"We are too busy trying to get Hanni deported and the others tried for treason to comment at the moment"
"We are too busy trying to get Hanni deported and the others tried for treason to comment at the moment"
"we are too busy trying to get NJs cancelled over anything that we are unable to say something about this matter. Hopefully in March we'll be a family again"
I'd imagine it'd be heart-warming and comforting for them to see the support in person all over the world after all they've been through.
So I hope they will be able to do this soon.
And what are they going to sing there, I hope they release at least a full album.
I don't either
But I've just been doing a lot of thinking as we're nearing the anniversary of this mess and I've come to an epiphany. Isn't it all fruitless?
There was a time when I dove headfirst into every debate about the HYBE vs. NewJeans conflict, convinced that if I just explained things the right way, people would finally see the truth. I spent hours dissecting every statement, analyzing every move, and passionately defending what I believed was right. But the more I argued, the more I realized that no matter how much evidence I brought, no matter how well I articulated my thoughts, the battle never really ended. Opinions stayed locked, emotions ran high, and at the end of the day, the only thing I was left with was exhaustion. That’s when it hit me—this conflict, like so many before it, won't be solved no matter how much we argue about it. And in that moment of clarity, I made a choice: to step back, to let go of the need to fight, and to simply hope for the best for NewJeans.
Because at the heart of it all, that’s what truly matters. Not the debates, not the endless back-and-forth, but the music, the artistry, and the dreams of these young women who have worked so hard to bring us joy. Instead of getting caught in a whirlwind of negativity, I choose to celebrate their talent, to uplift their journey, and to believe that, no matter what obstacles come their way, they will shine. NewJeans has already proven that they are more than just a group—they are a movement, a force of creativity, and a symbol of resilience. So rather than wasting energy on battles that lead nowhere, I choose to channel my passion into unwavering support. No matter what happens, one thing is certain: greatness cannot be dimmed, and true talent will always rise. So here’s to NewJeans—may they continue to break barriers, inspire the world, and remind us all why we fell in love with them in the first place.
Oh yeah, I just assumed they can do their NJ songs, but they just have an 1 hour discography I know that they can do VCRs and Covers like other groups, but usually a concert lasts 2 hours o something like that so I think releasing a full album would make a great set list.
And I'm not hating, really, I would go (if they come to my country) without a doubt, but it wouldn't be the first kpop concert I pass because I think it's not worth the money if they can't fill the time performing their music.
Nah, but seriously, they can't perform NewJeans songs, that's a fact! So what are they gonna sing? I mean, even if they can release a full-album this year with 10+ songs, that's only 30 minute or 40 at best. Let's add some covers and some talking, and it can be an hour long concert.
I know Tokkis are high on positivity right now, but shouldn't they deal with their legal problems first, then a World Tour?
Every time they say something, I feel they just want to make things worse.
Nah, but seriously, they can't perform NewJeans songs, that's a fact!
Not exactly that clear cut
Nah, but seriously, they can't perform NewJeans songs, that's a fact! So what are they gonna sing? I mean, even if they can release a full-album this year with 10+ songs, that's only 30 minute or 40 at best. Let's add some covers and some talking, and it can be an hour long concert.
I know Tokkis are high on positivity right now, but shouldn't they deal with their legal problems first, then a World Tour?
Every time they say something, I feel they just want to make things worse.
But they can right? I don't know how it works so I can be talking nonsense, but a lot of artists do covers of others and I'm not that sure if everybody is asking for permission.
But they can right? I don't know how it works so I can be talking nonsense, but a lot of artists do covers of others and I'm not that sure if everybody is asking for permission.
It doesn't matter if it's a cover on your Youtube channel or a cover at your own concert, you have to pay for it and aks for permission.
I mean, just look at Mamamoo's Solar latest Gamsung album Part 8. On paper, RBW bought the copyrights for the Japanese song, yet 2 weeks later they had to remove it from every platform, and we still don't know why, and they still didn't solve the problem after 4 months!
Sure, if their case would be normal, but it isn't. It's not like they left ADOR like best friends.
Even if the songs were produced outside HYBE/ADOR, they don't own the copyright, so they have to pay for it. Not sure if KOMCA would let them do this, btw. I'm pretty sure I read something about them saying NJ should go back to ADOR.
Also, ADOR and HYBE owns the name NewJeans, so technically they have a say in any NJ covers.
Catch me in a bad window after browsing Reddit, and it could've been done with no regard for the devastating aftermath.
