2024-11-15 Kim Tae-ho Interview with OSEN

Interview 1 Korean original: [단독] 빌리프랩 대표, 기획안 유사성 의혹에 입 열었다.."전혀 달라” [인터뷰①] - OSEN 

English translation by Grok AI

[Exclusive] BELIFT LAB CEO Addresses Allegations of Concept Similarity: "Completely Different" [Interview ①]

By OSEN Reporter Ji Min-kyung

Published: November 15, 2024, 15:00

As the controversy over claims that ILLIT copied NewJeans has persisted for over six months, BELIFT LAB CEO Kim Tae-ho has once again emphasized that the two are "completely different."

In April, former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin raised allegations that BELIFT LAB’s rookie girl group ILLIT’s concept was similar to NewJeans, accusing them of plagiarism. BELIFT LAB strongly denied these claims, filing lawsuits against Min for business interference and defamation, as well as pursuing additional civil litigation.

However, the plagiarism allegations surrounding NewJeans and ILLIT flared up again last month. On October 11, during a hearing at the Seoul Central District Court’s Civil Division 50 (Chief Judge Kim Sang-hoon) regarding Min Hee-jin’s injunction request against HYBE to exercise voting rights, Min’s side submitted evidence to support claims that ILLIT plagiarized NewJeans’ planning documents.

According to a whistleblower, ILLIT’s creative director requested NewJeans’ planning documents from the conceptualization stage, claiming that ILLIT’s planning document was identical to NewJeans’. In response, BELIFT LAB stated, “ILLIT’s branding strategy and concept were finalized and internally shared on July 21, 2023. The so-called ‘planning document’ was sent by the whistleblower on August 29, 2023, meaning it could not have influenced ILLIT’s concept due to the timeline.”

On November 11, a media outlet published parts of BELIFT LAB’s rookie girl group planning document alongside NewJeans’ planning document, reporting significant similarities, which drew attention.

Amid these ongoing allegations of ILLIT copying NewJeans, BELIFT LAB CEO Kim Tae-ho has directly addressed the issue. In a recent interview with OSEN at HYBE’s headquarters in Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Kim shared his stance on various issues, from the alleged similarities in planning documents to the explanatory video released in June.

The following is a Q&A with CEO Kim Tae-ho.

Q. Why did you decide to speak out again on the similarity issue?

It’s unfortunate that our message isn’t being conveyed effectively. As a label under HYBE, we’re limited in fully expressing what we want to say. Additionally, the details we need to explain are very intricate, making it challenging to actively clarify our position.

When the similarity controversy first arose after the release of our concept photos, we thought it was an inevitable burden for a group debuting after a highly successful team like NewJeans. We believed that once our songs and music videos were released, the issue would naturally subside. However, after ILLIT’s debut in March, the controversy began in April and attacks on ILLIT have not stopped since.

Despite achieving remarkable results that deserved celebration, the plagiarism allegations have caused emotional distress to the members and significant harm to our label’s staff. We initially held back, expecting the situation to resolve, but it hasn’t, and the attacks have intensified, with ILLIT being labeled a “plagiarism group.” This led us to release an explanatory video. As the issue persists, we decided to more actively present our stance.

Q. What is BELIFT LAB’s position on claims that NewJeans’ and ILLIT’s planning documents are similar?

In October, during the hearing for Min’s injunction request against HYBE, the similarity of the planning documents was brought up again. However, Min’s side only used the claim in court without submitting the anonymous whistleblower’s text messages, recordings, or the planning documents as evidence. The fact that they couldn’t submit the documents alleging similarities in design, font, and structure as legal evidence suggests that Min does not consider this a core issue.

Q. Regarding claims of similarities in PPT design, fonts, and certain strategies/wording (e.g., “sense of relatability,” “admiration,” “influencer,” “creator”), what is BELIFT LAB’s stance?

