Drake has been hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit alleging that the chorus of his chart-topping single “Janice STFU” is “literally identical” to a demo recorded by songwriter Aviel Calev Hirschfield. The complaint, filed on Friday 16 October, names Drake, his OVO Sound label and Universal Music Group as defendants — and Drake's team has issued a categorical denial. It is an allegation at this stage, not a finding, but it lands on one of the biggest records of the year.
What the lawsuit alleges
The complaint was filed by attorneys Gregory Korn and Jonathan Steinsapir of the firm Kinsella Holley Iser Kump Steinsapir, and was first obtained and reported by Billboard. According to the filing, Hirschfield wrote his demo in December 2025 and January 2026 over an audio bed he had received from the production duo Michael “Finatik” Mulé and Isaac “Zac” De Boni — known as FNZ, frequent Drake collaborators. He then sent the finished demo to FNZ and other producers who work with Drake, and says he never received a reply.
He first heard “Janice STFU” when Drake's album Iceman arrived on streaming services in May. The complaint's account is vivid: “Fifteen seconds in, Avi was stunned to hear Drake perform word-for-word, note-for-note, beat-by-beat, the exact same chorus that he (Avi) had recorded and sent.” Hirschfield alleges he was denied songwriting credit and compensation, despite providing recordings and other materials he believes establish his contribution. He further accuses Drake's representatives of suggesting that he manipulated his recording files to support his claim — a charge that, if aired in court, will turn the case into a forensic fight over file metadata as much as melody.
There is real money at stake. “Janice STFU” spent two weeks atop the Billboard Hot 100 and logged 20 weeks at No. 1 on Billboard's Hot Rap Songs chart — Drake's longest-running reign on that tally.
The songwriter behind the claim
Hirschfield is not a stranger to Drake's professional orbit. He previously shared songwriting credits with Drake on “Heated”, the Beyoncé track from her 2022 album Renaissance — a credit that establishes, at minimum, that he works in the same circles. According to the lawsuit, he wrote the disputed demo with Drake specifically in mind, tailoring it to the rapper's style.
One detail complicates the picture for both sides: Hirschfield says he interpolated the 2011 Lykke Li song “I Follow Rivers” in his demo. The released version of “Janice STFU” — on which FNZ are credited as co-writers — also interpolates “I Follow Rivers”. In other words, the allegedly copied chorus and the released chorus may both be built, at least in part, on shared underlying material from a third artist's song. How much of the hook is original to either party, and how much derives from Lykke Li, could become central to the dispute.
Drake's team responds: a categorical denial
Drake's representatives responded swiftly and forcefully. In a statement to Billboard on Friday, they said: “Let us be absolutely clear: These allegations are categorically, unequivocally and completely denied. There is not one iota of truth to these accusations, and we reject every attempt to portray these claims as established facts.”
That is about as strong a denial as publicists issue, and it sets the tone for what is likely to be an aggressively contested case. Neither OVO Sound nor Universal Music Group had separately commented in detail at the time of reporting. Readers should treat everything in the complaint as one side's account: lawsuits routinely present the most favourable possible version of a plaintiff's case, and defendants' answers often reframe the same facts entirely.
The legal stakes: how a music copyright case is decided
Music copyright cases in the US generally turn on two questions: did the defendant have access to the plaintiff's work, and is the allegedly infringing work substantially similar to it in its protected expression? Sending a demo to a hitmaker's producers is a classic way to establish access — which is why Hirschfield's account of delivering the recording to FNZ and Drake-affiliated producers matters so much. Substantial similarity is usually decided by comparing the works themselves, often with expert musicologists testifying about melody, harmony, rhythm and lyrics.
What copyright does not protect is equally important. Ideas, styles, chord progressions and generic grooves are generally not protectable; specific, original combinations of melody and lyrics are. That distinction is why these cases are so unpredictable: two songs can sound similar without one infringing the other, and juries have sometimes found infringement in cases experts considered weak — and cleared songs that sounded near-identical.
If Hirschfield prevails, the remedies could include songwriting credit, a share of past and future royalties, and potentially damages tied to the song's profits — a meaningful sum for a record with a 20-week run atop the rap chart. But plaintiffs in these cases also face an uphill climb: they must prove copying of protected expression, not merely a shared vibe or a common source.
