What gets me is that even if Netflix offered them the worst licensing deal in the world that could not be negotiated further or was nonnegotiable, you can't just . . . do the show anyways??? That's not how it works?? You can't just say ✨no✨ and be like, "how about I do anyway"
it feels to me as if the girls got greedy? because netflix + shondaland _offered_ them a licensing deal, a legally sound way to stage the concerts so, it was mutually beneficial but they rejected it? it’s even more bizarre as barlow & bear _have_ agents and representatives, a whole team around them and even then, they turned it down and sealed their fate. it’s a shame that this could’ve so easily been avoided but now, there’s absolutely no chance that barlow & bear will win. and this spotlight on fan works + copyright will put other fan works at risk too.
Not only that, they could have started a partnership to maybe even turn this into a full-fledged "event" like the Bridgerton Experience and even sweet talked them into a cameo or something on the show. But nope, they just did it the weirdest and worst possible way instead.
At the end of the day, Barlow and Bear broke the law. IP laws are there to protect artists. Julia Quinn speaking out against this was the nail in the coffin for me.
Agreed. People are very focused on it being all Netflix vs B and B, but Quinn is the original creator of everything Bridgerton. Her characters deserve the protection Netflix can afford.
I find it worrying how many people support Barlow and Bear pretty much stealing someone else's work and making a profit. When it was a fun musical made by fans to celebrate they’re love for the franchise it was one thing, the second it crossed over into them selling out a concert and making profit it became stealing someone else’s work. The impact this could have on smaller creators is outrageously dangerous and people need to see past Netflix being a huge company and realise what Barlow and Bear have put into jeopardy. Fan made content has always been left untouched because we don’t make a profit off it, them crossing that line could make Netflix less likely to allow fan made content such as the original album to even happen in the future. They got greedy, no one should be supporting them.
I’ve written a musical adaptation of a film (Miss Congenitally) and I’ve posted songs and videos online for fun (no profit whatsoever). I’m just hoping that this doesn’t have a harsh impact on composers like me who are just having a bit of fun with an IP they love.
@@jencapella It just depends. Usually studios will just let it go. Well, most of the time, Disney is really strict with their IP. If it’s all in fun and you don’t try profiting from it, you’ll be fine. It’s the profiting that’s the big no-no. Also, I LOVE miss congeniality!
@@jencapella Studios don't really register it until people make money from it. I've worked at enough of these LA based companies to know that. Sometimes I'd flag something I saw online and they'd say "eh they aren't making money it's not worth it to us" Studios are worse about this. Bear and Barlow really only got hit when the money started going into their pockets. It simply got too famous.
Actually, TBH, I'm shocked how many people on these threads actually support Netflix. I was in the licensing industry for 25+ years - you'd be SHOCKED how many people actually believe they can get away with anything they choose to do. The entire theatrical windowcard marketplace (with VERY few, minor exceptions) is a worthless muddle in the secondary market (outside the theatre) because a certain retail store decided to recreate/reprint vintage windowcards because the fans wanted them.
okay, this may be TOO hot of a take, but- if they’re SO confident in their composition skills and writing talents, then why are they clinging so desperately onto content that isn’t even based in a story they created themselves??? If they truly believe they’re talented and capable, why can’t they just take this in stride and move on? Seems like a toxic combination of insecurity, pride, and greed to me
Abigail tried to go on with her solo career after the album, actually. She released her own music, did a Vegas show, and tried to create three separate musicals including one about herself as she started the Bridgerton Musical. None of it worked out, so Bridgerton the Musical.
Emily has been writing and producing music since she was a child. She's worked with big names such as Quincy Jones and has written for Disney and other massive film studios. I'm scared this whole situation will negatively impact her career, since she clearly has the most to loose. Abigail's music career never really took off, so she had the most to gain from it and if it wasn't for Emily's skills and extensive knowledge of music and producing, Abigail would have never been so well known. I'm afraid Emily will be getting the short end of the stick if things really turn around... (Doesn't take away the fact that they should have let Bridgeton rest after the Grammy win or organized licenses, but I really really wonder what happened behind the scenes there)
@@peytonwl I personally think how they may view themselves and their work and their personal opinions of themselves could be playing into the questionable decisions they’ve been making and will likely continue to make surrounding this issue. I just felt like it applied 🤷🏻♀️
@@tinkbella450 there were no questionable decisions...they did not steal anything...Netflix agreed to the album...the songs are performed daily by many others...in concerts, in auditions. etc. ...to say to the composer..you cannot stage your own songs is ridiculous... the whole lawsuit is only to get a bigger piece of the cake.., btw. Emily Bear and Abigail Barlow have many other projects...from the postponed Mexican Pizza Musical for Taco Bell to movies...Emily Bear scored a Netflix movie...which will be released in 2023? But as they are correct with contracts...NDAs ...they did not tell anything publicly. So you really think...that a such correct, experienced person...sudedenly acts totally foolish Emily Bear won an Emmy (LA region) for a docu score... so far she won more big awards than the whole Bridgerton series.. The problem for Shonda Rimes is...her own Bridgerton Experience is fast food ...the Barlow & Bear concerts are world class... it is just an inferiority complex. Btw. will she fine herself or Julia Quinn in the future if the sing the songs under the shower... or at a party... ? The music is out...Emily Bear, her lawyers should make a statement...and kick Shonda Rimes in the ass.
@@tillm2481 Regardless of whether Netflix agreed or not (which I don't think they did?), Julia Quinn explicitly has stated she does not agree with the situation and as the original creator and owner of the characters and plot line, if she doesn't agree then it is stealing as they lifted her work without her seeing a penny for it.
Oceans Away was a great line taken from one of the few gay characters in the show and given to Daphne for Daphne's song and that will never not upset me. It was a male character explaining that a straight man would never understand what it was like to not be with the person they love in a society that doesn't accept them. It was given to the straight female lead who is not in that situation whatsoever. Like... I'm sorry... but no. That's hands down not cool and why, even if this legal situation didnt exist, I still would be side eyeing B&B.
I HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR SOMEONE ELSE SAYING THIS!!!!!! I know nothing about this show but when I heard about this I was so annoyed. And it seems like no one is pointing this out as a problem???
Also, for women who are sooooo talented and innovative or whatever, they sure are clinging on hard to the Bridgerton musical. All of Barlow’s other music is practically ignored or unknown. Emily bear has been in the industry forever and her work is much more well known (she’s written songs for Disney, for example). But either way, why would you ruin your career before it’s even started by fighting with freaking NETFLIX over a mediocre musical made from stolen IP…
What a mess, how was it even eligible for a nomination then winning a Grammy? Even that felt like a red flag. As for Netflix concern of Broadway Actors involvement performing at the Kennedy Centre; the optics of having well known Broadway Actors legitimizes the project as being legal professional performance. Could the Actors sue the authors as well? How did the Kennedy Center allow a non licensed show in such a heavely Unionized venue to go on?