The claim of similarity in document format is absurd. Designs using circles with text or lines are widely used across industries and are a standard PPT format, even included in HYBE’s internal templates.

Keywords like “sense of relatability” and “admiration” were already finalized in BELIFT LAB’s documents between April and July 2023, before receiving NewJeans’ planning document in August 2023. The timeline makes the claim illogical. “Admiration” is a fundamental aspect of idols—any idol group that doesn’t incorporate it would be unusual. “Sense of relatability” reflects a team’s focus on connecting with fans of the same generation, a common consideration for any active idol group. These are standard, common-sense terms being misrepresented.

As for “influencer” and “creator,” they are not the same. Context matters. ILLIT’s planning document, centered on the debut album SUPER REAL ME, defines the group as “incomplete” yet loving the present. Having debuted through an audition program, their artistic polish may be lacking, but their strength lies in their raw, authentic personalities, reflecting the essence of today’s youth. “Creator” refers to their approach of showcasing their authentic selves by directly filming and editing content. In contrast, “influencer” in NewJeans’ planning document refers to aspirational, “wannabe” figures, a different concept from ILLIT’s “creator.”

Regarding document structure, strategic documents across industries typically follow a standard format: overview, market analysis, strategy development, execution plan, and metrics. Deviating from this would be unusual. Claiming plagiarism because two girl groups in the same industry have similar document structures is unreasonable.

Q. A HYBE whistleblower claimed, “I never imagined they’d make it exactly the same.” Isn’t this clear evidence of plagiarism?

The two documents are not the same. Someone claiming they’re identical doesn’t make it true. Unsubstantiated claims cannot serve as evidence of similarity. The recent media coverage cited similarities like “using circles,” but circles are part of HYBE’s standard PPT template.

The images shown in the media were not our actual PPT but were edited in Photoshop to appear similar, with spacing adjusted to match. ILLIT debuted in March 2024, while the document in question is from 2020. If we wanted to copy Min Hee-jin’s ideas, wouldn’t it have been easier to copy NewJeans’ existing work rather than digging up a document from before ADOR was even established and copying circles? This situation is frustrating for us.

(To be continued in Interview ②)

Interview 2 Korean original: [단독] 빌리프랩 대표 “아일릿, 오디션 조작했다고? 투표로 공정하게 선정” [인터뷰②] - OSEN 

English translation by Grok AI

[Exclusive] BELIFT LAB CEO: “ILLIT Manipulated Auditions? Members Were Fairly Selected by Vote” [Interview ②]

By OSEN Reporter Ji Min-kyung

Published: November 15, 2024, 15:02

(Continued from Interview ①)

Q. You’ve stated that the timelines of ILLIT and NewJeans’ planning documents make plagiarism impossible. Can you explain with a clear timeline?

The NewJeans planning document in question was shared with BELIFT LAB in August 2023. Until then, BELIFT LAB’s ILLIT preparation team had never seen it.

ILLIT’s initial planning documents were completed before August 2023, when NewJeans’ document was shared, and already included the keywords now being cited as similar. Specifically, the “Business Strategy Direction” document was created between April and June 2023, and the “New Girl Group Branding Strategy” document, outlining ILLIT’s brand keywords and identity, was finalized in July 2023. The document currently being flagged for similarities is the September 2023 “New Girl Group Planning Document,” which compiles the earlier April–July documents. Building on the July branding strategy, it details ILLIT’s goals, target segments, content and business directions, and mid-to-long-term roadmap.

Some have pointed to BELIFT LAB’s October statement that “strategy and concept were finalized on July 21, 2023,” questioning how a planning document could exist before ILLIT’s members were finalized on September 1, 2023, via the audition program, and even suggesting the program was manipulated. This is a misleading claim that deceives those unfamiliar with idol production. Countless documents are created from planning to debut, with strategy documents serving different roles at different stages.

