News Keena will sit out the entire Day & Night album promotion due to health reasons (1 Viewer)

[Moguri]

so sad.. I hope it's nothing too serious.. but when she is sitting out 2 weeks it does sound concering.. hopefully she gets healthy again soon

Also she must be devastated to miss out the promotions..

FIFTY FIFTY's Keena To Sit Out Album Promotions Due To Health Reasons | Soompi

FIFTY FIFTY's Keena will go on hiatus due to health reasons. On May 7, FIFTY FIFTY's agency ATTRAKT announced that Keena will not be participating in any

www.soompi.com

@Tweny

 

[athenaaa]

I hope she feels better soon and that it’s not too serious

 

[kimsguardian]

get well soon baby

 

[babyv004]

I will use this post to ask something here.
So in another forum i read the news that recently The Givers won all the copyrights of "Cupid".

Is this truth?
WTF 🤨

Things are getting weird in kpop lately. So The Givers (aka the scammers) get to keep the song' credits and Newjeans lost the case against Hybe/ADOR.

I am the only one here finding all this weird? Why is the korean court not protecting the idols are siding more with the companies and criminals?

Didn't Keena stated that they forced her signature to reduce her original 6.5% of copyrights on the song to only 0.5%? And the courts still ruled with The Givers even after that?

edit: I heard they even put Keena with The Givers to testify and the poor girl had a PTSD attack and that is why she is not promoting now with the rest of the group.

 

[centen]

I'm glad she is recovering instead of pushing through, but I'm sure she's super disappointed too. It's got to be fun to see all their hard work last year paying off with such a big increase in Tweny this year.

 

[centen]

I will use this post to ask something here.
So in another forum i read the news that recently The Givers won all the copyrights of "Cupid".

Is this truth?
WTF 🤨

Things are getting weird in kpop lately. So The Givers (aka the scammers) get to keep the song' credits and Newjeans lost the case against Hybe/ADOR.

I am the only one here finding all this weird?

Didn't Keena stated that they forced her signature to reduce her original 6.5% of copyrights on the song to only 0.5%? And the courts still ruled with The Givers even after that?

IDK about the New Jeans case, but the Cupid one was the weakest of Attrakt's cases anyway.

So, at a high level, any given song has multiple owners, and even more people who can get paid, with "rights to the song" and "rights to the recording" being related, but separate.

• There's the copyright for the song, which is the sheet music/demo, the words and notes itself. This typically belongs to the writer(s), but it's also possible for the original writers to sell their composition to an individual or company to own. (And on that point, Keena's lawsuit about The Givers' fraudulently reducing her songwriting copyright is still outstanding.)
• There's the copyright for the sound recording, which is the performance, instrumentation, and recording. Think of Taylor Swift's case about the masters. This copyright is usually owned by a record label.

The owner of the songwriting copyright typically licenses their composition to other people to actually record the music. The recording owner then negotiates royalties or payment structure with producers, engineers, musicians, and vocalists.

Record sales and sampling from an old song into a new song typically go to the entity that owns the recording copyright, but public performances, covers, etc. typically go to the entity who owns the songwriting copyright. Then there are also publishers who get involved to help manage collecting all the royalties owed and distributing to all the copyright holders (after taking their cut).

So, if things had been done as typical business-as-usual, then Attrakt would own the recording copyright and The Givers would have been paid via some sort of negotiation of up-front payment and/or royalties for their creative role in getting the song produced. However, The Givers were allowed to be in the position of registering copyright, and registered it to themselves. Although common sense would tell you that no sane record label would have agreed to that, the current ruling is basically that Attrakt hasn't properly proved that wasn't the agreed-upon outcome. Attrakt is obviously planning to appeal, but it's also known that The Givers were prosecuted for destruction of documents and embezzlement, so who knows if Attrakt can even obtain the documentation to more thoroughly show their case. Or, to be frank, that's assuming thorough documentation even existed in the first place, since we know at this point that where Attrakt can be blamed, it's for being overly trusting; Attrakt may very well have had a "handshake agreement" with The Givers that The Givers knowingly chose to disregard.

Also, note, all of this is about the copyright and who actually owns it between Attrakt and The Givers. It has nothing to do with the members (former or current) themselves.