That is what I'm curious about. I'm very surprised that the Kennedy Center allowed this unlicensed production to happen. I am not legal expert, but I feel like they could be on the line with Netflix, as well, for staging an unauthorized work.
I’ve studied IP law and the biggest issue here is that they were profiting off of licensed product. They were profiting not only off the show but the merch, and this is where it differs from other transformative works (i.e. fanfiction, fanart, and simply writing the songs for fun).
As far as anyone knows they only sold Barlow and Bear Merch not Bridgerton Merch. The issue didn't even arise until the concerts they were promoting because the merch has been sold since S1. It's almost like they waited for S2 to do this, it's possible, but it sounds like they actually didn't like them taking money from the Bridgerton Experience which is why it keeps coming up in these articles.
@@kgal1298 the train of thought is they are selling merch at an event attached to the “Bridgerton name” as thus are profiting off of the brand. Also until now the profits they made were minimal. The first show was for charity (Netflix isn’t dumb enough not green light that) it’s when they started selling tickets for upwards of 145 dollars for profit not charity which was a problem. That’s when it crosses into the line of theft. And I doubt it was a one time thing they hired professional broadway actors they were gonna try and make this a fully fledged tour they probably wanted to take it to broadway itself.
@@kgal1298 Netflix had tried offering a license deal, they didn't take it. That's why the lawsuit didn't happen immediately, Netflix was trying to work with the. Then Barlow and Bear then knew they didn't have the copyright or any legal permission to make any money off of this and continued to sell out shows making lots of money off of it anyway. Of course Netflix wasn't happy. Netflix has every legal right to not be happy right now as does the original author, frankly. But Netflix is the current trademark owner so they get to sue. Their right to Bridgerton includes derivative works, such as a musical. This not only gives them the right to do a musical should they want to, Bridgerton is their assest and it protects them from any 3rd party coming in (like Barlow and Bear) and doing a musical. They have very much have the legal right to not be happy here.
I'm planning on studying IP as well. I wouldn't even call this transformative, as it doesn't add any additional meaning, nor is it a parody, a commentary, nor a critique. It doesn't stray from the plot, it uses the same characters, expressions, and even dialogue. A derivative most definitely, but it is in direct competition with Netflix if they were to create a musical of their own. Netflix is in the right on this one and it would be better for B&B to settle rather than take it to court. Just because they won a Grammy doesn't give them the right use IP that wasn't there's to begin with and make money off of it.
when I first saw this I was angry at netflix, but Julia Quinn’s statement really changed my mind. As a writer, if someone took a book I wrote and created a musical, I would love that. But if they started to make money off of it I would be furious. I spent years creating those characters and those stories, they aren’t there for other people to profit off of
I would love for people to take any of the books I wrote and turn them into musicals, or movies, or even fake movie trailers! But I would also like to be involved, and have a legal contract protecting my rights as the original author. I've read fanfic that is better than the source material, and there are entire fandoms that I don't touch because the fanfiction is toxic AF and makes me wonder if the people writing it ever actually read/watched the same source material I did.
Rule #1 of creating any fan content: generally it's all good, unless you try to start making money off of it. This is just one of the reasons ao3 doesn't have ads on their website, or an app for reading fanfiction. It sucks that B&B decided not to take a licensing deal. I think the musical could've been something big given B&B had not been so greedy. While they own the music, they don't own the storyline or characters and it's messed up for them to act like they do.
I wrote fanfic and I absolutely agree: you're not making money off your real work, even if it's your work/Original characters/words. you're profiting from somoene else's success and investments and efforts… not okay
Some people are saying that Netflix made a profit thanks to the musical. It’s questionable at best, but even if you assume they did… so what? Let’s say I published a book, and Netflix made a TV show based on it without licensing it. The show became a hit, and the sales of my book went through the roof. So I’m supposed to say thank you and all is well? The main point is simply the fact that they are selling a product that they don’t have full rights to. Any profits and so on are just secondary.
this! Netflix owns the trademark and rights to derivative works, including musicals. It's that simple. Doesn't matter if Netflix doesn't have a musical or gets views off this or what. Not to mention, the author's chunk of it comes from whatever deal they have with Netflix, not anything to do with fan musicals selling out shows. Netflix is actually protecting the author too by protecting the trademark they own.
@@Author.Noelle.Alexandria Big time delusional. Bridgerton was in the top ten most viewed shows on the subscription service BEFORE the musical was finalized.
Total guess, but I imagine the use of broadway actors adds further insult because these are professional musical performers. So it (a) further takes the work out of the fan culture it originated within, (b) makes it look more 'official' and (c) has even more potential to infringe on a stage musical should Netflix themselves ever want to create one.
@@meghanobrien592 They are. Both Solea Pfeiffer and Kelli O'Hara are highly respected, top-tier performers (Kelli has a Tony Award win for Lead Actress alongside numerous nominations) who have performed at the top venues in the country. Speaking as someone with experience working in a professional theatre environment, that means they *had* to be paid professional wages and work in a very specifically laid-out work environment in order to even do the performance. Contracts had to be negotiated, agents and managers to be coordinated with, etc.
I agree with C especially...I would guess that the contracts Netflix has with this series includes the rights to doing a musical if they ever wish do one. The contracts to the right to something like a novel often goes that deep, even if nothing comes out of it- if not just to protect the holder from something just like this, someone else coming along and do a show themselves
As much as I usually stand up for the little guy, Netflix hasn't done anything wrong here. I don't see what other choice they would have had other than just letting people trample over their licensing rights. I'm confused about why the composers thought they could push it this far with no repercussions. If I were a producer/investor of big-budget musicals, I'd be wary about getting involved with these two on any of their future projects.
I'm on Netflix's side even if the offered license was bad - it's tough luck you don't own the IP! Plus I find it weird that Bear liked a tweet saying Netflix should have filmed the unofficial bridgerton performance at the Kennedy centre and then put it up on the service! I really want to know how they thought IP/Copyright didnt apply to them! I'm very interested to see how BB will respond to this!
Right! Netflix really didn't have to offer them any kind of deal at all, they could have immediately issued like a cease and desist. Netflix holds the trademark, period. It doesn't matter how good you think your own ideas are or if anyone likes them, you don't just get to go making money off someone else's trademark... especially not doing things like selling out fan musicals at the Kennedy Center ffs
Yup. If you put in the work before acquiring the rights, you put yourself in a bad negotiating position - and it’s only your fault. The other side knows that you have much more to lose if the deal doesn’t go through, so they may negotiate hard. My guess is that Netflix could have offered not bad financial terms, but wanted a lot of (total?) creative control. But yeah, tough luck.