Music copyright's greatest hits: a short history
Drake's case arrives in a genre of litigation with a dramatic recent history. In 2015, a jury found that Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams's “Blurred Lines” had infringed Marvin Gaye's “Got to Give It Up”, awarding the Gaye estate $7.4 million — a verdict that sent shockwaves through the industry and was widely said to have made songwriters more cautious about anything that merely evoked an earlier hit.
The pendulum has swung since. Led Zeppelin defeated a claim over the opening of “Stairway to Heaven” in 2016; Katy Perry's $2.8 million “Dark Horse” verdict was thrown out on appeal in 2020; and Ed Sheeran won a high-profile jury trial in 2023 over whether “Thinking Out Loud” had copied Gaye's “Let's Get It On”. In 2015, Sam Smith settled a claim that “Stay With Me” resembled Tom Petty's “I Won't Back Down” by adding Petty to the credits — a reminder that many of these disputes never reach a verdict at all.
The pattern is instructive: outcomes are inconsistent, expert testimony cuts both ways, and the mere filing of a case tells you little about its merits. It also tells you something about incentives. A chart-topping record is a magnet for claims — some meritorious, some opportunistic — and the industry has learned to price that risk into the business of making hits.
What happens next
The defendants will now file their formal answer to the complaint, after which the case enters discovery: both sides will exchange documents, demos, session files, emails and metadata, and witnesses will be deposed. Expect forensic attention on the recording files at the heart of the dispute — Hirschfield says he has recordings establishing his contribution; Drake's side is accused of questioning their authenticity. Metadata, timestamps and file histories could matter as much as the music.
From there, the likely paths are a motion to dismiss, a settlement, or a long march toward trial. Settlement is the most common outcome in music copyright disputes: it is cheaper, faster and private, and it lets both sides claim vindication. If the case does proceed, resolution is likely to take many months, if not years. For now, the only certainty is that one of the year's biggest hits now carries a legal asterisk — and that Drake, who is separately pursuing an appeal in his defamation dispute with Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar's “Not Like Us”, is spending an unusual amount of 2026 in court.
FAQs
Who is suing Drake, and what exactly are they claiming?
Songwriter Aviel Calev Hirschfield is suing Drake, OVO Sound and Universal Music Group for copyright infringement. His lawyers, Gregory Korn and Jonathan Steinsapir, allege that the chorus of “Janice STFU” is “literally identical” to a demo Hirschfield sent to Drake's camp in early 2026 — performed, in the complaint's words, “word-for-word, note-for-note, beat-by-beat”. He is seeking songwriting credit and compensation. All of this is, for now, one side's allegation; Drake's team has denied it completely.
How strong is the claim at this stage?
Impossible to say from the complaint alone. Filing a lawsuit requires only a plausible allegation, and courts decide these cases by comparing the works and weighing expert evidence — not by reading press coverage. The access argument looks straightforward on the complaint's account, since Hirschfield says he sent the demo directly to Drake-affiliated producers. But substantial similarity is a forensic question: a court will ask whether protected expression was copied, not whether the choruses merely resemble each other. Many high-profile music cases that looked strong at filing have collapsed at trial, and vice versa.
Why does the Lykke Li interpolation matter?
Because both the demo and the released song reportedly interpolate Lykke Li's 2011 track “I Follow Rivers”. If the most distinctive part of the disputed chorus derives from Lykke Li's song — which was presumably licensed for the released version — then the pool of original material Hirschfield can claim as his own shrinks considerably. Copyright protects original expression, not material borrowed from a shared source. Expect both sides' musicologists to spend considerable time on exactly which notes came from whom.
What could happen to the song if the claim succeeds?
Several things, none of them automatic. The most common resolutions are a confidential settlement, retroactive songwriting credit with a royalty split, or a damages award tied to the song's profits. Courts can in theory issue injunctions affecting a recording, but in practice the industry almost always resolves these disputes with money and credits rather than pulling songs from streaming. The Sam Smith–Tom Petty settlement of 2015, which added Petty to the “Stay With Me” credits, is the template both sides will have in mind.
When will we know how this ends?
Not soon. After the defendants answer the complaint, the case enters discovery — document exchange, depositions and expert reports — which typically takes a year or more in federal copyright litigation. A settlement could arrive at any point, and most such cases settle before trial, often confidentially, meaning the public may never learn the terms. If it goes the distance, a trial and any appeals could stretch well into 2027 or beyond.
🤖 This article was rewritten by Feed and Figures' editorial AI from a report originally published by Billboard. Facts and quotes are preserved from the original; the rewrite focuses on clarity and structure. For the unedited original, see the source link below.
