Deng Ziqi rejects Hummingbird Music's ultimatum to remove remastered songs
Deng Ziqi
has issued a public response to a legal ultimatum from her former label,
Hummingbird Music
, regarding recently released remastered versions of her earlier work.
The company issued a statement on June 18, asserting that it holds the rights to the original recordings and associated intellectual property, and demanded that Deng remove the re-recorded songs within 48 hours.
Also read:
AI Strikes the Heartstrings of the Music Industry: Embracing a New Era, Where Innovation, Customization an
Hummingbird Music claims ownership of the recording producer's rights as well as the copyrights to the lyrics and music of the original tracks.
The company stated that 'GEM has infringed on the rights of reproduction and adaptation, as well as the information network rights.' It further requested that all major platforms immediately remove the disputed songs and warned that legal action would be taken if the content is not removed.
Live Events
Hummingbird Music alleges
copyright infringement
over Deng Ziqi's remastered works
Deng Ziqi, also known as GEM, recently revealed she had not received royalties from Hummingbird Music for a period of six years. Following a legal dispute that has since concluded, she announced plans to re-record her older songs. According to her, this would allow her to regain control of her creative works and monetize them legally.
Deng Ziqi cites legal grounds and unpaid royalties in response to former label's claims
Deng Ziqi has responded to a 48-hour takedown demand from Hummingbird Music, her former label, over newly
remastered songs
. The company claims copyright infringement, but Deng asserts legal grounds for re-recording the tracks. She says she will not remove the songs and questions unpaid royalties from her former contract
Deng Ziqi rejects Hummingbird Music's ultimatum to remove remastered songs
Responding to Hummingbird Music's statement, Deng said she would not comply with the takedown demand.
'After talking with my legal team, we all smiled helplessly. In fact, I don't know what else I need to respond to? Because the legal basis for my re-recording this time is already very sufficient,' she said.
'This re-recording is strictly based on the legal license of our country, and I also paid the remuneration according to the law.'
Deng also stated that the public broadcasting rights of her works have been managed by the CASH Association since she was 14 years old, before her contract with Hummingbird Music. She argued that the remastered versions are legally distributable worldwide.
Also read:
If you can't sink the ship, buy it!: Major record labels court AI music startups like Suno and Udio amidst
'So I will not remove the songs,' she added.
'On the contrary… can Hummingbird Music first settle all my legal royalties from October 2018 to 6 years and 8 months? And I haven't received the legal labor fees for about 6 months before the termination of my contract in 2019. Can you settle it for me first? Sorry, thank you.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
AI vs Artistic Integrity? Directors react to AI's role in reimagining films
In what is probably a first for the film industry, Raanjhanaa, the 2013 romantic drama starring and , is being re-released in Tamil Nadu — but with a major twist. The film will feature an AI-generated alternate ending, a move that has sparked a debate within the film fraternity. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now While director Aanand L Rai has strongly objected to the use of artificial intelligence to alter his original work, the studio backing the film, Eros International Media Limited, has called it a 'creative reimagining. ' This instance has opened up a larger conversation around the ethics of using AI in cinema, especially when it comes to modifying creative content without the original filmmaker's approval. Is it innovation or intrusion? A natural evolution of storytelling or a violation of artistic integrity? We spoke to prominent filmmakers to understand where they stand on this contentious issue and how they view the future of AI in cinema. Changing a film without the writer & director's permission is wrong: Zoya Akhtar It is one thing to remake a film and alter its ending, but to digitally change an existing film without the permission or blessings of the writer and director is just wrong. I suppose filmmakers and screenwriters now need to add this to their contracts. And what about the actors? They agreed to another narrative. Changing the director's vision amounts to rewriting history: Om Raut AI is a great tool for artistes to collaborate with. It finds innovative ways to make our work simpler, but when AI is used to alter a film without the original filmmaker's consent, it raises serious questions. Filmmaking is a collaborative art, but the director's vision is central to this medium. Changing that vision amounts to rewriting history. AI makes it easier, faster, and more tempting than ever, but ease of access doesn't equal moral license. What will stop studios from modifying performances, dialogues, or even re-casting scenes with AI-generated actors – all without informing the person who made it? This undermines the integrity of the creative process: Hansal Mehta I'm not fully aware of the details behind this development. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now But, if the climax has indeed been altered using AI without the consent of its original creators, in my opinion, it amounts to a breach of moral and creative rights. It also sets a troubling precedent: the misuse of a powerful technological tool in a way that disregards artistic intent and undermines the integrity of the creative process. I wouldn't be okay with any of my work being published without my consent: Siddharth P Malhotra I don't have a problem with a re-release of a film or altering the edit of a movie and re-releasing it. In fact, I would love to re-edit We Are Family with the edit I wanted or ideally have Maharaj with the scene that we couldn't put into the film. But the use of AI should be done as a tool to enhance something you can't physically do. Also, a film is purely a director's medium, so there is no way anyone can be or should be allowed without a director's consent to alter a film unless the director is not alive, even then, the family should be asked for permission. I wouldn't be okay with any of my work being published without my consent. Nobody should be