Yea...it's just tough luck if the license was too expensive. It isn't your IP, if you can't afford, move on or don't profit and just do for fun (like so man fan creators)
I was not surprised when I saw this news at all. I’ve seen some asking why it has taken Netflix until now, but lawsuits can take time and are often the last resort. Tbh a part of me has no sympathy because this was obviously going to happen. But I hope it can be sorted out
Netflix was attempting to make some kind of deal with Barlow and Bear, but they wouldn’t budge. Lawsuits are expensive and take time, almost always a last resort. No doubt they’ll settle before it goes to court. They have to know they won’t win. As much as I don’t like agreeing with Netflix, they are in the right in this case.
It's obvious from the curt file here that they did try to issue cease and desist, formal requets, conversation… before suing. Which imo is an honorable move from them. That's probably why it took time ; and also, it's cheaper and faster to make a formal legal request peacefully than to take people to court. Everyone wants a quick resolve, even a big group such as Netflix would probably prefer to avoid the energy and time it will cost…
The Ratatouille Musical did it right. It was a TikTok collar to make an unofficial music, it was AMAZING, and it was free. One and done. That’s what this should’ve been. I love the songs so much but I struggle to support them now because of the potential ramifications of their greed on fan communities.
Being a romance reader for decades, I had read some of Julia Quinn's Bridgerton book series before the show was even thought of, and to be honest, when I heard that Shonda Rhimes was developing it as a TV series, I was both happy for Julia Quinn and the romance genre which has always been underrated and derided, but also mystified. To be frank, the romance genre is flush with historical romances set at the same time as Bridgerton and Bridgerton's not even the best of them, in my opinion. In any event, I just wanted to put that out there. I was really pleased that Bridgerton became a streaming success because I thought it would open the doors for more romance genre adaptations -- maybe of work I like better than Bridgerton. This is why, I support Netflix's position because *they* took the chance; they bought the rights off of a popular romance author; they saw the worthiness and invested money, time, and talent. Barlow and Bear, who I had never heard of before this, basically came in at the tail end, lifted most of the work, and put it to music, ultimately profiting off of others' vision, investment, and talent. But what *really* surprises me is that B&B won a Grammy and that the Kennedy Center put this show on without checking if they had the legal right to do so. The Grammy organization and the Kennedy Center are no neophytes! What the heck?!
This will almost certainly settle. What people need to understand is you can lose IP rights if you don’t enforce them. Most organizations tolerate low level stuff like fan fiction, but a large amount of infringement becomes problematic.
@@ryanwagner7980 the problem is by using thre "Bridgerton" name they are also absolutely infringing on trademarks as well. The merch, the tickets, that's use in commerce. And trademarks absolutely are enforce or lose. (And Netflix includes trademarks in their complaint) Netflix also may have enforcement obligations as part of their contracts with Quinn and her publisher as well.
US copyright law is insanely complicated. Do people think netflix doesn't have the lawyers to deal with this? They do those guys are basically experts in copyright and trademark law you have to be.
@@kgal1298 as I mentioned earlier Barlow and Bear had these experts from the beginning - this is the really strange thing - to me it seems that it in reality a fight between the expert lawyers on both sides - all want to show who has the longer penis - but sadly on the back of Barlow and Bear
I think Julia Quinn (the author of the books the series is based on) frequently gets overlooked in this. Although people are casting Netflix as villains due to them being a bit corporation, the fact that the original creator is also not getting royalties is definitely a bad look for Barlow and Bear. I really don’t know how they thought they’d get away with this, especially since Netflix tried to make them a deal and they turned it down. I also think if they had staged the concert at the Kennedy Center as a benefit concert, Netflix would have been less likely to crack down vs doing it for profit as they did.
Here’s something else, the Kennedy Center is where shows that are intended for Broadway often debut/have their out-of-town runs. B&B could have picked any number of amazing venues in D.C., picking this one was big ol signal what their future intentions were. Those “Broadway stars” weren’t there by accident, those were people prepping for a future a long-running gig.
Possibly. It's true that the Kennedy Center often hosts pre-Broadway shows, but the Kennedy Center has 3 main stages (the Opera House and Eisenhower theater typically host plays/musicals/operas/ballets whereas the Concert Hall hosts concerts, comedy shows, etc) plus literally dozens of chamber spaces and the new outdoor complex at the Reach. A quick Google search tells me this event happened in the Concert Hall. Not a venue suitable for a fully mounted show. You could argue they just wanted the association of the KC name, but I don't see how this concert would take the place of an out of town tryout. For the record, I think they were absolutely wrong and overstepping appropriate fan content. But just wanted to clarify bc the Kennedy Center hosts all sorts of shows, not only Broadway-style productions.
Hosting? They paid money for the venue that evening?.. to put on an event without copyright? That’s like allowing a pawn shop to sell stolen goods imo.😎
@@ThexImperfectionist Also, there are a number of shows that have had their try out at other local DC theaters, like Woolly Mammoth and Arena. In fact, I think the play that won best musical this year was tried out at Woolly.
@@sassycatz4470 I didn't know that A Strange Loop played at the Wooly Mammoth. I knew about DEH at the Arena and Come From Away at Ford's Theatre. And the temptations musical was at the kennedy center too. And that's off the top of my head from just recent years. I'm sure there are many others around town
Coming from a film school background, I was advised that if someone steals your work and YOU KNOW IT and have proof, wait until the revenue comes in. Why? Because if you tell them before your creative idea takes off, the producers will kill it. You won't get any money and it won't be seen. If you wait and then see the revenue, you have a tangible amount that you can ask for. People will know that you wrote this thing and that another person stole it. That's probably why Netflix waited this long and was willing to work with the women.
I mean no - these people don’t have the rights to make money on Julia Quinn’s and Netflix’s properties without paying for it. I should think it should be obvious.
Julia Quinn and Shonda have every right to this. Basically I don’t give a damn what Netflix as a corporation thinks in any moral argument, but those individuals actually matter
But Netflix have the resources to actually protect the art. Also, we wouldn’t have bridgerton a series without Netflix and the individuals they employ. And post people, like myself, wouldn’t have known of the books either. So I do agree Netflix to completion deserves to profit off what they created
Pretty much this. No one wants to take the side of a megacorporation, but B&B literally stole Julia's original IP and Shonda's adaptive concepts for profit, and that is absolutely not ok.
