Stray Kids’ Han’s “Back to Life” Released Under Another Name — JYP Asks U.S. Court to Identify Uploader

Han helped write it, JYP Entertainment says it owns the recording, and a release of it still went out under the artist name New Vibs. That, in one line, is the “Back to Life” case. JYP alleges someone pushed Han’s song through a music distributor onto major services without permission, and on September 4 it asked a US federal court for a way to find out who.

Korean coverage caught up on October 9, when Sports Kyunghyang reported the filing made in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. For Han and Stray Kids fans, the paperwork circles one question: who ran the account that put somebody else’s name on his song? That one gets under my skin. When a member puts his own writing out, the credit is the whole point.

Han Back to Life had a 33-day gap between formats

According to Sports Kyunghyang, the official video came first, on May 9, and the digital single followed on June 11, with Han taking part in both the lyrics and the composition. The official upload on the Stray Kids channel files the performance under SKZ-PLAYER, and the Apple Music single lists HAN as the artist, June 11 as the release date and JYP Entertainment as the recording copyright holder.

So for 33 days the song existed as a video and not yet as a single you could stream. JYP’s notice to the distributor Symphonic went out on May 20, 11 days into that wait, with 22 still to go. The label was already chasing the New Vibs release before the official single was out.

That stretch is exactly when a wrong credit hurts most. You know the song from the video, you go looking for something to save, and a listing under an unfamiliar name can look like the thing you were waiting for. Until June 11 there was no official single to check it against. There is now: HAN, with JYP’s credit on it, and that is the only version I would put in a playlist.

If you follow release days through our October comeback calendar, keep the two dates apart: a video premiere and a digital single can be separate steps of one rollout, and the gap between them is worth watching.

The distributor says it removed the track in May

In its signed court declaration, JYP alleges the New Vibs release travelled through Symphonic to YouTube, Instagram, TikTok and Apple Music. The company says it owns or holds exclusive rights in the sound recording and sent its infringement notice on May 20. Spotify is not among the services JYP names.

Symphonic’s side came through TorrentFreak, which covered the case on September 8. A representative told the site that after the May claim the content was removed from all digital service providers and the account responsible was terminated. As of that response, the representative added, Symphonic had received no further correspondence from JYP since the first notice.

Then 107 days passed between that notice and the September 4 filing. If the listing is already gone, why go to court? Because a takedown cleans up the storefront and leaves the part fans actually care about untouched: who did it. JYP plainly wants a name, and so would I. A closed account is a thin consequence if nobody ever learns who was behind it.

JYP wants the account records behind New Vibs

The proposed subpoena pins the disputed release down by its codes, ISRC GBRKQ2697310 and UPC 824296599440, across four services. Then it asks Symphonic for the names of whoever created, controlled or uploaded through the account, plus addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, usernames, and IP logs with timestamps for registration and uploads.

The payment section is where it gets pointed: names on payment accounts, bank routing and account numbers, credit card numbers and billing addresses. It is easy to read too much into that, so let me be plain. This is JYP’s wish list. A request is not proof that anyone earned royalties from Han’s song, how much anyone received, or that Symphonic has handed over a single record.

What the list does show is how flimsy an artist alias is. New Vibs is a name typed into a profile. Behind it sit the registration details, the upload logs and the payment records, and JYP is asking for all three at once.

Going to the distributor instead of chasing each platform makes sense to me. If JYP is right that Symphonic was the route into those services, one account could tie every delivery of the song together, rather than leaving four platforms’ worth of listings to untangle one at a time.

What the court request actually asks for

JYP is using Section 512(h) of US copyright law, a procedure for identifying an alleged infringer. The copyright owner files an infringement notice, a proposed subpoena and a sworn declaration that the identification is sought to protect its rights; JYP’s declaration says it wants the information solely for that purpose.

If the papers meet the statute’s conditions, the court clerk issues the subpoena. Only once the provider receives that issued subpoena does its duty to disclose the identifying information available to it kick in. Filing is step one; getting names is a later step.

The latest dated marker I have is TorrentFreak’s: on September 8, according to its information then, the clerk had not yet issued the subpoena. Read that as a September snapshot, not as October’s docket.

One request to fans while this plays out: don’t crowdsource a suspect off a profile name. The subpoena exists so the account records can answer that, not a quote-tweet thread.

Mina’s Take

The 33-day gap is the detail I’d pin beside every headline about this case. Han’s song had an official home on YouTube while its single was still weeks away, and that is exactly when a release under another artist’s name can pass for the version fans are waiting on. JYP’s May 20 notice shows the label treated credit as a live problem mid-rollout. Going to court after Symphonic says the release is gone tells me deletion didn’t satisfy JYP. Good. It doesn’t satisfy me either. My bet: between October 12 and November 11, a new court filing or a public update from JYP or Symphonic will address the identification process. If nothing like that appears in the window, I called it wrong.

What to watch next

• A newly dated court filing showing the subpoena issued, served or objected to.
• JYP or Symphonic confirming that account information was disclosed, or a follow-up proceeding involving an identified party.