On the 18th, Studio Target released an official statement via their website, stating, “Person A performed duties as a senior producer for the movie ‘God’s Orchestra’.” The company added, “Person A was scheduled to receive fair payment and additional compensation corresponding to that role, and Person A was aware of this.”
They further explained, “After the movie’s success, Person A claimed the status of a co-producer and demanded additional settlement and rights to the work, which led to a legal dispute.”
Previously, Person A filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court to confirm their status as a co-producer of ‘God’s Orchestra’ and to claim a share of the profits. It is also reported that they applied for a provisional seizure of 500 million won from the theater earnings.
In response, Studio Target argued, “To be recognized as a ‘video producer’ under copyright law, one must plan the overall production of the film and bear the economic and legal responsibilities for various internal and external contracts.”
They asserted, “Since Person A was not the entity responsible for securing production funds, profit and loss attribution, or final decision-making, they cannot be a ‘video producer’.”
The company further explained, “Studio Target planned and oversaw the entire movie production process and bears all responsibilities. As the final decision-maker, we planned the entire production, from pre-production (casting directors, producers, and actors) to production (filming in Mongolia), post-production (editing), and distribution and marketing.”
They added, “As the party to all internal and external contracts, we bore the economic and legal responsibilities, and all investment attraction and loans for production expenses were handled by Studio Target. If ‘God’s Orchestra’ had failed at the box office, Studio Target would have borne the resulting economic and legal responsibilities.”
Regarding the use of Lim Young-woong’s song “Love Always Runs Away,” Studio Target stated, “Person A informed us that permission for use had been completed because they were close with the rights holder. However, we recently received a certification of contents from the rights holder stating that no such permission was granted.”
They explained, “Other CCM songs also remain unresolved, and it was confirmed that the approval process was conducted under Person A’s individual name rather than the production company’s.”
Studio Target added, “We are actively apologizing to the rights holders and working toward formal negotiations. We have secured sufficient evidence and are considering separate legal action against Person A for providing information that differs from the facts.”
Finally, the company emphasized, “We are currently undergoing mediation procedures with the Press Arbitration Commission regarding some reports that biasedly reflected only one party’s claims. Regardless of this matter, we will proceed with other ongoing works and businesses as planned and do our best to avoid causing unnecessary concern to investors, partners, and audiences.”
Ilgan Sports contacted Person A’s legal representative for a statement, but received a response saying, “I am currently out of the office and will contact you later.”
Meanwhile, ‘God’s Orchestra,’ released last year, tells the story of a fake praise band created in North Korea to earn foreign currency, recording a cumulative audience of 1.45 million people.
Below is the full text of Studio Target’s statement.
Regarding the legal dispute raised surrounding the movie ‘God’s Orchestra,’ the movie production company Studio Target Co., Ltd. provides the following official position.
1. Studio Target is the sole producer of the movie ‘God’s Orchestra’.
Person A, who performed duties as a senior producer during the movie production process, claimed to have the status of a co-producer and filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court for confirmation of co-producer status and a claim for profit settlement, as well as an application for provisional seizure of a portion of the theater earnings (500 million won). Person A was scheduled to receive fair payment and additional compensation corresponding to their role. Person A was aware of this, but after the movie’s success, they claimed co-producer status and demanded additional settlement and rights to the work, leading to this legal dispute. We have secured sufficient evidence and are responding actively through a law firm.
2. Person A’s failure to fulfill work responsibilities is confirmed in separate matters.
As previously reported, regarding the song [Love Always Runs Away] used in the movie, Person A explicitly informed us that “permission for use was completed because they were close with the rights holder,” but we recently received a certification of contents from the rights holder stating that no such permission was granted (the same lawyer as Person A represents the composer and lyricist). It was also confirmed that other CCM songs were not resolved and the approval process was conducted under Person A’s individual name rather than the production company’s. We are actively apologizing to the rights holders and proceeding with formal negotiations. We have secured sufficient evidence and are considering separate legal action against Person A for providing information that differs from the facts.
3. Person A cannot be recognized as a ‘video producer’ under copyright law.
To be recognized as a ‘video producer’ under copyright law, one must plan the overall movie production and bear economic and legal responsibilities for various internal and external contracts. Person A was not the entity responsible for securing production costs, profit and loss attribution, or final decision-making, and therefore cannot be a ‘video producer.’ As the party that bore all production responsibilities, we could not accept Person A’s unfair demands.
4. Studio Target planned and oversaw the entire movie production process and bears all responsibilities.
As the final decision-maker, we planned the entire movie production, including pre-production (casting directors, producers, and actors), production (filming in Mongolia), post-production (editing), and distribution and marketing, and bore the economic and legal responsibilities as the party to all internal and external contracts. Studio Target was also the entity that handled investment attraction and loans for production expenses. If ‘God’s Orchestra’ had failed, all resulting economic and legal responsibilities would have fallen on Studio Target.
5. As the sole video producer of the movie ‘God’s Orchestra,’ Studio Target holds all rights related to this movie.
We hold all rights related to the screening, distribution, and secondary utilization (OTT, IPTV, VOD, overseas rights, remakes, goods, drama and musical performances, etc.) of this movie. Recently, there have been inquiries about performing shows related to ‘God’s Orchestra.’ Any screening, distribution, or secondary utilization conducted without our prior written permission is a violation of copyright law and related regulations, and we will hold the parties civilly and criminally liable. We hope that innocent audiences, partners, and stakeholders will not suffer any damage.
6. We are responding firmly to reports that reflect only one-sided claims and false reports.
Person A made unfair demands to recognize their status as a co-producer, claiming they were deeply involved in the overall production, from scenario planning to development and completion. Since we cannot recognize such status for Person A, who did not perform the role of a movie producer, we refused the request, and the lawsuit was filed. We have sufficient evidence and plan to respond based on it.
Additionally, we are already undergoing mediation procedures with the Press Arbitration Commission regarding some reports that biasedly reflected only one party’s claims. We will respond firmly through all legal measures, including requests for corrections, rebuttal reports, and claims for damages, against reports based on speculation or false facts that have not been verified.
7. Regardless of this matter, we will proceed with other ongoing works and businesses as planned and do our best to avoid causing unnecessary concern to investors, partners, and audiences.
Due to the nature of the ongoing case, specific factual relationships will be fully explained during the trial, and individual inquiries will be answered through our legal representative.