I just did the math about their income from Spotify streams alone. Based on their streams and the average income per stream, they have made (excluding tax or other fees I may know nothing about) around $190,471.66. That is nearly $200,000. From IP that is nowhere near theirs. Netflix is fully within their rights to want to pursue a legal course of action for what can really be considered stealing at this point.
Disney got a ton of bad press over the years for going after day care centers with Mickey Mouse painted on their walls etc. In this current climate of fan content, Netflix's restraint makes sense. But it's hard to insert yourself into a David and Goliath story when you've just filled the Kennedy Center with a performance of a property you had no rights to. Though, I wonder if they counted on the proceeds from these performances to fund their own stuff, especially if they couldn't attract backers? Mounting a show is insanely expensive.
Honestly I thought the concerts were just them performing the songs and not doing full on performances with dialogue and sets, which is what most of us thought and since no one's seen it...we just thought it was like the performance they originally did at the Kennedy Center, but that one they didn't make any money from either.
@@kgal1298 I was at the Kennedy Center for the concert and it was very much a concert. There was no 'script'/dialogue or sets. The big push for the concert was that it was a performance of the songbook with the National Symphony Orchestra. Which is what it was. I had assumed when I went that they had licensing rights to do it. I thought that the moment they were allowed to record it and were nominated for the Grammy. At the concert, the video display distinctly said that Netflix and their partners DID NOT sanction the concert. I noted it because I thought it was weird. I will be curious to see where this goes and what B&B's response is. For me I don't understand why Netflix waited to file. The concert was broadly advertised in the DC area for weeks. They could have stopped the concert from happening. That's the part that's curious to me. I also wonder how/if there's legal distinction between the lyrics - which in some songs are direct lifts from the scripts of the show and the music, which they wrote organically.
@@kgal1298 the Kennedy Center very much was for profit. The seats sold for over $150/seat. When you start making that much off of an explicit copyright violation, you're gonna start to ruffle some feathers.
@@dpvny3411 There is distinction, in a sense. They have full rights to the music - they could freely perform it instrumentally, for example (as long as they don’t advertise it as Bridgerton). As long as they don’t use reorchestrated theme from the show, for example - but I don’t believe they do. If they removed the Bridgerton content from the lyrics, they could also perform and sell it. But that would be difficult - it’s not just about removing the names and quotes, but also the plot of Bridgerton, and it’s baked deeply into the musical. However, iIf they were able to rewrite the story to something clearly different from Bridgerton, then they would have full rights to it. It would be like Fifty Shades of Grey, which started as a Twilight fanfic, but was changed enough that it stands on its own legs in order to be monetised.
Tbh: they were really dumb. One of the first things I have learned in working in theatre was: make sure that you own the rights to literally EVERYTHING. And of them to say: "But I don't want to work with the original creators and be involved with Netflix" when they were offering to work with them is just ignorant and again really really stupid, because if they wouldn't have been so successful with what they are doing they would probably never have gotten the offer to get the rights. It is so hard as a creator to get the rights to something of this caliber and they just said: "No." And of course as a creator the Netflix team and Julia Quinn want to be involved in the process of creating something based on their work (it would have been much better of a show if the Barlow and Bear would have read the books, because they are suited much better for the stage than the TV Show but that is a different story). I do not wish to deny that Barlow and Bear do have potential and are talented. But the whole time they were just behaving really unprofessionally and as someone who works in the musical theatre industry and who knows how annoying the questions about rights and when you want to make changes to something etc. can be it honestly makes me a bit mad. Because: yes it is one of the not so nice parts of the job. But it also is part of the job. And I am sad to see young female talent wasted because of stupidity. Netflix will win this case because Netflix is in the right.
I absolutely ADORE Barlow & Bear, but still I fully support Shondaland and Julia Quinn in this. Barlow & Bear did take this too far. They clearly poured a lot of work into writing the songs, but their songs do include direct quotes and dialogue from the show/books, which is material they just simply do not own. The licensing deal Netflix offered them was probably not that great (Netflix probably wanted a huge cut of the profit), but Barlow & Bear probably still should have taken it or either tried to negotiate a new deal (which maybe they did, we don’t know yet). Or if they didn’t want that they should have pulled an E.L. James and just heavily rewrite and change the songs to create their own story and remove the Bridgerton references.
I'm a writer and I have a master's degree in publishing. The amount of money/work/efforts made by a publisher/producer/studio to transform a piece of work into a sellable and hit phenomenon is INSANE. It can cost SO MUCH (money and creative energy). That's why they earn money from the sales. That's why they take a cut of everything. Because THEY made it happen. I had never heard of Bridgerton before the Netflix show, and even if the books had their success, it hadn't crossed as much countries and hadn't reach nearly as much people as it did with Netflix. Making money off of Bridgerton BEFORE Netflix would already be problematic for the author, who was working hard on it. Now, it's profiting off the works of a lot of people. AND no one had the millions they probably invested to bring Bridgerton into the massive success they made it. Those two women are trying to take money without investing anything in broad marketing and intesive effort for making it known and sold. I am not on their side here ; Netflix has bought rights and invested a lot. They made it happen. They deserve the money they earned. Being a big studio/name doesn't change that.
It's funny because months ago at my college (I go to a theater conservatory) we were talking about this musical and Ratatouille. My teacher was telling us how upset he was that the two composers were getting away with this because they didn't have permission, and that he could see this having large legal ramifications for this show and any other musicals that did this
I’ve honestly been under the false assumption the whole time that this was a parody musical they had written. I had not listened to any of the music, but now that I know it isn’t really the same as some of the other parody musicals we’ve seen before this, I’m just surprised it took Netflix this long to file a lawsuit. It does seem like Netflix was attempting to work out a deal with them which maybe explains why it has now come to this.
I'd be really surprised if there was not some kind of behind the scene negotiations that broke down. Going through the courts tends to be a slow and expensive process, and it can make for bad press depending on how such a public action is taken. Not mention, there was a real possibility here of a mutually beneficial situation.
I initially thought this was like the Harry Potter one that was a legit parody (and still got into a legal mess until they sorted it out with the rights holders). It's clearly not. I hate to be on Netflix's side here, but the Bridgerton Musical isn't parody and stopped being a fun fan tribute when they started making money. They need to get a license if they want to keep selling this or write something new that's all their own.
B&B did get “permission” to release an album and that's pretty much it. Netflix offered them a license for the musical, but I'm guessing the two artists got greedy with their grammy award, declined the offer, and breached their copyright. They should've known who they were messing with.