allowed to touch the film without the filmmaker's consent– R Balki Under Indian law, the producer is the legal author of a film: Eros Eros International Media Limited issued their second statement on Tuesday to reiterate that they are 'the sole producer and exclusive copyright holder of Raanjhanaa (released in Tamil as Ambikapathy).' In their statement, they said, 'The re-release of Ambikapathy with an alternate AI-assisted ending is a legally compliant, transparently labelled, and artistically guided creative edition intended for Tamil-speaking audiences. It does not replace or alter the original Raanjhanaa, which remains untouched and widely available across all platforms. This version is part of a global and longstanding tradition in cinema of offering alternate edits, localised adaptations, and anniversary re-releases. As the sole financier, producer, and rights holder of Raanjhanaa, Eros holds complete ownership and control of all intellectual property, moral rights, and derivative rights under Indian Copyright Law.' About artistic collaboration and AI innovation, the statement said, 'It is imperative to reinforce that under Indian law, the producer is the legal author of a film. Mr Rai's disassociation from the Tamil alternate version is his personal choice, but his claim to ownership or moral authority over the work is neither contractually supported nor legally enforceable. The alternate ending was crafted under the direction of a human creative team using AI only as an assistive tool — not as an autonomous content generator. '
NDTV
5 hours ago
- NDTV
Bigg Boss 19: From Ram Kapoor To Mallika Sherawat, Celebrities Who Refused To Be A Part Of The Reality Show
New Delhi: One of the most beloved reality shows, Bigg Boss, is all set to return with season 19. Lately, there has been a lot of buzz regarding the contestants in Big Boss 19. Hosted by Salman Khan, the reality show was initially expected to have some well-known television personalities like Ram Kapoor, Munmun Dutta, and digital star Mr Faisu as contestants. Additionally, Dheeraj Dhoopar, Anita Hassanandani, Ashish Vidyarthi, Apoorva Mukhija, Gaurav Taneja, Kanika Mann, Krishna Shroff, Raj Kundra, and Sreerama Chandra were also believed to be considered for this season of Bigg Boss. Along with the regular contestants, it is reported that Kavya Mehra, India's AI Influencer, is also in talks to be a part of Bigg Boss 19. However, here's a look at some of the well-known names who have firmly refused to be a part of the upcoming season. Ram Kapoor While th e Mistry actor has been embroiled in a lot of controversies lately, he revealed his decision to never join the Big Boss House recently. In a conversation with Filmibeat, the actor had stated that he wouldn't be a part of the show even if he was given Rs 20 crore. He called the show "voyeuristic" and also stated how it does not align with the kind of perception he has as an actor, along with privacy concerns. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Ram Kapoor (@iamramkapoor) Mallika Sherawat On Monday, Mallika shared a note on her Instagram Stories, which read, "Putting an end to all the rumours, I am NOT doing Bigg Boss and NEVER WILL. THANK YOU." The actress earlier attended Bigg Boss 18 as a guest to promote her film Vicky Vidya Ka Woh Wala Video. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Mallika Sherawat (@mallikasherawat) Zareen Khan Zareen Khan of Veer fame revealed in an interaction with Hindi Rush that she did not want to be a part of Big Boss because of practical and personal reasons. She also explained how she could not bear to be away from home for three months, as she had responsibilities. She also stated that she will be evicted from the house as she won't tolerate misbehaviour, " Mera haath uth jayega." View this post on Instagram A post shared by Zareen Khan 🦄🌈✨👼🏻 (@zareenkhan) Anita Hassanandani In an interview with Pinkvilla, Anita Hassanandani stated how she didn't think she was wired to be a part of a reality show like Big Boss. She was also honest, as she remarked that even if she agreed, the makers would not be able to get the kind of drama the show needs out of her. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Anita H Reddy (@anitahassanandani) Anshula Kapoor Anshula Kapoor, Arjun Kapoor's sister, was recently a part of the hit reality show The Traitors. According to Siaset, she would not be able to cope with the "intense format" of the show and hence declined the offer. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Anshula Kapoor (@anshulakapoor) Raj Kundra Interestingly, both Shilpa Shetty and Shamita Shetty have been part of the Big Boss franchise. Shilpa Shetty had hosted the second season of Big Boss in 2008. Shamita Shetty was a part of Bigg Boss 3, which she left midway to attend her sister's wedding. She then went on to become a part of Bigg Boss OTT and Bigg Boss 15. Raj Kundra mentioned that he thinks that's enough. X/Raj Kundra Purav Jha He was one of the traitors in the first season of the popular reality show The Traitors. However, he declined the offer to be a part of Big Boss for now. He hasn't ruled out the possibility completely. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Purav Jha (@puravjha) Jannat Zubair The actress had two reasons not to be a part of Big Boss Season 19. One being that she did not want to deal with too much drama right now. Reports also suggest that there is a possibility of an ex-boyfriend being one of the participants. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Jannat Zubair Rahmani (@jannatzubair29) Khan Sir He is extremely popular for his unique teaching style and has a massive YouTube fan following. It was during one of his teaching classes that he revealed that he had been approached to be a part of Big Boss before, and this year, too, he was offered to join. A viral video making the rounds online saw Khan Sir telling his students, " Bigg Boss waale baar baar bula rahe hain. Lekin maine har baar mana kar diya." When students teased him, he ended on a funny note that they might ask him to do live classes from the Big Boss sets. YouTube This season of Bigg Boss is expected to have 15 contestants at the beginning, with around 3 to 5 wild card entries during the course of the show. Bigg Boss 19 is set to premiere by late August. While the exact premiere date and contestant list for Bigg Boss 19 have not been unveiled till now, the announcement has definitely added to the buzz for the latest season of the show.
