currently not adequately protected under intellectual property rights, unlike music sources.

The source is found at: daum