Thank you for actually going through the detail of this. Initial reaction is to hate the big corporation and route for the little guys but when you read the details, netflix has been incredibly restrained in not kicking off until the point where Barlow and Bear really stepped over the line and performed this and yes turned a profit, because the reality is money makes the world go round and its what is going to upset people. Barlow and Bear are either being very badly advised, naive or just plain greedy to think this is OK. If someone else took their songs and played them in a big concert with out their permission they wouldn't like it, so they can't take netflix IP and use it to make a profit even if netflix is a big corporation. I hope netflix is just suing to make a point and not for any major financial sum. Just to try and deter anyone else from doing this. End conclusion: Fanfiction is fine, just don't profit from it
They had to sue to get an injunction to stop Barlow and Bear from basically going ahead and staging a global concert tour of their IP without paying them a dime. The court can require that they stop the concerts- since Netflix already tried asking them not to do the concerts and they said “Fuck off”.
Totally agree. This is hardly fanfic. This is making a whole new thing out of someone else's copyrighted idea, making obvious profit and merchandising out of it. Plus Netflix likely has rights to do a musical as part of the rights they hold with Bridgerton.
As a published author I would be livid if someone took my original book -- whether it had been made into a TV show or film or not -- and decided to create a new work without the permission of me, my publisher, and so on. In actual fact, even I -- according to my book contracts -- cannot create derivative works without the permission of my publisher. These two women are either completely ignorant of, or have no respect for, copyright. I find it strange when creators abuse the rights of other creators. Would they be happy if someone created a work based on their original content without obtaining a license or other rights.
I’ve seen some people act like Netflix should give B&B a pass because the musical was good promo. Not denying that the musical was good promo for the show, but it’s clear to me that B&B benefitted from the association more than Netflix did. When the show aired it was starting with a built in fanbase from the books and the Shonda Rhimes brand. Add to that everyone binging because of the pandemic and it was bound to be a hit. Any fans the show picked up from the musical were just gravy. B&B are incredibly talented but they wouldn’t be performing at the Kennedy Center at this point in their career if they weren’t attached to Bridgerton. The musical became famous because of the popularity of the show not the other way around. I’m sure the terms of the deal Netflix offered them weren’t great, but they could have used the opportunity to build their brand and audience before launching an original project.
Ya, Netlix really didn't have to offer them any kind of "decent" deal at all, legally. They held the trademark and rights to any derivative, fair and square. They legally could have ceased and desist really. But it was smart of Netflix to offer the deal because once B&B turned it down they basically acknowledged they knew they didn't have permission to do this musical AND made money off of it anyway.
Correction: Abigail wouldn't have performed there at this stage. Emily has in the past performed at Carnegie Hall, Lincoln Center, Montreux Jazz Festival, many prestigious places before she was 18 y/o. Which is why I'm leaning towards bad/impartial advice from their legal team, because Emily had been in the music industry since a child and one of her longtime mentors is Quincy Jones. I just don't see her making such a dumb mistake. I hope she'll be able to leave this mess behind her and continue her career, because she is incredibly talented and there is so much more beautiful music we could enjoy from her in the future.
I am a big believer in "girl, get that coin", esp when it comes to fanfiction turned original fiction. And I also spent mannny years as a StarKid fan, who are most known for their parody musicals. As someone who creates fan content, I truly love the creativity of fan communities and support people making money. However, this whole situation concerns and disappoints me. I think they are putting fanworks broadly in jeopardy if it doesn't go their way (and I don't think it will). Which really sucks, because fanworks are the backbone of so many fan communities. Barlow and Bear took it too far with their for-profit performances, especially as they were actively saying f you more or less to Netflix in their private interactions with them. It seems like this could have continued and been resolved with little issue, but they (or their legal counsel) weren't super interested in that. It seems to me that Barlow and Bear wanted to be the next combo of Starkid and Marlow and Moss. They wanted the fame/fandom that came with a fanwork on the poppy/viral scale of SIX. But they should have, as you suggested, used their Bridgerton work as a platform to launch their original work. Yet, because of this, I think they will be as stuck as they once feared to be, broadly known as the Bridgerton girls.
yes!! Starkid was such a great example of how to do a fan musical. They worked hard to make sure they were seen as a parody, they listened to Warner Bros when they wanted them to change stuff and very clearly made it known they weren't involved with the OG material. They also never sold tickets for profit. Even just in this comment section, so many people are surprised they didn't have permission to do the Bridgerton musical or that it wasn't official- their names were absolutely becoming linked to Bridgerton which is a no-no like you said. Esp when you are profitting smh
it BOGGLED me that, regarding the show, they were just "notifying" Netflix of the show rather than seeking permission, then announced the show just a few days after. it feels like such a big middle finger to Netflix - because i would've just assumed they had try to do the show anyway, because they really wanted to do the show and hope, extremely natively but hope anyway, that Netflix would not notice. seek forgiveness rather than permission kind of thing - again, it would have been extremely native of them, but i would actually have been less surprised. the fact that they emailed Netflix about the show and made it clear they were going to do it anyway regardless of what Netflix said just seems so....rude, especially when Netflix still tried to extend a licensing agreement to them. rude and mean.
I’d be really interested to hear counter arguments from BnB’s legal reps. I can’t believe they would have gone this far knowing Netflix was actively opposed.
this is so cut and dry. B&B have zero rights to this property and to think otherwise is arrogance. Netflix was being generous to let them take it this far. sadly, if B&B had been more cooperative we might have seen an official version. Now we will never see a B&B Bridgerton and B&B have just shot their career in the head.
Not only is this theft, but Netflix have an incentive to act (from a legal standpoint) to preserve the brand identity of their product too. If someone sees the musical and isn't impressed, they may mistakenly believe its quality is a reflection on the quality of Netflix/ the Bridgerton show and books. There are also some odd laws about defending trademarks, where they could lose their Bridgerton branding rights if they don't actively defend it from being used by others.
Your last point is too often overlooked. Abandonment is a huge deal in IP law; it’s why so many corporations (especially Disney) are so diligent about copyright.
So glad you decided to talk about this! I saw a news article yesterday and wanted to know more about it. Also I am on Netflix's side on this😶 I think Barlow & Bear should work on an original musical, now that they have a good following and people like their music.
@@tillm2481 It's original music - until you get to the lines lifted from the show to make lyrics, and the complete use of characters, plot, and setting from the show. They really don't have a leg to stand on here.
As a writer/creator, I honed my writing skills as a youngster by writing (dull and tame) fanfiction for various novels and films - but it would never have occurred to me to try to sell it, especially without permission. Frankly, I'm pretty appalled at the chutzpah. I honestly don't know how the album even made it to the Grammies, much less won. What Barlow and Bear don't grasp is that copyright law exists in large part to prevent small-time creators - i.e., most of us - from being exploited.
