Whose Cupid Is It? 5 Shockwaves The Givers' Consecutive Court Victory in the FIFTY FIFTY 'Cupid' Copyright Appeal Sends to K-Pop's Production & IP Ecosystem

One-line hook: A court ruling that the copyright to the global hit 'Cupid' belongs to an outside production company — not the management agency — is shaking the entire contract ecosystem of the K-pop industry.

TL;DR

• March 5, 2026: The 5-2 Civil Division of the Seoul High Court dismissed Attrakt's appeal in its copyright confirmation lawsuit against The Givers over 'Cupid.'
• Following the first trial (May 2025), The Givers and CEO Ahn Sung-il have now won two consecutive rulings.
• The court held that "The Givers is the party to the copyright assignment agreement, and there is no basis to find that Attrakt acquired the copyrights to Cupid."
• Attrakt stated it finds the ruling "hard to accept" and is reviewing its options.
• The Givers officially announced it will "actively respond based on the facts in all remaining lawsuits."

The Facts — What Happened

How It Started: 2023 Global Hit → 2023 Dispute Explosion

In early 2023, FIFTY FIFTY, a rookie group under Attrakt, went globally viral on TikTok with 'Cupid,' reaching #17 on the Billboard Hot 100 — an unprecedented feat for a new K-pop act. Just months later, the FIFTY FIFTY members filed for an injunction to suspend their exclusive contracts with Attrakt, triggering one of the most closely watched disputes in K-pop history.

At the center was The Givers — the outsourced production company that produced 'Cupid' — and its CEO Ahn Sung-il, who were accused of "tampering" by allegedly luring the members away from Attrakt. The litigation subsequently branched into multiple separate lawsuits.

This Ruling: The Copyright Belongs to The Givers

In 2024, Attrakt filed suit demanding that the 'Cupid' copyright held by The Givers be effectively transferred to Attrakt.

The court's core reasoning: The Givers is the party to the copyright assignment agreement, and the structure of the service contract provides no basis for Attrakt to automatically acquire the copyrighted work.

Attrakt's counter-argument: "Under the service contract, The Givers was obligated to report all matters to Attrakt. Instead, it secretly purchased the copyright without disclosure and filed false reports. A service contractor that should have maximized the principal's interests failed in its obligations."

Why This Case Is So Heated

1. The global impact of 'Cupid' itself — A Billboard Hot 100 entry and over 300 million TikTok views, one of the most viral K-pop hits ever. The economic value of the copyright could be in the billions of Korean won.
2. A challenge to the K-pop system — The ruling that a label cannot own the copyright to music performed by its own artist shakes the entire industry's operating assumptions.
3. Multi-front litigation — Tampering suits, copyright suits, and damages suits are all proceeding simultaneously with diverging outcomes, keeping public attention high.
4. FIFTY FIFTY today — Following the dispute, the group effectively dissolved, later reconstituting around its sole remaining member 'Keena.' Three years on, the litigation is still ongoing.

Context & Background — The Trap in K-Pop Copyright Contract Structures

Service Contract vs. Direct Copyright Assignment

In the K-pop industry, it is standard practice for outside producers and production companies to create songs and deliver them to management agencies. In this model:

• If a direct assignment agreement is explicitly stated, the agency holds the copyright.
• If only a service contract exists with no copyright transfer clause, the copyright legally remains with the original creator (or their company).

This case is the second time a court has confirmed that Attrakt's contract with The Givers did not include an automatic copyright transfer.

A Gap with Industry Practice

Agencies typically require explicit copyright assignment clauses in producer contracts, or seek recognition that works qualify as "works made for hire." However, this ruling reaffirmed that such protections are not legally guaranteed unless clearly stated in the contract.

"For a work to qualify as a work made for hire under copyright law, it must be created under the planning of a legal entity and published under that entity's name. When an outside producer creates a work through an independent company, these conditions are difficult to meet." — General view of copyright attorneys

Outlook — How Long Will This Go On?

• Short-term (1–3 months): Attrakt decides whether to appeal → Supreme Court proceedings begin if filed
• Mid-term (6–12 months): If the Supreme Court upholds the existing judgment, The Givers' copyright to 'Cupid' is finally confirmed
• Long-term: Industry-wide momentum to revise outsourced production contracts accelerates

5 Shockwaves to the K-Pop Ecosystem

1. The Concept of Agency 'Music Ownership' Is Shaken

For years, K-pop agencies operated under a strong assumption that they automatically owned the copyrights to music released by their artists. This ruling — affirmed twice — establishes that outside producers can legally hold copyright in their own company's name.

2. Producers' Sense of Rights Is Changing

The Givers and Ahn Sung-il's victory signals that outside production companies can retain and independently exercise copyright without transferring it to agencies. Going forward, more producers are expected to demand copyright retention clauses during contract negotiations.

3. Agencies Face Pressure to Overhaul Contracts

Many small and mid-sized agencies currently enter broad service agreements with outside producers without specific copyright clauses. This ruling is likely to make explicit copyright assignment clauses an industry standard.

4. Where Are the Artists?

Ironically, FIFTY FIFTY — the group that actually performed 'Cupid' — are not parties to this dispute. The copyright issue is between the agency (Attrakt) and the producer (The Givers). The members' neighboring rights and performers' rights are separate matters, and their legal standing remains complex.

5. The Future of 'Cupid' Revenue Distribution

If The Givers holds the copyright, it is legally entitled to its share of streaming, broadcast, and commercial revenue from 'Cupid.' Given the global reach of the song, the scale of this revenue restructuring is expected to be substantial.

Key Checklist

References

• Newsis — Attrakt loses appeal in FIFTY FIFTY 'Cupid' copyright lawsuit
• Chosun Ilbo — FIFTY FIFTY's agency loses appeal in 'Cupid' copyright suit
• The Givers Official — Wins both trials, pledges active response in remaining suits
• Seoul Economic Daily — Court Rules Against Attract in 'Cupid' Copyright Dispute
• MK English — ATTRAKT loses appeal in 'Cupid' copyright lawsuit

Image Credit

• Seoul Central District Court exterior — Wikimedia Commons (Public Domain)