Epik high and INFINITE Members Reveal Lack of Streaming Revenue Payments from Woollim Entertainment
Table of Contents
Published:
In a surprising revelation that has sent ripples through the K-Pop community, members of the acclaimed hip-hop group Epik High and the popular K-Pop group INFINITE have disclosed that Woollim Entertainment, their former label, never compensated them for streaming revenues generated by their music. The disclosure came during a recent episode of Epik High’s new YouTube show, Bad Bros
, sparking widespread discussions about fair contracts and artist compensation within the music industry.This revelation highlights potential issues with older contracts and revenue distribution in the age of digital streaming.
Epik High, consisting of members Tablo, Mithra Jin, and Tukutz, was signed with Woollim entertainment from their debut in 2001 until early 2009. During their tenure with Woollim, the group released several hit albums that cemented their status in the Korean music scene.These albums include Swan Songs, Remapping the Human Soul, and Pieces, Part One. The group produced iconic singles such as Fly
, Love Love Love
, and Umbrella
during this period, solidifying their place in K-Pop history and garnering a dedicated fanbase.
Despite the commercial success and critical acclaim of their music, the members of Epik High stated that they did not receive any streaming revenue from Woollim entertainment. This issue came to light during a candid conversation with INFINITE members sungkyu and Woohyun on Bad Bros
. The discussion centered around their shared experiences under the Woollim Entertainment label and the financial compensation,or lack thereof,they received for their work.
The discussion unfolded as Tablo, Mithra Jin, and tukutz of Epik High engaged in a candid conversation with Sungkyu and Woohyun of INFINITE, reminiscing about their shared time under Woollim Entertainment. Tablo initiated the topic by revealing that Epik High had not received any streaming revenue and inquired whether INFINITE had experienced a similar situation. This opened the door for a broader discussion about the challenges artists face in receiving fair compensation for their work in the digital age.
Woohyun and Sungkyu confirmed in unison that they, too, had not received proper streaming revenue payouts. Tablo expressed his frustration, questioning, Really? Even with songs like ‘Be Mine?’
This highlighted the surprise and disappointment that even successful groups like INFINITE had not been adequately compensated for their streaming numbers.
Tukutz echoed Tablo’s surprise, noting that INFINITE’s hit tracks, including Melo,
should have generated substantial streaming income. Sungkyu corroborated their statements, stating, Honestly, we never got a proper payout from streaming revenue.
This further emphasized the systemic issues within the industry regarding fair compensation for artists.
While Tablo voiced his displeasure, he clarified that he did not believe Woollim CEO Lee Jung yeop acted with malicious intent. He explained that the issue stemmed from the music industry’s practices at the time when they initially signed their contracts, before digital streaming became a significant source of revenue. Tablo recounted an incident where he learned that his song Fly
had generated ₩3.70 billion KRW (approximately $2.56 million USD) in its first week, yet he had not received any payment from it.
While I didn’t even get a single penny from ‘Fly,’ an article came out…I was hosting a radio show. I was in the middle of a live broadcast. And the article said that ‘Fly’ made 3.7 billion KRW in its first week…I was DJing and I saw it and whent, ‘3.7 billion in the first week? I haven’t even gotten 100 won?’…I just blurted it out live.
Tablo
This incident, tho recounted with a touch of humor, underscores the vulnerability of artists to unfair contracts and the potential for wage disparity within the music industry. The experiences of Epik High and INFINITE highlight the importance of fair and clear agreements between artists and their labels, especially in the rapidly evolving landscape of digital music consumption.
Conclusion
The revelation by Epik High and INFINITE regarding their lack of streaming revenue payments from Woollim Entertainment sheds light on the challenges faced by artists in the evolving music industry. While the circumstances may be attributed to the industry’s early stages of digital streaming, the incident serves as a reminder of the need for equitable contracts and transparent financial practices to protect artists’ rights and ensure fair compensation for their work. This case underscores the importance of ongoing dialogue and reform within the music industry to address these issues and create a more enduring and equitable habitat for artists.
Did you know that even hugely successful K-Pop acts may not receive the streaming royalties they deserve? This interview delves into the recent revelation that Epik High and INFINITE weren’t compensated for streaming revenue by their former label, Woollim Entertainment, exploring the wider implications for artist rights and contract negotiation within the music industry.