Assuming there isn't some glaring misinformation in the Netflix legal filing (which seems unlikely), they were so much more reasonable about all of this than they had to be. There have always been unofficial lines in the sand when it comes to fanworks and Barlow and Bear seem to have flagrantly just decided they didn't apply to them. Also did no one at the Kennedy Center ever actually talk to Netflix? If they didn't, I'm a bit surprised they aren't named in the suit too.
I'm so stumped about the whole Kennedy Center thing. That really shows you B&B were marketing themselves to have held permission to do what they were doing. But still...just...huh?
@@accountforwastingtime Yeah, if the show included the actual Bridgerton trademark, you think someone would have wanted to verify at least. Even if B&B can ultimately prove fair use (which seems a stretch), they definitely used the trademark without permission.
I grew up with Abigail Barlow and knew her family in Alabama and they’re all HORRIBLE entitled people. Anna grace her sister especially who is also an actress, but they’re all bad apples. It does not shock me at all that Abigail is acting so entitled. I hope they get the book thrown at them.
Well now that makes sense given Abigail is the one with the most to gain here, given she never had any success of her own compared to Emily. No wonder shes trying to force this, its the only way she can have a career and she thinks shes owed that career
Someone should write a musical about Barlow and Bear’s rise using bits of the unofficial soundtracks and their words from their tiktoks ect and sell it as a for profit show and see if they see it all in a different light 😂
i find it really silly that Barlow and Bear refused the license? It would have saved them from all of this hassle, again the terms aren’t known as you said, but they could’ve simply renegotiated until it got to a point where both parties where satisfied? They need to remember they don’t own this it’s someone else’s and they’ve taken it
Not only that but by refusing the licensing agreement that's basically like acknowledging they know they don't have legal permission and at that point are very blatantly infringing upon copyright law. Like what, did they think they'd say no and at some point magically be given a trademark Netflix ones lmao Also...they basically lied to Netflix by saying they were doing a charity show with their music and then just...blatantly did a for profit performance of the Bridgerton songs?? Wut!
I'm glad you covered this story. I haven't followed it all, but it seems clear that Abigail Barlow and Emily Bear are completely in the wrong. If I staged a musical called OHMYGOD HEY! based on your site and life, including direct quotes from your videos and reviews, with Aeron James and other people from your life as characters, I hope a team of lawyer would descend on me like harpies. In the US (I can't speak for the UK), copyright goes into effect the moment a work is created, whether it's registered with the copyright office or not. The fact that Netflix was "nice enough" to let Barlow and Bear pursue their work (until it became too profitable) shouldn't keep them from going after them now. I suggest that Barlow and Bear sue their legal representatives for malpractice (or the legal equivalent) once this suit is resolved. I'm curious about the guidelines that govern the Grammy organization. Nominating and awarding a prize to work that is clearly not original seems completely irresponsible. I understand wanting to ride the coattails of a successful project -- which is exactly what Barlow and Bear did as well -- but surely someone on their board should have asked some hard questions somewhere along the line.
Copyright in the UK also goes into effect from creation, but we don't have a copyright register here. People who want to get an official date stamp on their material may for example send it to their IP representative.
IF all things in the lawsuit is true it raises at least three questions: 1. Are Barlow & Bear's legal advisers stupid? 2. Are Barlow & Bear stupid? 3. Have Barlow & Bear's legal advisers just lied to Barlow & Bear? (or do we in Europe just not at all understand the Amerícan lawsuit culture and is this just a part of the negotiation??)
It sounds like their lawyers were ignoring Netflix's lawyers. Suing them absolutely is a way to force them to the table. It's also not clear if Kennedy Center was unaware that the performance was unauthorized but Royal Albert Hall now absolutely is and their legal team may nix the performances over the legal issues. The reality is the overwhelming majority of lawsuits settle (at least in the US) and chances of this going to trial are likely slim. Lawsuits are very expensive.
1. No. 2. No. 3. No. It's historically been easier to say - Ooops, sorry, can we make a deal NOW? TBH, as sleazy are B&B/their legal team are - netflix will gain younger, more free spending subscribers and they're in desperate need of a stock price rise. It will be settled, even if B&B lose any $$ they made from it. It gave them a reputation.
That would be a very costly part of the negotiation, seeing as in the US, the losing side does not cover legal expenses of the winning side like in (most of?) Europe.
Netflix does not stand to gain any substantial number of new subscribers. Any fans of Bridgerton the Musical have already watched Bridgerton on Netflix (and probably 95% of them before listening to the musical), so they are already subscribed. Netflix could potentially lose a lot image-wise, which is probably why they waited so long with the lawsuit. Maybe that’s what B&B were counting on - that Netflix "wouldn’t dare go after independent creators" for fear of tarnishing their image. But yeah, they really left them no choice.
They were probably thinking they would get away with it because it would have been a bad look for Netflix to go after them because fans would all be on their side.
I think it’s been easy for their fans and people to make Netflix the baddie in this but Barlow and Bear did copy and paste the IP of several writers, the producers and Julia Quinn. The fact they were offered a licensing deal and didn’t take it while also using the logo and design etc without permission, they’ll lose if they can’t settle. Great breakdown Mickeyjo and I agree with everything you’ve said. I’m new to your channel and have been binge watching for the past few days
This is kinda why I hate that transformative works (fanfic, fanart, etc.) have gone mainstream. Like yes we should have the power to create these things but we shouldn’t think that it gives us the right to them. Just because I write Ted Lasso fanfic doesn’t mean that I own it, and should make money on it. Do I want fan works to be considered good art, yes. Just because you riff off the original doesn’t make what you do bad, it just has it’s time and place. Bridgerton the Musical had its time and it’s place, and unless Netflix and Shondaland are going to partner with them, then Barlow & Bear should create new content. Or have retooled the idea of a regency era musical to make it their own, with it’s own book and some new songs.
Fanfic is wonderful (I salute you for writing it and enabling my obsessions) but it is completely crucial to both the culture and the legalities of it that it isn’t at all financial
@@londongirl2768 yesssss! Most of us just want to write our angsty gay lil fanfics in peace. Then stuff like this comes along and gives us all a bad name.
This is why every fanfic author (myself included) knows you put the little "hey, I don't own the material or characters" disclaimer before or after the fic. Even wattpad writers know that.
The problem is this is far bigger than just big cooperation goes after small creators. They dont have the rights to the work they are trying to profit from. And this doesnt just affect fan works. Say the courts decide that Bear and Barlow are well within their rights, what's to stop Netflix or Disney or some other big company from just adapting a popular book into a film or tv series without the author's permission or compensation for using their IP. Big corporations would now legally be able screw smaller creators by just taking their IPs to adapt instead of having to purchase rights
Not sure why people are saying netflix not sueing earlier was a bad thing. How many small businesses out there profit from making unlicensed stranger things, bridgerton, tatbilb, etc merch? If they wanted, netflix could’ve already sued all of them for using their copyrighted ip as well. Barlow and bear just got greedy. Netflix clearly is only sueing because b&b got out of hand.
