At the fourth hearing of the ₩1.1 billion civil lawsuit between ADOR and production team Dolphiners Film, the defendants strongly refuted ADOR’s claims, emphasizing that the upload of the NewJeans “ETA” director’s cut video had been verbally approved beforehand.
The trial took place on December 9 at the Seoul Central District Court (Civil Division 62). ADOR filed the lawsuit after director Shin Woo-seok published the director’s cut of “ETA” on his team’s official YouTube channel in August last year.
According to ADOR, the video belonged exclusively to the company and was posted without rightful authority. After the dispute surfaced, Shin Woo-seok deleted all NewJeans-related content on both the company channel and his unofficial fan channel “Ban Hee-soo,” leading some fans to criticize ADOR for the sudden disappearance of content.
Following this, Shin Woo-seok filed a criminal complaint claiming ADOR’s statement which labeled the upload “unauthorized” defamed him. ADOR countered with a damage suit, leading to the current legal battle.
During the session, both sides conducted a 10-minute presentation (PT). The defendants asserted that the director’s cut upload had already been agreed upon during a July 2023 ‘ETA’ MV screening meeting attended by Shin Woo-seok, former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin, Apple representatives, and others.
The defense stated: “Everyone agreed to remove around 10 seconds from the ending. Both parties also agreed on the timing and method of upload. After Apple’s campaign ended, Shin Woo-seok would upload the full version including the deleted cut on Dolphiners Film’s YouTube channel. Since the director’s cut was unrelated to Apple, only the logo needed to be removed.”
The team argued that Shin Woo-seok had followed this agreement and even explained the arrangement to ADOR staff upon request. They also said Apple’s ad agency only asked for the phrase “iPhone 14 Pro” to be removed.
However, ADOR later issued a sudden takedown demand citing portrait and copyright ownership and warned of legal consequences if the video was not removed. The defendants said they complied by deleting all related videos.
They added: “ADOR publicly claimed Apple had not been consulted, but this is false. The agreement is supported by Min Hee-jin’s testimony, Apple Korea’s manager, and Apple’s advertising agency head.”
The defendants insisted this case was not an isolated instance of verbal approval: “The parties had long trusted each other and uploaded NewJeans videos without written agreements. Treating this one video differently contradicts ADOR’s own claims.”
They argued that the director’s cut added only a few seconds of footage and was already based on a publicly released MV, making a written contract unnecessary under industry norms.
The defense criticized prior decisions from related NewJeans cases, stating: “Those rulings were made without properly reviewing whether verbal agreements can replace written contracts or whether such an agreement existed. The decisions cannot be applied here.”
They emphasized newly submitted evidence, including Min Hee-jin’s court testimony and written confirmations: “These clearly prove that a verbal agreement existed. Uploading the director’s cut actually benefits ADOR by renewing public interest in ‘ETA.’”
The defendants concluded: “ADOR is denying a decision it directly participated in. Filing a massive compensation claim despite a valid agreement only breeds distrust. This dispute escalated unnecessarily due to management changes within ADOR. The video was uploaded based on mutual benefit for NewJeans’ promotion.”
The trial continues as both sides prepare additional evidence.
Sources: Daum
You must be logged in to post a comment.