But DaisyTheGenuine isn't wrong with anything she just said.
She's just much better at being a better person than me 
Sure, if their case would be normal, but it isn't. It's not like they left ADOR like best friends.
Even if the songs were produced outside HYBE/ADOR, they don't own the copyright, so they have to pay for it. Not sure if KOMCA would let them do this, btw. I'm pretty sure I read something about them saying NJ should go back to ADOR.
Also, ADOR and HYBE owns the name NewJeans, so technically they have a say in any NJ covers.
Venues obtain licenses. It allows singers to sing copyrighted songs without seeking individual permissions. It isn't that big of a deal.
Sure, if their case would be normal, but it isn't. It's not like they left ADOR like best friends.
Even if the songs were produced outside HYBE/ADOR, they don't own the copyright, so they have to pay for it. Not sure if KOMCA would let them do this, btw. I'm pretty sure I read something about them saying NJ should go back to ADOR.
You're thinking of KMCA. KMCA is not KOMCA.
KOMCA has already spoken on the issue. Pay the fee and shouldn't be a problem
Venues obtain licenses. It allows singers to sing copyrighted songs without seeking individual permissions. It isn't that big of a deal.
I'm sorry, what now? Venues? Be serious, please! Do you think the owner of a venue doing the licenses? Yeah, that's not how it works.
You're thinking of KMCA. KMCA is not KOMCA.
KOMCA has already spoken on the issue. Pay the fee and shouldn't be a problem
Right, almost the same name. I'm just guessing and if they can have a World Tour we'll see what song they can or will sing anyway. I don't really mind anything, kinda bored with this Kdrama, but nice to see HYBE and ADOR suffer.
LOL, help them afford the lawyers. 🤣
Jokes aside, it's not like mainstream Kpop concerts are not 10 times more expensive anyway, right? Honestly, it's insane how expensive some concerts are, and not just Kpop, btw.
I'm sorry, what now? Venues? Be serious, please! Do you think the owner of a venue doing the licenses? Yeah, that's not how it works.
Right, almost the same name. I'm just guessing and if they can have a World Tour we'll see what song they can or will sing anyway. I don't really mind anything, kinda bored with this Kdrama, but nice to see HYBE and ADOR suffer.
You don't have to be so condescending. You can look this up.
Performance Rights: For live K-pop performances, venues typically need to secure licenses that allow for the public performance of copyrighted songs. These licenses ensure that songwriters, composers, and publishers receive royalties for the use of their work.
Venue Responsibility: Often, concert venues have blanket licenses that cover live performances of copyrighted material. These licenses typically allow for the public performance of copyrighted songs within the venue.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/if-concert-venues-have-blanket-AyVw9d4lSBmrPiP2iAf4Xw
No, the owner of a song cannot block singers from performing their songs live if the venue has the appropriate blanket licenses. Venues typically acquire blanket licenses from Performing Rights Organizations (PROs) like ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, which allow for the public performance of copyrighted songs, including covers. These licenses give performers the right to play any song in the PRO's repertoire without needing individual permission from the copyright owner.
Once a song has been published, the right to perform it live becomes subject to compulsory licensing under copyright law. This means that as long as the venue has the proper licenses, performers can legally cover songs without seeking explicit permission from the original artist or copyright holder.
It's important to note that:
In summary, if a venue has the proper blanket licenses, copyright owners cannot prevent their songs from being performed live at that venue.
Display MoreYou don't have to be so condescending. You can look this up.
Performance Rights: For live K-pop performances, venues typically need to secure licenses that allow for the public performance of copyrighted songs. These licenses ensure that songwriters, composers, and publishers receive royalties for the use of their work.
Venue Responsibility: Often, concert venues have blanket licenses that cover live performances of copyrighted material. These licenses typically allow for the public performance of copyrighted songs within the venue.
https://www.perplexity.ai/sear…et-AyVw9d4lSBmrPiP2iAf4Xw
No, the owner of a song cannot block singers from performing their songs live if the venue has the appropriate blanket licenses. Venues typically acquire blanket licenses from Performing Rights Organizations (PROs) like ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, which allow for the public performance of copyrighted songs, including covers. These licenses give performers the right to play any song in the PRO's repertoire without needing individual permission from the copyright owner.
Once a song has been published, the right to perform it live becomes subject to compulsory licensing under copyright law. This means that as long as the venue has the proper licenses, performers can legally cover songs without seeking explicit permission from the original artist or copyright holder.
It's important to note that:
- Venues are responsible for obtaining these licenses, not the performers.