Netflix had been offering a licensing deal (even if it sounds like it was bad) so I'm guessing that's why, this was like their last chance and now they're getting sued since they refused a deal. Honestly surprised Netflix didn't sue as soon as they started making money and winning a freaking Grammy from it.
Fanworks for media are so much more commonly accepted or supported these days. Thirty years ago it wasn't unheard of for fanfic authors *who were making no profit* to receive cease and desists. I love that these fan creations can spark out of online spaces and it's a delight to get to share love for a media in a personal and creative way, but their existence is dependent on their not-for-profit nature. Barlow and Bear may be setting a precedent that really concerns IP holders in the future, especially by doing this after their representatives apparently assured Netflix that they were not intending to use it for profit right up until they did. I really hope this doesn't impact fan creators in the future.
That's all we fans ever wanted was for Barlow and Bear to work with Netflix in hopes for the Bridgerton musical to come to stage one day. Hearing that they refused any deals with Netflix is highly disappointing 😞
This is a wonderful breakdown! As a theatre nerd, a legal nerd, and someone who’s been in fandom for over thirty years, this lawsuit sits perfectly in the Venn diagram of my interests. I have not read/seen/listened to Bridgerton in any form, but Netflix has shown an admirable amount of leeway to Barlow and Bear up to this point. Fanworks are awesome, but I could have seen them initiate legal action at the point where it became a commercially available album. Obviously legal filings are allegations and shade, and we have yet to see B&B’s response, but if Netflix’s account of the timeline of events and communications is substantially true, they are absolutely correct in suing at this point and need to do so in order to protect their IP. If you’re interested in a lawyer’s take on this situation, Hoeg Law on TH-cam covered it this morning.
One of the legal standards that a successful copyright case in the US has to cross is proving that the infringing work is causing a negative monetary impact to the rights holders. Most fan made songs, fanfictions, fanarts, etc. will never meet this legal standard. A musical that wins a grammy, performs at prestigious venues, AND outright implies that it's an actual authorized work on the other hand? That does.
Very weird. I don't understand how they seem to have no understanding of intellectual property laws. The BBC Concert Orchestra are involved in this escapade at the Albert Hall. Strange that they have not pulled their participation on this.
Hello! I am investigator on finance law so I know a little bit about IP infringement. I think Netflix’s filing was very sound and needed. Sounds like Barlow + Bear got greedy and Netflix has great legal grounds to win this case especially after offering a licensing deal. As far as the compensation goes, that will be very tricky to determine: firstly Netflix needs to provide some sort of evidence that compensation was lost in DC because of the Kennedy center show (yes it is easy to infer but you gotta have evidence); secondly some accountants will figure out the math for the supposed lost revenue. But, based off of some basic Googleing the Kennedy Center holds 1,164 people so if everyone paid for a top tier ticket (~$150) that is $174,600 from filled seats so $150,000 for Netflix’s lost revenue sounds reasonable to me. But of course there could come the punitive damages for the IP infringement and the lost revenue, which Washington DC does not have a cap (example there is a cap in VA of $350,000 which we saw in the Heard/ Depp case) so the jury (if it gets to that point) can come up with what they think is a reasonable amount, which could be millions because Bridgerton is so popular. I think it would be in Barlow +Bear’s best interest to settle because I don’t think a jury will side with them. Also, I don’t think Netflix’s filing was that “messy”, it seems sound, well researched, and reasonable. *This is not legal advice, I am not a lawyer but a subject matter expert on financial fraud investigations*
I tend to distrust corporations like Netflix on principle, but I am willing to side with them in this instance given the compelling case their lawyers have presented.
Hi intellectual property paralegal here, I think the thing that stands out the most of me is the bold use of TM images in both the Netflix logo and the Bridgeton mark, that’s indefensible. Essentially to use the Mark they’d have to have seen the TM or CO marking meaning they took it and used it anyway. I’d imagine they’d go for damages no greater than the revenue incurred by the concert and possibly the Grammy win simply because it would be a bad look for a successful company to go further but they seem to have ever right to.
What really gets me about this story is how Emily Bear is often referred as an unknown TikTok star. My guess is that's because most people don't know that she has been an accomplished professional musician since she was about 6 years old. She has performed with countless symphony orchestras, at the Hollywood Bowl, at jazz festivals, and had released 7 albums of original music before this musical was ever thought of. Her mentor is Quincy Jones for heaven's sake. She absolutely should have known better, which makes this story even more disappointing,
Perhaps someone along the way thought the word "Unofficial" would save them from a lot of things. I'm interested to hear what Barlow and Bear's response/their side of their story and if they don't respond, well, isn't that a response.
This reminds me of the lawsuit involving JK Rowling and the Harry Potter Lexicon website. The creator of the website wanted to turn the website into a book after the series was done. For obvious reasons this was a problem. Not only was it Rowling's work, but many fans world wide had contributed to this website and he was wanting to take credit for it all. The laughable thing about this is he got a no account publishing company here in Michigan to go along with this scheme because no credible publishing house would touch it with a 10 foot pole. Seriously this all happened within a 45 min radius of where I live. This dude, the publishers, and their lawyer came to the University I graduated from to explain how they were very confused why Rowling was suing them. The only reason I knew about this was my youngest sister was a writing major at the time at the same school and told us about it. My sisters and I went to this forum and I went to this forum to see and hear for ourselves what was going on. I just happened to have a digital camera that took video (this was 2007), so I took it along and recorded their lawyer trying to explain their befuddlement as to why Rowling would do this and uploaded it on TH-cam. The local media was very anti Rowling and Warner brothers in this lawsuit and I think we were the only pro Rowling people there. We met the guy who was trying to publish this lexicon and really tried to play it as though we were neutral about the whole thing. Message boards and Livejournal were very big things back then and I was a part of one of the biggest Harry Potter message boards at the time. The three of us found out that (and this is rather quite funny) in the thread about this trial people I had posted the link to my video. People were also linking to two other reviews of the same night and I was like those would be my two sisters. The other thing was it was suspected that Rowling's lawyers were actually reading this particular thread so our reviews and my video may be in a court filing somewhere. It's going to be an uphill battle for these two gals. Especially if they explained their creative process in their videos. Having lived through the circus of the lexicon lawsuit this will be even crazier because inevitably it will be played out on social media.
As someone who has read quite a bit on IP rights, I'm not really suprised about this case at all and I clearly side with Netflix on this. Thanks for talking about this with such detail, by the way!