Our October statement was a rebuttal to a “whistleblower” claim during Min Hee-jin’s injunction hearing against HYBE, alleging that the “concepts” of the two groups’ planning documents were similar. As explained, ILLIT’s “concept” was established in the July 2023 “New Girl Group Branding Strategy” document, which is why we stated that “strategy and concept were finalized in July.”

The ILLIT planning document cited for similarities is the September 2023 version, which goes beyond just the “concept.” It was written after the debut lineup was formed on September 1, refining the July branding strategy and concept to reflect individual members’ characters, while specifying execution plans.

Such claims ignore the iterative nature of artist production, where planning is revised and finalized over time. Naturally, the debut lineup was fairly selected through voting.

In the audition program, only two members were chosen by vote, while four were selected by the company. If we had manipulated it, we would’ve claimed all six were chosen by vote. At the time, many questioned why only two were selected by vote, calling it unusual. From our perspective, prioritizing the company’s concept direction over selecting all members by vote was the better choice. We took the risk of openly stating that only two were chosen by vote.

Q. Some criticized BELIFT LAB’s June video addressing the similarity controversy for lacking persuasiveness, mentioning unrelated artists, and using inappropriate source citations. What’s your stance?

ILLIT, shortly after debuting, was branded a “plagiarism group.” Min Hee-jin even introduced an absurd new plagiarism theory, claiming we “copied the formula.”

The part of our video citing other artists explained, with specific examples, that “we don’t believe NewJeans copied choreography from other artists who debuted earlier, as similar moves are common in choreography due to its nature.”

If we could go back, we’d still release that video. We might adjust parts that could be misunderstood, but uploading it was the right choice. We didn’t expect the video to resolve everything and anticipated negative reactions.

At the time, some said the issue was dying down and questioned why we were stirring it up again. Many assume I’m not from the entertainment industry, but I’ve worked in film since 1992 and have long been involved in entertainment. My experience taught me that letting an issue quiet down doesn’t make it forgotten—it solidifies the controversy in the minds of those following it. Without that video, ILLIT’s plagiarism would’ve been cemented as fact. At the very least, the video clearly conveyed to many that we didn’t plagiarize.

Q. What’s the status of legal actions related to the similarity controversy?

Min Hee-jin has been delaying civil and criminal cases by repeatedly postponing arguments, using various tactics to stall. Frustrated, we requested the court on Tuesday to set a “hearing date.”

In June, BELIFT LAB filed a lawsuit against Min. Despite knowing about it, she avoided receiving the complaint three times. It took about three months after filing for her to accept it. Even then, she submitted no materials or responses. To prevent further delays, we filed an additional “request for a judgment without a hearing” last week. Only then did Min’s side submit a perfunctory response, stating they were “reviewing the case and would respond within six weeks.”

This week, another lawsuit was filed. ILLIT’s creative director sued Min Hee-jin and former ADOR executives over her plagiarism claims. If Min is confident in her allegations, we urge her to sincerely engage with the lawsuits we’ve filed.

(To be continued in Interview ③)

Interview 3 Korean original: [단독] 빌리프랩 대표 “뉴진스 성과 대단하나 베낀 적 없다..아일릿 멤버들도 큰 충격” [인터뷰③] - OSEN 

English translation by Grok AI

[Exclusive] BELIFT LAB CEO: “NewJeans’ Achievements Are Remarkable, But We Never Copied Them... ILLIT Members Are Deeply Shocked” [Interview③]

Input: November 15, 2024, 3:31 PM

Reporters: Choi Yi-jeong, Ji Min-kyung (OSEN)

(Continued from Interview②)

Q. Are you saying that NewJeans had no influence whatsoever on the creation process of ILLIT?

I believe there isn’t a single team that debuted or was planned for debut after NewJeans that wasn’t influenced by them. NewJeans’ achievements are truly remarkable, and that must be acknowledged. Whether a team follows a similar path due to that influence or takes a different one because of it, they are influenced in some way. That’s undeniable. However, if you ask whether we ever thought, even once, “If we make ILLIT like NewJeans, it’ll be easier to succeed” while forming the debut group and setting the concept, the answer is absolutely not.