- Performers should confirm that the venue has the appropriate licenses before performing.
- This applies only to live performances and not to recording or distributing covers, which would require different types of licenses.
In summary, if a venue has the proper blanket licenses, copyright owners cannot prevent their songs from being performed live at that venue.
this isn't specific for NJZ specifically but I understand how certain rights holders may be able to prevent someone or some group from using or singing their songs in public
such as like IF I was anti-trump and trump tried to use my song at a rally or event I would be able to prevent that???
does that same theory hold with for example let's say ADOR specifically saying we are not allowing NJZ to perform the copyright songs?
There is also the fact that ador may own the masters of the song, they do not own the original lyrics/composition and that the girls are on the credits of quite a few songs in some way or another. That can impact what they can do with it.
this isn't specific for NJZ specifically but I understand how certain rights holders may be able to prevent someone or some group from using or singing their songs in public
such as like IF I was anti-trump and trump tried to use my song at a rally or event I would be able to prevent that???
does that same theory hold with for example let's say ADOR specifically saying we are not allowing NJZ to perform the copyright songs?
From what I'm reading, there are different rules and procedures when politics are involved.
The problem comes if NJZ uses loud backing tracks, pre-recorded tracks, videos, names and images that are under Ador's copyright. However, the only barrier to a live performance is KOMCA's approval, not Ador.
When life gives us lemons, make lemonade
Bandjeans (BJZ?) was superior anyway
this isn't specific for NJZ specifically but I understand how certain rights holders may be able to prevent someone or some group from using or singing their songs in public
such as like IF I was anti-trump and trump tried to use my song at a rally or event I would be able to prevent that???
does that same theory hold with for example let's say ADOR specifically saying we are not allowing NJZ to perform the copyright songs?
You can't stop people from playing any song at any public event as long as the event has a PRO license (at least through copyright claims) but you CAN prevent them to use your sonsg for example in ads for a campaign, or use the melody but change the lyrics and stuff like that. Those are differente kind of licenses that need to be negotiated with the copyright owner.
So in this case no, they can't stop them from performing any song. What NJs can't do is for example make videos with the songs, use pictures, images or logos from their work with ador, stuff like that.
I'm guessing ADOR can have other legal options if they want to prevent the girls from performing at all (the injunction maybe?) but at least not thorugh copyright.
When life gives us lemons, make lemonade
Bandjeans (BJZ?) was superior anyway
External Content youtu.beContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
That Lollapalooza performance had me in a chokehold for a while. The band, the girls and most of all the crowd was insane.
is the right to deny only related to politics per se? what of any groups that one disagrees with? like let's say I'm African American - could I prevent say the KKK from using/singing my songs (why they would use it in the first place is beyond me) or maybe I had an ex who abused me - would I be able to say prevent them?
(the above are just examples but the jist is can the owner prevent ANYBODY from singing/using such songs for ANY purpose)
is there any way that ADOR can ask/request KOMCA deny NJZ the rights to sing any such songs?
You can't stop people from playing any song at any public event as long as the event has a PRO license (at least through copyright claims) but you CAN prevent them to use your sonsg for example in ads for a campaign, or use the melody but change the lyrics and stuff like that. Those are differente kind of licenses that need to be negotiated with the copyright owner.
So in this case no, they can't stop them from performing any song. What NJs can't do is for example make videos with the songs, use pictures, images or logos from their work with ador, stuff like that.
I'm guessing ADOR can have other legal options if they want to prevent the girls from performing at all (the injunction maybe?) but at least not thorugh copyright.
sorry when you said playing in your first paragraph that also extends to performance of said song? since you use the words playing and then later using and performing
and the only entity that has the right to allow or deny said playing/performing rights is KOMCA not ADOR (in relationship to the copyright issue only)?
Display MoreYou don't have to be so condescending. You can look this up.
Performance Rights: For live K-pop performances, venues typically need to secure licenses that allow for the public performance of copyrighted songs. These licenses ensure that songwriters, composers, and publishers receive royalties for the use of their work.
Venue Responsibility: Often, concert venues have blanket licenses that cover live performances of copyrighted material. These licenses typically allow for the public performance of copyrighted songs within the venue.
https://www.perplexity.ai/sear…et-AyVw9d4lSBmrPiP2iAf4Xw
No, the owner of a song cannot block singers from performing their songs live if the venue has the appropriate blanket licenses. Venues typically acquire blanket licenses from Performing Rights Organizations (PROs) like ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, which allow for the public performance of copyrighted songs, including covers. These licenses give performers the right to play any song in the PRO's repertoire without needing individual permission from the copyright owner.