Interviewer: Welcome, Professor Kim, a leading expert in music industry law and contract negotiations. The recent controversy surrounding Epik High and INFINITE’s lack of streaming revenue from Woollim Entertainment has ignited a crucial conversation. Can you provide some past context on artist compensation models,notably concerning older contracts predating the digital streaming boom?
Professor Kim: Certainly. The landscape of artist compensation has dramatically shifted with the advent of digital music streams. Older contracts, often signed before the widespread adoption of streaming platforms like Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube Music, frequently lacked clauses addressing this revenue stream. Many contracts focused predominantly on physical album sales, radio play royalties, and live performance fees. Thus, the massive revenue generated by streaming platforms—which now represents a notable portion of the music industry’s revenue—was frequently enough overlooked, leaving artists vulnerable to unfair compensation. This perfectly illustrates the challenges encountered by groups like Epik High whose careers started before the digital music market became dominant.
Interviewer: The case highlights the imbalance of power between established labels and artists, particularly those who signed contracts early in their careers.What specific contractual loopholes—or inadequacies—do you think contributed to this issue of unpaid streaming royalties?
Professor Kim: Several factors played a role. Many older contracts lacked explicit clauses detailing the distribution of digital streaming revenue. The contracts could have vaguely mentioned “royalties” without specifying the manner of calculating or distributing revenue from new digital sources. Additionally, the rapid evolution of digital music technology and business models left some older contracts ill-equipped to handle the complexities of distributing profits generated through various streaming platforms.This lack of specificity can lead to significant disputes—precisely as we’re seeing now. Another critical oversight was often the failure to define the definition of “streaming revenue,” leaving plenty of room for misinterpretation and exploitation.
Interviewer: Both Epik High and INFINITE are recognized internationally for their significant contributions to the K-Pop scene. What impact does this revelation have on the wider landscape of the industry and its future business practices?
Professor Kim: This controversy serves as a powerful wake-up call. It highlights the urgency of addressing transparency and fairness in artist contracts. The situation is not unique to Korea; the music industry globally grapples with ensuring equitable distribution of revenue between labels and artists. This incident may foster increased scrutiny of contract terms and encourage more robust legal protections for artists. we could see a move towards more artist-pleasant contracts, incorporating clear clauses regarding digital revenue sharing, with detailed explanations of how streaming royalties are calculated and distributed to prevent such situations from recurring.
Interviewer: What practical steps can both established and emerging K-Pop artists take to protect their interests during contract negotiations?
professor Kim: Several steps are crucial:
Seek self-reliant legal counsel: Don’t rely solely on the label’s legal team. Engage your own lawyer specializing in music industry law to thoroughly understand the contract’s implications.
Demand transparency: Inquire about all revenue streams, including digital distribution, streaming, synchronization, and brand endorsements. Demand clear, detailed methods for calculating royalties and payment schedules.
Negotiate fair compensation: Don’t hesitate to negotiate your terms, especially when it comes to profit sharing, particularly in the digital space. Remember that your creativity is your most valuable asset.
Regular audits: Insist on regular audits of the label’s financial records concerning your income.This provides accountability and transparency.
* Consult with industry peers: Networking with other artists and managers can provide valuable insights into industry norms and best practices.
Interviewer: Looking ahead, what legislative or industry-wide reforms might help prevent similar situations in the future?
Professor Kim: We might see legislative changes mandating greater transparency and accountability in contract negotiations, including clearer stipulations regarding the distribution of streaming revenue. Industry bodies could also develop standardized contract templates that ensure fair compensation for artists while clarifying revenue accounting practices. This would provide greater protection for artists—especially those newer to the industry—who might potentially be less equipped to negotiate contracts independently.
Interviewer: Professor Kim, thank you for this insightful discussion. Your expertise underscores the importance of fair contracts and transparency in the music business.
Final Thoughts: The Epik High and INFINITE case spotlights the ongoing struggle for equitable artist compensation in the digital age. Artists negotiating contracts must demand transparency, seek independent counsel, and remain vigilant in safeguarding their rights. Let’s discuss in the comments: What steps do you think are most vital in ensuring artists receive their fair share of streaming revenue? Share your thoughts and insights on social media using #KPopFairContracts.