newjeans

NewJeans MV Director Criticizes ADOR “Stop Lying, Why Try to Coax Me While Calling Me a False Information Spreader”

Shin Woo-seok, CEO of Dolphiners Films and director of major NewJeans music videos such as "Ditto" and "ETA", once again posted a statement addressing ADOR

On Sep 9th, Shin took to his SNS account to call for an apology from ADOR. He stated, “CEO Kim Joo-young, Deputy CEO Lee Do-kyung, I have recordings and emails, so stop lying. In ADOR’s statement, I’m labeled a false information spreader, yet behind the scenes, you’re desperately trying to contact and coax me.”

Shin continued, “After receiving legal advice, it was confirmed that, as per the previous agreement, the ownership of the Ban Hee-soo channel belongs to Dolphiners Films. However, the rights to the channel are not particularly important to us. As long as the Ban Hee-soo channel continues to exist as an extension of the work, we are satisfied.”

newjeans

He made one demand, “Apologize.” He further declared, “If you post an apology on ADOR’s official channel by today, Dolphiners Films will transfer the Ban Hee-soo channel to ADOR.” However, he warned, “If there is no apology, I will explore ways to transfer the Ban Hee-soo channel to the fans and will file a defamation lawsuit against ADOR, presenting evidence of the previous agreement.” Shin concluded by stating, “Stop distorting the truth with dirty media play.”

ADOR and Shin Woo-seok have been publicly engaging in a dispute since Sep 2nd. On that day, Shin claimed, “It seems ADOR’s policies have changed with the new management. Due to ADOR’s request, all NewJeans music videos and related content uploaded by Dolphiners Films, as well as planned future videos, can no longer be made public.” ADOR refuted this claim, stating that it was not true.

On Aug 27th, ADOR replaced former CEO Min Hee-jin and appointed HYBE’s Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) Kim Joo-young as the new CEO. While ADOR announced that Min Hee-jin would continue producing for NewJeans, Min Hee-jin opposed this, claiming that the terms of the production delegation contract were unreasonable.

Source: Daum