IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—S.D.N.Y.: A quixotic effort against DistroKid and other music labels unravels quickly, (Jun 11, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

A songwriter who claims the distribution service purloined his AI-generated music is denied a TRO—and gets a lecture from the court.

A Korean songwriter did not have a basis to sue an allegedly infringing music service because his registration applications were still pending with the Copyright Office and he had not shown that the works were first published overseas as would have been necessary to bypass the registration requirement, the District Court for the Southern District of New York has held. The court, in denying the songwriter a temporary restraining order against the music service, also found that he did not show irreparable harm and fell short of many other requirements, both procedural and substantive, for the relief he sought (Ok-gu v. Distrokid, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-09818-VSB-VF (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 5, 2026)).

The lawsuit was brought by Park Ok-Gu, the creator of AI-generated music specializing in what he calls “1970s-80s Korean Trot music.” His pro se complaints, which evolved over five different versions, took aim at music distributor DistroKid and several other defendants. The main contention of the complaint is that after his music was uploaded to DistroKid, that distributor conspired with other parties to purloin his works, upload “identical works” to the service, and hide from him the revenue generated by those infringing works.

The AI songwriter moved for a temporary restraining order, leading to this opinion.

Irreparable harm. The court rejected the motion for relief. Its analysis began with irreparable harm, which it described as “the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.” The closest the songwriter came to showing irreparable harm, the court noted, was the risk of data spoliation during the distributor’s “rumored corporate sale.” But the songwriter did not explain, the court noted, why a corporate restructuring—even if it happened—poses a critical risk of spoliation or why he believes that “server logs and metadata may be altered or deleted during ownership transition.” The songwriter’s “assertion of a speculative potential sale and conclusory assertion of evidence spoliation, without factual allegations to support those assertions,” the court reasoned, “does not warrant the extraordinary and drastic remedy of a temporary restraining order.”

Likelihood of success on the merits. The court also found that the songwriter was not likely to prevail on the merits of the lawsuit. The songwriter’s central problem, the court noted, was that he did not adequately allege that he satisfied the precondition of copyright preregistration or registration prior to asserting the claim of copyright infringement. He presented only registration applications with the Copyright Office, the court noted, as opposed to approved (or denied) applications—not enough to advance with a lawsuit. “[A] plaintiff must either hold a valid copyright registration outright or have applied and been refused a registration prior to filing a civil claim,” the court noted. The songwriter had neither.

Nor did the songwriter show that his songs were foreign works exempt from the registration requirement. Because the Republic of Korea was a party to the Berne Convention, the court noted, the songwriter would have to show that the works were published first in that country. “Although the complaints suggest that Plaintiff’s songs may have originated in Korea,” the court noted, “the complaints do not allege where the works were first published or if the works were simultaneously published within and outside the United States.” The songwriter’s claim would fail on the merits on this basis.

Claims against YouTube and TikTok. The court also refused to grant the songwriter’s motion to award default judgment against YouTube and TikTok. In one of his many amended complaints, the songwriter noted, he had named those two services as defendants. However, his most recent complaint failed to include those services in the case caption or detail—and in any event, the court noted, they had never been properly served. “Since YouTube and TikTok are not parties to this action,” the court noted, “Plaintiff may not obtain a default judgment against them.

Potential sanctions. Finally, the court also admonished the songwriter for his many defective pleadings and failure to comply with local rules. “Plaintiff has filed five complaints in this action—including amending his complaint twice without the defendants’ consent or my permission—and has filed five proposed temporary restraining orders, all of which I now have denied for the same reasons,” the court noted. “These filings appear to be vexatious and duplicative on their face, including attempts to re-litigate issues and present arguments that were already addressed.” The songwriter was therefore warned that “if his seemingly abusive litigation conduct continues, [he] may face sanctions, including, among other things, monetary sanctions, the revocation of permission to file documents electronically, or dismissal of his lawsuit.”

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-09818-VSB-VF.

Judge: Broderick, V.

Attorneys: Park Ok-Gu, pro se. Jenna L. Harris (Ritholz Levy Fields LLP) for DistroKid, Inc.

Companies: DistroKid, Inc.

Cases: Copyright AINews NewYorkNews GCNNews