Time of India
12 hours ago
- Time of India
Why is LeBron James furious with an AI company? Legal action over deepfake pregnancy videos explained
LeBron James. Image via: AAron Ontiveroz/In an era where deepfakes blur the line between fantasy and defamation, LeBron James is drawing a hard line. The NBA legend is now at the center of a growing legal battle against artificial intelligence misuse. James and his legal team have issued a cease-and-desist letter to FlickUp, the company behind Interlink AI, after disturbing AI-generated videos using his likeness — including one portraying him as pregnant — went viral. LeBron James slams AI company with legal action over disturbing deepfake pregnancy videos The controversy centers around Interlink AI, a video-generation tool hosted on Discord, which enables users to create hyper-realistic clips of celebrities without consent. LeBron James, Stephen Curry, Nikola Jokić, and others became unwitting avatars in a digital playground that quickly spiraled into grotesque territory. One video, which 404 Media reports received over 6.2 million Instagram views, depicted an AI-generated Sean "Diddy" Combs s*xually assaulting a fake Steph Curry in a prison setting, with an expressionless AI LeBron James watching in the background. Others showed James homeless, kneeling with his tongue out, or cradling a pregnant belly while calling out to Curry. 'This is a letter from one of the biggest NBA players of all time,' said FlickUp founder Jason Stacks in an Instagram Reel. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas For Sale in Dubai Might Surprise You Villas in Dubai | Search Ads Get Info Undo 'Two months ago, I launched the YouTube of AI video. It was a fun idea to help creators make some more money. But then people started noticing … Like this guy, yeah, LeBron James. And he wasn't happy, because I got this cease-and-desist from his team.' Stacks admitted he was blindsided by the attention and, within 30 minutes of receiving the legal notice from Grubman Shire Meiselas & Sacks, removed all realistic people from the platform. 'We removed the models immediately and have since updated our approach to likeness and public figure policies,' he told 404 Media. 'That's really the full story on our end.' LeBron James gets support from former teammate Richard Jefferson LeBron's move signals a turning point in how public figures respond to unauthorized AI-generated content. As deepfakes move from playful memes to disturbing fabrications, celebrities like James are taking back control. 'We see the value in name, image, and likeness,' said former NBA player Richard Jefferson. 'All of a sudden, videos depicting whatever you want. They're saying whatever you want.' Shaq TORCHES Rudy Gobert (AGAIN!), Kerr's Kuminga Problem + HOF News for Channing!? James isn't alone. Other public figures, including Taylor Swift, Scarlett Johansson, and Steve Harvey, have all voiced concern over deepfake misuse. However, James stands apart by becoming one of the first to pursue formal legal action. Legislators are beginning to take notice. The NO FAKES Act and the Content Origin Protection Act are making their way through Congress, aiming to regulate AI-generated media and protect individuals' digital identities. James' decision may be personal, but the implications are universal. In a world where AI can mimic anyone, anywhere, anytime, defending your name may soon become a right everyone has to fight for. Also Read: Paul George's classy move breaks locker-room ritual as he refused to haze rookie VJ Edgecombe FAQs Why is LeBron James suing an AI company? Because they used his image without consent in disturbing deepfake videos. What was the most controversial AI video involving LeBron? One clip showed a fake LeBron passively watching a simulated assault involving Diddy and Steph Curry. What happened after the legal threat? FlickUp removed all realistic likenesses from its AI platform within 30 minutes of receiving the cease-and-desist. Catch Rani Rampal's inspiring story on Game On, Episode 4. Watch Here!