I’ve consistently said this: ILLIT has never copied Director Min’s or NewJeans’ ideas. That is clear. To prove we didn’t copy, we have a mountain of evidence, but we can’t expect the public to go through it all. As I mentioned during the National Assembly audit, this issue should be handled in court, and we are addressing it there.

Q. Regarding claims that ILLIT, a team directly produced by Chairman Bang Si-hyuk, received preferential treatment within HYBE compared to NewJeans, what is your stance?

Everyone in the company knows that ADOR and NewJeans have received extensive support in terms of promotions, brand collaborations, and various other aspects. The examples of support provided to ADOR and NewJeans are too numerous to list.

For instance, the shared styling room in the Yongsan office is booked as needed by artists, but NewJeans has had a dedicated styling room since their second year after debut. HYBE staff know well whether this is discrimination or special treatment.

Q. What is the current situation with ILLIT’s members?

ILLIT has been hit hard by this situation. This week is especially critical as they’re in the middle of a comeback and starting promotions for their follow-up song. From the label’s perspective, it’s also the week of ENHYPEN’s comeback, and this attack came on the very day of their comeback, making it harder to respond. It affects the artists’ activities. The members are handling this bravely, and it’s actually the staff who are being comforted by them.

Initially, the members were understandably very upset. They kept their struggles among themselves, not wanting the company to worry, and told us they were fine. Especially during the “ignore” incident, they were deeply shocked. They know the facts, so they asked why this was going so far, whether the CEO did something wrong, or if they themselves did something wrong. They seemed scared to go on stage.

Now, they’ve grown stronger. I believe if they overcome this hurdle, they’ll become exceptional artists. They’ve matured and don’t even feel like rookies anymore, which makes me feel sorry for them. Once again, I emphasize that we never told anyone to “ignore” anyone.

One of the goals for this ILLIT promotion is to clearly define the image ILLIT will carry moving forward. The second goal is that, due to the overwhelming controversy, we haven’t had the chance to convey our intended message or show who these artists are. On the flip side, because “Magnetic” was such a huge success, we were afraid of being trapped in the frame it created. Our goal is to create expandability.

Q. What are your hopes moving forward?

As the CEO responsible for protecting our artists, I can no longer overlook the pain our artists are enduring due to the dispute between HYBE and Director Min. These issues repeatedly arise whenever our artists are active. This week is crucial for all BELIFT LAB artists—there was a comeback, ILLIT’s follow-up music video is being released this week, and they’re starting promotions. Next week, everyone is attending the MAMA Awards. Raising such baseless issues during a critical period when artists need to focus on their comebacks is malicious behavior with bad intentions.

I believe this needs to be resolved legally as soon as possible, and those responsible must be held accountable. Even if the truth comes to light, recovering from the damage won’t be easy. The lives of these five members are at stake, and at their age, debuting and promoting as idols feels like a month is equivalent to a year. In fact, this issue delayed their comeback. In this market, it’s hard to recover when placed in a bad situation. If this had happened because of the members’ faults, I’d feel less guilty, but these are hardworking, upright, and sincere kids. If they don’t succeed because of this issue, I’ll carry that guilt forever.

I feel the most sorry for ILLIT’s fans. I don’t know what they’ve done to deserve this. I’m grateful and sorry—they’ve continued to cherish and love ILLIT despite this chaos.

Meanwhile, former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin has been claiming since April that ILLIT’s concept is similar to NewJeans, alleging that ILLIT copied NewJeans. She stated that when she raised this internally, she faced audits and accusations of attempting to seize management control. In response, BELIFT LAB has denied the plagiarism allegations, filing lawsuits against Min for business obstruction and defamation, as well as additional civil lawsuits.