Disclaimer: Please keep it civil, im not trying to start a fanwar, just a very lengthy personal take on creative ownership and fairness in the industry.
Ok, this is just my opinion, nothings a fact, so feel free to agree or disagree. I think this whole situation makes more sense when you stop seeing it as a morality drama and start seeing it as a creative corporate clash.
Why Min Hee-jin felt threatened: Min didn’t suddenly turn on Hybe for no reason. Hybe was reportedly restructuring its labels by tightening control and auditing Ador’s finances. On paper it was standard corporate management, but it happened right after NewJeans’ huge success and after another hybe label launched illit using a similar aesthetic she pioneered in K-pop. Illit’s debut, which was done without her, became a major global success. For someone like Minheejin, who sees her art as an extension of herself, it probably felt like hybe had replicated her ideas to replace NewJeans which made Illit’s debut feel personal. Her fear wasn’t baseless, but her response spiraled.
Minheejin was also already recognised as the true creative force behind newJeans, not hybe, and the board reportedly didnt like that power imbalance. I think from her perspective, their actions would’ve looked less like oversight and more like a threatening takeover, which went against the independence/autonomy she was promised when creating NewJeans.
Where it all went wrong: Min heejin’s reaction was emotional and messy. She made defamation claims, dragged unrelated groups, leaned on emotional PR, and allowed NJZ tactics and parental involvement to blow this up publicly. Her valid issue got buried under this. Hybe, on the other hand acted how a corporation is designed to act by protecting their IP, shareholders, and reputation. It’s cold but not wrong.
I think both sides were right in their own systems, Hybe was right corporately and min hee-jin was right creatively. Newjeans were loyal personally to the one who mentered and created them, not the one who funded them. The law sided with HYBE because it had to. The public sided against Min because of her tactics.
NewJeans and their parents made it worse. They framed it as a moral war instead of a structural issue. If they had said, we are fighting for creative protection for Min heejin, more people might’ve listened. Instead, they went for bullying accusations, plagiarism claims and emotional, inconsistent stories. Even if they were scared or confused, the messaging made them look manipulative instead of principled.
The fallout; Min Heejin deserved to lose the case but not her legacy. Hybe keeping ownership was clearly legally correct but artistically hollow and newJeans returning feels bittersweet because the creative heart behind them is gone. Everyone lost something, and the system stays the same.
The bigger picture: This kind of clash isn’t unique to K-pop. George Lucas lost creative control of Starwars, and artists like Taylor swift and Kesha fought their labels for ownership. Even in K-pop, we’ve seen something similar, the Fiftyfifty producers and shin wooseuk clashing with their label for control and ironically Bang leaving Jyp to build Hybe for the same freedom Minheejin wanted.
It’s always the same pattern with creators builds worlds, corporations fund them, and eventually corporations own them. This wasn’t about who’s right or wrong. It was about a creative who felt her art slipping away and fought emotionally, and a corporation that responded logically. The current law says whoever funds the art owns it but that doesn’t make it completly right, at least to me. I guess my point is whether art should majority belong to the one who makes it, or the one who funds it?
submitted by /u/Significant_Ad_5786
[link] [comments]
