On Friday, October 16, 2026, Portland-based producer and songwriter Aviel Calev "Avi" Hirschfield sued Aubrey Drake Graham in federal court in Los Angeles. He says the chorus of "Janice STFU," Drake's No. 1 hit from this spring, copies a demo he wrote and sent to producers in Drake's circle months before the song came out. TMZ got the complaint the same day, and Billboard, Complex, Rolling Out, The Source, HotNewHipHop and others ran the story within hours. Drake's camp fired back almost as fast. The case is Hirschfield v. Graham, No. 2:26-cv-12115 in the Central District of California.
This isn't a fight over a sample or a beat. It's about a hook: a few lines of melody and lyrics that turned into one of the biggest songs of the year. It also raises the question at the center of almost every song-theft case: can the plaintiff prove the other side actually heard his work?
The song at the center
"Janice STFU" is the fourth track on Iceman, the surprise solo album Drake released on May 15, 2026, alongside Habibti and Maid of Honour. It went to U.S. rhythmic radio as the album's second single on May 19. It debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100, Drake's 14th chart-topper, and also topped the Billboard Global 200. Published credits list Drake as songwriter and FnZ, b4u and Rogét Chahayed as producers. The hook reportedly interpolates Lykke Li's 2011 song "I Follow Rivers."
The song kept going after the charts, too. Drake threw "apology parties" in several cities for women named Janice after fans complained the song singled them out. A song that big brings big money in streaming, publishing and sync, which is why who wrote its chorus matters.
What Hirschfield claims
According to the docket and press reports on the complaint:
- He wrote the chorus first. Hirschfield says he wrote the chorus between December 2025 and January 2026, over an instrumental by the producer duo FnZ. Some reports say he finished the demo on or about January 25, 2026.
- He sent it to Drake's team. He says he sent the demo to FnZ and other producers who work with Drake, along with his stems with the metadata intact, and never heard back. Then Iceman came out in May.
- "Literally identical." The complaint says the released chorus matches his demo in lyrics, melody and cadence. Two exhibits are attached to the complaint.
- He's no stranger to Drake. Hirschfield and Drake share songwriting credits on "HEATED," from Beyoncé's Grammy-winning 2022 album RENAISSANCE. That past collaboration is likely to come up as the parties argue about access and how ideas move between their camps.
- Four defendants. Drake, OVO Sound, UMG Recordings and Universal Music Publishing, plus unnamed Doe defendants. FnZ is not a defendant.
- What he wants. Disgorgement of profits, actual damages or enhanced statutory damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and recognition of his contribution to the song.
Hirschfield is represented by Gregory Korn, who filed the complaint, and press reports also name Jonathan Steinsapir.
Drake's response
Drake's team didn't wait for a court filing. A representative told TMZ the allegations are "categorically, unequivocally, and completely denied," that "there is not one iota of truth to these accusations," and called the suit a "manufactured and baseless attempt" to cash in on Drake's name and success.
Drake's side has also reportedly accused Hirschfield of manipulating the metadata in his recording files to back up his timeline. Hirschfield denies that. If the case goes forward, that dispute will be fought with forensic experts, file histories and message logs, and it could decide the case.
How a song-theft case gets proven
To win a music copyright case, a plaintiff generally has to show two things: that he owns a valid copyright, and that the defendant copied protected expression. Since direct proof of copying is rare, courts in the Ninth Circuit (which includes Los Angeles) let plaintiffs prove it with circumstantial evidence:
- Access. Did the defendant have a reasonable opportunity to hear the plaintiff's work? Most plaintiffs struggle here. Hirschfield's version is unusually direct: he says he sent the demo straight to producers who went on to produce the song. If the evidence holds up, access may be the strongest part of his case.
- Similarity. Courts compare the works on two levels. The extrinsic test uses experts to break the music down into elements like melody, rhythm, harmony and lyrics and compare them. The intrinsic test asks whether an ordinary listener would find the overall feel substantially similar. Courts filter out unprotectable material first: common phrases, stock chord progressions and anything both songs borrowed from earlier works.
