In a recent statement, songwriter Oleg Vladi claimed he did not sign an agreement transferring rights to the hit titled To hell with love to Svetlana Loboda. The assertion was shared during an interview reported by Shot, where Vladi laid out the sequence of events that followed.
Vladi explained that Loboda’s team, at his request, provided him with a contract written in Ukrainian and bearing his signature. He insists, however, that he never signed the document and therefore cannot be bound by its terms. The musician described the offer as a significant overstep, arguing that it would have granted Loboda rights of anonymity that he did not agree to. He characterized the behavior surrounding the contract as inappropriate and bordering on unacceptable, noting that in his more than 15 years of creative work he has rarely encountered what he calls blatant rudeness and near criminal conduct.
The artist emphasized that a formal lawsuit has been filed to address the dispute after attempts to settle matters outside of court reached an impasse. Vladi asserted that dialogue with Loboda’s management proved unproductive, and the legal route was the only remaining option to seek a resolution and protect his creative rights. He stressed that his aim is to clarify ownership and ensure proper compensation, should the court rule in his favor. The public statement suggested a broader pattern of communication challenges between the artist’s team and the claimant, which Vladi described as counterproductive to constructive negotiation and clearly damaging to professional relations in the music industry.
Analysts familiar with the case noted that the matters extend beyond a single contract. The core issues touch on authorship, control over distribution, and the potential implications for future earnings linked to the track. The dispute has drawn attention to how collaboration agreements are managed in high-profile music projects and the importance of clear, enforceable terms that respect the creator’s rights. In recent weeks, reports indicate that the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in another matter related to the same artist, though details of the decision remain part of ongoing legal coverage. The claimant sought compensation of 500 thousand rubles, a figure intended to reflect lost revenue and the value of the songwriter’s contribution to the work. The outcome and potential appeals will likely influence similar cases involving song ownership and credit in the region.
Earlier this year, Vladi also pursued a separate legal action seeking removal of a Loboda concert recording from a major online platform. The case placed Loboda and the platform as defendants, while the songwriter was advised to pursue remedies through another authority. This sequence underscores the complexity of online infringement disputes and the multiple channels often involved when an artist’s live performances appear in digital catalogs without explicit post-approval. Observers point out that such processes require careful navigation of intellectual property rights, performance rights, and the responsibilities of online platforms to regulate and remove content as legally required. The evolving landscape of music streaming and clip sharing has intensified the stakes for creators who want to maintain control over how their work is presented and monetized across networks.
In related developments, earlier public remarks by other figures in the music industry have touched on the personal toll of high-pressure creative environments. For some artists, the stress associated with negotiation, recognition, and the protection of one’s artistic output can lead to moments of vulnerability. These comments add texture to the broader conversation about how collaboration is managed in contemporary music and how disputes are resolved when artistic credit and financial rewards are at stake. The overall picture suggests a need for greater transparency and consistent standards in contract drafting, negotiation, and dispute resolution within the entertainment sector, particularly when cross-border elements and language differences come into play.
As the case unfolds, industry watchers and fans alike are watching for clarifications on ownership rights, compensation structures, and the eventual status of the disputed recording and any related rights. The situation illustrates the ongoing tension between creative autonomy and collaborative production in modern pop music, highlighting how important it is for songwriters to protect their contributions while navigating complex relationships with performers, managers, and digital platforms. The outcome may influence future practice in similar scenarios, encouraging clearer agreements and more robust dispute-prevention measures to safeguard the interests of all parties involved. [Citations: Media coverage and legal filings summarized for public interest; attribution to reported statements and court actions from multiple outlets]