In the fourth hearing of the ₩1.1 billion civil suit between ADOR and the Dolphiners Film production team, the defendants strongly refuted ADOR’s claims, pointing out that NewJeans’ “ETA” director’s upload of the video had previously been verbally approved.
The trial took place on December 9 in the Seoul Central District Court (Civil Division 62). ADOR filed the lawsuit after director Shin Woo-seok released 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 published without legitimate authorization. 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 the content.
Shin Woo-seok later filed a criminal complaint claiming that ADOR’s statement labeling the upload as “unauthorized” defamed him. ADOR responded with a lawsuit for damages, leading to the current legal battle.
During the session, both parties conducted a 10-minute presentation (PT). The defendants claimed that the upload of the director’s cut 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 said: “Everyone agreed to remove approximately 10 seconds from the ending. Both parties also agreed on the timing and method of uploading. After the end of Apple’s campaign, Shin Woo-seok would upload the full version, including the deleted cut, to Dolphiners Film’s YouTube channel. Since the Director’s Cut was not related to Apple, only the logo needed to be removed.”
The team claimed that Shin Woo-seok had followed this agreement and even explained the agreement to the ADOR staff upon request. They also said that Apple’s advertising agency only asked for the phrase “iPhone 14 Pro” to be removed.
However, ADOR later issued an abrupt takedown request citing ownership of the portrait and copyright, and warned of legal consequences if the video was not removed. The defendants said they complied by deleting all related videos.
They added: “ADOR has publicly claimed that Apple was not consulted, but this is false. The agreement is supported by testimony from Min Hee-jin, manager of Apple Korea and head of Apple’s advertising agency.”
The defendants insisted that this case was not an isolated case of verbal approval: “The parties had long trusted each other and uploaded NewJeans videos without written agreements. Treating this 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 contract written according to industry norms unnecessary.
The defense criticized previous decisions in related NewJeans cases, saying: “Those rulings were made without adequately testing whether oral agreements can supersede written contracts or whether such an agreement existed. The decisions cannot be applied here.”
They pointed to newly presented evidence, including Min Hee-jin’s court testimony and written confirmations: “These clearly demonstrate 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 in which it directly participated. Filing a massive compensation claim despite a valid agreement only breeds distrust. This dispute has escalated unnecessarily due to management changes within ADOR. The video was uploaded on the basis of mutual benefit for the promotion of NewJeans.”
The trial continues as both sides prepare further evidence.
Sources: Daum
