Songwriter Aviel Calev Hirschfield has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit naming Drake, OVO Sound and Universal Music Group over the chorus of “Janice STFU.” Hirschfield alleges that the song’s released hook came from a demo he created and circulated to producers in Drake’s orbit before the track arrived on Iceman in May 2026.
The dispute is fundamentally about authorship, credit and the revenue connected to a song that became a major commercial success. Hirschfield says he wrote a chorus later used on the Drake recording, but received neither a songwriting credit nor compensation. The defendants have been accused in the complaint; the allegations have not been established in court.
A representative for Drake declined to comment when contacted about the case. Universal Music Group had not provided a response at that point. The supplied account does not indicate that a court has ruled on the claims or that the defendants have filed a public response to the lawsuit.
What Hirschfield says happened
Hirschfield alleges that he worked on his demo between December 2025 and January 2026. The composition used an interpolation of Lykke Li’s 2011 song “I Follow Rivers,” but his complaint focuses on material beyond that pre-existing song: the additional chorus writing he says he created.
He says he received an instrumental from Michael “Finatik” Mulé and Isaac “Zac” De Boni, who work together as FNZ, then developed a recording intended for Drake. Hirschfield alleges that he sent the demo to FNZ and other producers associated with Drake, hoping it would reach the rapper. He says no response followed.
When Iceman was released in May 2026, Hirschfield says he heard “Janice STFU” and recognized his work. The complaint alleges the final recording uses the same chorus lyrics, melody and cadence as his submitted version. It characterizes the hook as “literally identical” to the earlier work.
That wording is central to the case because the lawsuit is not simply objecting to two songs sharing an interpolation. Hirschfield acknowledges that both the demo and the released track incorporate “I Follow Rivers.” His stated claim is that the allegedly copied portion consists of original material he added around that shared musical reference.
Why the interpolation matters
An interpolation is the use or recreation of a recognizable part of an earlier composition within a new song, rather than necessarily inserting the original recording itself. In this dispute, the reference to “I Follow Rivers” establishes that there is a common musical element in both works. Hirschfield’s allegation instead turns on whether the disputed hook includes protectable writing that originated with him.
Related coverage includes Drake, OVO Sound and UMG Named in ‘Janice STFU’ Copyright Lawsuit.
That distinction matters in practical terms. A shared source does not, by itself, answer who wrote later-added lyrics, a new vocal melody or a particular rhythmic delivery. Conversely, the presence of a shared source makes careful comparison more important: the disagreement would need to separate the earlier composition from the elements Hirschfield says were his own contribution.
FNZ received songwriting credits on “Janice STFU,” while Hirschfield says he was excluded. He alleges that he later sought recognition as a co-writer and a share of publishing royalties, without success.
The evidence fight extends beyond the music
The complaint says Hirschfield supplied audio stems and metadata to support his account of when the demo was made. It also alleges that Drake’s representatives suggested he had changed file information to make the recording appear older than the released song. Hirschfield’s legal team rejects that accusation and argues that falsifying such material would be professionally ruinous for a writer who had already worked with Drake.
“Such a deception would constitute career suicide by Avi,” the complaint states.
Audio stems are separate exported elements of a recording, such as vocals or individual instrumental parts, rather than one final stereo mix. Metadata is information associated with a digital file, which can include details tied to creation, modification or export. Both can be relevant to reconstructing a recording’s history, but neither term alone settles the authorship dispute described in the complaint. The parties’ disagreement is precisely over what Hirschfield’s files demonstrate and whether their timing can be trusted.
For a songwriter alleging a submission was used without credit, a documented sequence can be consequential: when the work was made, who received it, what form it was in, and how it compares with the released recording. Hirschfield says the recordings and related data corroborate his chronology. The complaint says the other side disputed that account.
There is also a professional context behind the conflict. Hirschfield and Drake previously shared songwriting credits on “Heated,” a track from Beyoncé’s 2022 album Renaissance. That earlier credit does not resolve the present lawsuit, but it means Hirschfield is not presenting the matter as a claim involving a complete stranger to Drake’s professional circle.
A hit song raises the stakes of a credit dispute
“Janice STFU” spent two weeks at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 and 20 weeks atop the Hot Rap Songs chart. Hirschfield’s suit seeks recognition for his alleged contribution and a portion of profits generated by the song. In his telling, the missing credit is not only about money; it is also about the professional value of being publicly associated with writing a major record.
Songwriting credits can affect how a creator’s role is understood in the industry. They identify the people formally recognized for composition and, as this lawsuit demonstrates, can be tied to disputes over publishing income. Hirschfield contends that leaving his name off deprived him of both compensation and career benefits associated with the alleged contribution.
The commercial scale cited in the complaint makes the parties’ competing narratives especially consequential. Hirschfield claims he supplied a finished creative component that later reached an enormous audience. The defendants’ side, as described by Hirschfield, maintains that Drake wrote the chorus himself. Those are incompatible accounts, and the lawsuit asks the court to address the difference.
What the case does—and does not—claim
It is important not to collapse every part of this story into one broader allegation. Hirschfield is not described as claiming ownership of “I Follow Rivers,” which predates his demo by years. The complaint instead centers on the hook in “Janice STFU,” including the lyrics he says were not part of Lykke Li’s original composition, plus the melody and cadence he says he created.
Likewise, the lawsuit’s filing is not a ruling that infringement occurred. A complaint presents the plaintiff’s version of events and requested relief. Here, Hirschfield is asking for a share of the song’s profits and formal recognition for the work he alleges was used. The available information records a disputed claim, a denial attributed to Drake’s attorneys, and no disclosed court finding.
The case also places unusual emphasis on the digital paper trail. In modern songwriting workflows, demos may move among writers, producers and artists before an official release takes shape. That makes questions of access especially relevant to a dispute such as this one. Hirschfield alleges that he delivered his version to people connected to Drake’s production network; the complaint uses that claimed circulation to explain how the chorus could have reached the released record.
For listeners, the headline can sound like a straightforward accusation that one finished song resembles another. The legal and creative disagreement described here is narrower and more technical: whether Hirschfield created the disputed original elements, whether the relevant people had access to them, and whether the files he has offered reliably establish his timeline.
The music industry’s current release cycle continues to produce large collaborative projects and credit questions alike. Elsewhere in the hip-hop landscape, Quavo’s long-teased SATCHAMO album appears to be moving toward release. But the “Janice STFU” dispute is specifically a lawsuit about a claimed uncredited chorus—not a general argument over who participated in an album-making process.
What to watch next
The next meaningful developments would be any formal response from Drake, OVO Sound or Universal Music Group, along with court filings that clarify how each defendant answers Hirschfield’s allegations. The parties may also provide more detail about the demo, who received it, the comparison between the two choruses, and the contested recording data.
Until then, the documented facts remain limited but significant: Hirschfield says he created and submitted a demo before “Janice STFU” was released; he alleges the released chorus duplicated his writing; he says he presented stems and metadata in support of that position; and he alleges the other side questioned the integrity of those files. Drake’s representative declined comment, while UMG had not responded when contacted.
For Hirschfield, the requested outcome is both financial and creative: credit as a co-writer and a share of the song’s proceeds. For the named defendants, the case challenges the origin story of a chart-leading record. The resolution will depend not on the scale of the song’s success alone, but on the evidence surrounding the hook’s creation, transmission and authorship.