Once a song has been published, the right to perform it live becomes subject to compulsory licensing under copyright law. This means that as long as the venue has the proper licenses, performers can legally cover songs without seeking explicit permission from the original artist or copyright holder.
It's important to note that:
- Venues are responsible for obtaining these licenses, not the performers.
- Performers should confirm that the venue has the appropriate licenses before performing.
- This applies only to live performances and not to recording or distributing covers, which would require different types of licenses.
In summary, if a venue has the proper blanket licenses, copyright owners cannot prevent their songs from being performed live at that venue.
Even if the venues have to do these things, they still need ADOR's permission! And even if the company doesn't own the songs, they still own everything that related to NJ's name! It's not that simple for NJZ to sing NJ songs. Even if they won't use backtrack and copyrighted materials. Like I said before, this is 100% different than a usual concert. ADOR will do everything to stop them to sing NJ songs!
You already said, if they do this with a LIVE BAND, it's different from a simple cover. The band have to record the songs for the covers! They have to make their own version, basically, and it's a different type of licensing, you can read it in this post.
As I said before, NewJeans' case is completely different than a normal singer. They still have an active legal problem with ADOR, and if they will perform NJ songs, it doesn't matter if they do it at a concert or not, it won't help their case at the court.
These girls should care about this before they do a World Tour!
Legal experts weigh in on NewJeans rebranding to NJZ amid ADOR dispute | allkpop
Buying Kpop tickets in the US is madness, because they still don't want to do anything about the scalpers. Thank God, I don't live there. I would never buy a ticket on Ticketmaster. I don't get why they even let people to resell their tickets. Makes no sense. And if they want to let people do it, there should be a rule that they can resell for the same price.
sorry when you said playing in your first paragraph that also extends to performance of said song? since you use the words playing and then later using and performing
and the only entity that has the right to allow or deny said playing/performing rights is KOMCA not ADOR (in relationship to the copyright issue only)?
There are 2 types of copyright owners when we are talking about a song: there's the author of the song (songwriters, composer, lyricsist, etc) and then there's the owner of the recording of this song (or as people call it, the masters). Authors usually work with publishing companies, while record labels are usually the owners of these masters.
When you are doing a live performance, in theory, you don't engage with the recording of that song, so you would only need to pay the authors. However, if you are at an event where the recording is being played (like a club, a bar, or I'm assuming a political event), then you will have to pay the owner of the recording too (I think the US is different in this aspect from europe, or maybe just for radio, I'm not sure). This is what its called a public performance right.
Now if these negotiations where to be done individually, can you image the amount of the licenses a single event will have to negotiate to be able to play/perform a single song? let alone a bunch of songs with different copyright owners? This is why performing rights organizations (PRO) exist, they are the ones in charge of giving these licencenses, collecting the money and then paying the copyright owners. Each country can have one or more PRO, this is what KOMCA is. Usually there's one association for authors and one for record owners (I think this is KMCA in korea). These associations are not just for licenses though, they can also advocate for the industry in general, as collectively they have more power.
This event is not in korea, so KOMCA is not the one giving the license. According to wikipedia HK's PROs is called CASH. In theory, CASH will collect the money and then give it to KOMCA, who would then pay the copyright owners. This should not be confused with the artists, they will get their own money for the performance.
Now imagine you want to make an ad or a film using a song from NJs. Again, you will need a license for both the authors AND the record owners. In this case the PROs won't get involved. You will have to contact the publishers and the record label individually and BOTH need to giver permision for you to use that song. This is where ADOR can say no and maybe HYBE publishing, since I believe they hold the rights for some NJs songs.
Now you are asking what if trump did an event, got their license and hire a cover artist to perform your songs or played the recording. In theory, there is not copyright infrigment there I believe. However, you can come for them for other things, like using your likeness for the campaign or stuff like that I suppose. However, if trump use the melody of your song and put his own MAGA lyrics to it, THEN its copyright infrigment, because to modify a song you absolutely need permision from the author. If Trump sampled your song for his own MAGA rap song, then they would need both the author and the record owner permission.
This is why I'm saying, ADOR probably will try and stop NJZ perfomance one way or another, but it won't be through copyright.
Omg this came out so much longer than I intended to, sorry >.<
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
"
but at least them being expensive could be reasoned with them being priced to help them afford the 