That filtering could matter here. If the hook draws on "I Follow Rivers," Drake's team may argue that some of what Hirschfield claims as his actually came from Lykke Li's song, or is too short or common to be protected. The Ninth Circuit's 2020 en banc ruling in the "Stairway to Heaven" case, Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, made clear that common musical building blocks don't belong to anyone, and that plaintiffs can't win just by combining a few unprotectable elements.
The bigger factual fight is about time. Hirschfield says he made the demo in January 2026; Iceman came out in May. Drake's team will want to show the hook existed in their own sessions before Hirschfield's demo, or that his files aren't what they seem. That's why the metadata argument came up on day one.
Drake's earlier IP fights
This isn't Drake's first IP lawsuit, and our feed tracks two earlier ones:
- "No Guidance." In Cooper v. Chris Brown Entertainment, LLC, filed in Florida in 2021, singer Braindon Cooper and producer Timothy Valentine claimed Chris Brown and Drake's 2019 hit "No Guidance" copied Cooper's 2016 song "I Love Your Dress." They pointed to the hook, rhythm and repeated phrasing. Drake and Brown called it an "obscure song" they had never heard and argued that "you got it" is too common to own. That case was a textbook fight over access.
- The fake Vogue cover. In Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v. Graham, Condé Nast sued Drake and 21 Savage in Manhattan in 2022 over a mock Vogue cover used to promote their album Her Loss. Judge Jed Rakoff quickly scheduled an emergency hearing on Condé Nast's request for an injunction. That was a trademark fight, not a songwriting one, but it showed how fast a promotional decision can turn into federal litigation.
Hirschfield's case also lands while Drake is in a legal fight with UMG, his own label, over its promotion of Kendrick Lamar's "Not Like Us," a dispute that began in late 2024. Now UMG and Drake are co-defendants, and their interests may not fully line up. Watch who hires which lawyers.
What happens next
The case is at its very beginning. So far the docket shows only the complaint and its two exhibits. Drake and the label defendants will need to be served, and their first move is likely to be an extension, then either an answer or a motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss could argue that the complaint doesn't identify enough protectable expression, or that the claimed similarities come from unprotected or borrowed material. Also watch whether Hirschfield has a copyright registration for the demo. A registration is generally required to sue, and the timing of registration affects whether statutory damages and attorneys' fees are available at all.
We're tracking new filings on the Hirschfield v. Graham case page.
What this means for filmmakers and other creators
A dispute over a rap chorus might seem far from independent film. But the core issues of who made something first, who heard it, and who can prove it apply to every script, score, pitch deck and rough cut you send out.
Your files are evidence. Drake's team is already attacking Hirschfield's metadata. Filmmakers should keep dated, unaltered originals of every draft, treatment, storyboard and cut, and use systems that create reliable timestamps: version-controlled cloud storage, sent emails, and the WGA script registry or a Copyright Office registration for key works. A clean paper trail is often the difference between a strong claim and a credibility contest.
Track what you send, and to whom. Hirschfield's case rests on sending his demo to specific people. Every time you submit a script, pitch or reel, log the date, the recipient and exactly what you sent. If an idea turns up in someone else's project later, that log is your proof of access.
Register before it matters. In the U.S., you generally need a copyright registration to sue, and registering early (before infringement, or soon after publication) is what makes statutory damages and attorneys' fees possible. For a feature, score or screenplay, registration is cheap insurance.
Clear what you borrow. If "Janice STFU" interpolates "I Follow Rivers," that's a separate licensing deal with its own owners. Films face the same thing with music cues, needle drops and borrowed footage. Get every interpolation, sample and clip licensed in writing, and keep those licenses with your chain-of-title documents for distributors and E&O insurers.
Settle credits and splits in writing, early. Many songwriting disputes start in a casual session where nobody wrote down who did what. Film is no different. Get signed agreements with co-writers, composers and collaborators that state who owns what and how revenue is split, before the project takes off. When money comes in, a neutral collection account that pays everyone according to an agreed waterfall keeps the success from becoming a lawsuit.
Follow the filings, Drake's response and press coverage on the Hirschfield v. Graham case page.
This post is editorial commentary on public court filings and news coverage, not legal advice. Hirschfield's allegations have not been proven, and Drake's representatives have denied them. Some details, including the timeline of the demo and the metadata dispute, come from press reports summarizing the complaint and may be clarified as the case proceeds.