You summarize this very well and eloquently. Anyone who thinks what Barlow and Bear are doing is okay have never produced intellectual property. The end. How about if I come over and steal your car? Why not? People don't really own things, right? I need a car, and you have two, and I like it a lot. I'm a fan of it. Gimme it. Yes, it is the same thing. The writer and creators of Bridgerton OWN THE RIGHTS TO IT. You're not allowed to steal it just because you like it and you want part of it. Write your OWN characters and storyline, and then you can make a musical of it. And again, anyone who thinks it's okay has never created characters or a storyline. It may look easy, but it isn't.
Mickey, I just wanted to say you did a great job taking a legal document and summarizing it in an easy way for an audience that probably has very little experience of them. Well done. I'm not too familiar with USA law so not sure how much they could be seeking. But given the show is being staged in the UK and the our courts tend to award larger amounts I don't think this is really about the money. This is Netflix warning everyone, not just Barlow & Bear, to not steal their IP. It's an investment in all the property they already have the rights to including things that haven't been released yet. They are setting themselves up in the statement as the advocate of the creatives they work with, and not as a giant money grabbing corporation. Winning the case isn't just about the legal decision it is about the court of public opinion. And they got off to a bad start in public. But the 'sassy' legal filing is part of the narrative they are trying to create. It's tone is a little bit reminiscent of Lady Whistledown. Or to quote Colin Bridgerton "what a barb". And it is well timed. Shooting for season 3 is underway, focusing on the story of Colin and Penelope. Stop now to avoid book Spoilers Penelope (aka Lady Whistledown) is protective of her IP when another character claims to be the author instead. A key part of the Romancing Mister Bridgerton story is Pen protecting the legacy she has created. Just like Julia Quinn, and Shonda Rhimes are doing now. And Pen doesn't do it for money, she does it as a matter of pride. But that's just my view. And I could have just spent too much time reading fan fiction and have their characters voices in my head!
Oop-no!! They made merchandise?? No, Barlow and Bear. You can’t do that unless they don’t care 😂 But no, they got a bit too greedy near the end there. I really thought they were gonna make the Netflix deal, it would’ve been big. But I guess they just wanted the full recognition-from a OG product that was not even theirs?? 😂
@@tillm2481 I'm curious if you were at the Kennedy Center event. There could easily have been merch sold on site (openly or covertly) that isn't listed in the store. I would not be at all surprised if Netflix had someone attend the Kennedy Center event to report on it. And I would be surprised if there was no documentation for the merch claims for them to include in the lawsuit. It will be interesting to see more on this if B&B don't settle quickly should the lawsuit press turn the tide from their favor.
@@xphiler06 „So fun fact about this Netflix vs Barlow & Bear lawsuit…there was absolutely NO Bridgerton merchandise sold at the Kennedy Center at the concert, not even the unofficial musical album. Just Barlow & Bear branded shirts, hoodies, stickers, and keychains. I was there. I saw it.“ you can find the tweet on twitter...there has been never any merch with Bridgerton on it... it was always thecsame things designed by Sam Bates...
@@xphiler06 as someone found out in Germany there are a few sides on the internet who sell Bridgerton merch...but there is no connection to Barlow & Bear... do you really think thatvthey are stupid... the whole lawsuit is chit chat in Rita Skeeter style... very likely written by an intern
@@tillm2481 LOL, Yes, I do think they are really that stupid, since you asked. It might be extreme entitlement fueling it, but the end result is the same. I see you have spammed the comments section in troll-like fashion with considerably less writing skill than that of the Netflix lawsuit. I also see that your channel is all Bear* video uploads. So my follow-up question to you is, are you a Bear* intern or someone with permission to upload her videos, or are just someone who is pro-theft? *Edited to correct Barlow to Bear
The issue with Broadway performers performing shows is that it shows that there was an attempt to present the show as a professional event. Netflix has apparently reached out repeatedly about copyright concerns thus retaining their copyright. It sounds like Netflix tried to work with the Bridgerton group, again retaining their copyright. Abby and Emily have no strong defense against this lawsuit.
Take the name Netflix out of this... An author who before that Netflix deal may have made enough to quit their day job but probably isn't living in a mansion had their work stolen from them. Whether you like the books or not is not the issue. You are profiting off an authors work and that I take issue with.
Did B&B and no one on their team think of the negative consequence of this? Aside from a massive lawsuit, being shamed by Shonda Rhimes, on the bad side of Netflix, having their names associated with legal battles, and general embarrassment. Did they not think how this would impact their careers going forward? Where is the shame? Where is the decorum?
Mickey Jo, you ask why Broadway performers add insult to injury? Because Broadway performers further legitimize the work. It pulls it even further from the realm of innocuous fan fiction, to something far more professional and worthy of high ticket sales.
Thank you for covering this issue, my problem with this is that both girls are rich white girls, talented, but still so so very privileged and STILL going to this length for profit? Or "fame" Considering how a lot of talented musicians have their dreams cut short bc of a lack of resources it seems wrong to give them a pass. If they have the talent and the money, why not stick to original content? Or accept the license and giving Netflix their cut? Unacceptable tbh
That's my problem with them! They have been rich privileged girls from birth! Their parents are rich. Emily's Grandma taught her piano at a freaking young age because her Grandma was the Chicago Symphony Orchestra's pianist. Her parents dished out money to send young Emily to Juilliard and NYU film scoring program. Two college educations that most families could never afford. Emily's mother has a music degree from Columbia University in NYC and she's the one that campaigned for Emily on the local Rockford news and eventually the Ellen Show. Her mom sold Emily's albums and it has always been about the money. All I see is a perfect example of privilege here. If it was a black girl from a low income family, she would never have gotten that far. But it's Emily Bear, a white girl from a wealthy family who can afford the best agents and representation. I hope Netflix wins because they're in the right.
I don't have tiktok or know anything about these girls but wait in the wings also released a more in depth analysis of the girl with the colorful hair and her background of getting denied a music label or contract. Basically her parents were supporting her and bc nothing was following through for her dream job they told her to get a job to support herself. Instead of working on her craft and being diligent *in my opinion* she found a way to cheat the system. She and her partner did not collaborate with other artists, study copyright law or do their research, the songs are a cash grab from something popular and from her behavior on red carpets and in interviews she comes off as the typical narcissist that insists they're talented without listening to constructive criticism. She wanted to be famous and did it in a shitty way.
Meh...B&B are morons for stealing someone else's story. In fact, it seems like they did it as free marketing for their songs. If they had named it "Essex the musical" it probably wouldn't have gone viral.
I was wondering when this was going to happen and I’m not surprised in the least. I don’t know what the girls were thinking here. I understand that Netflix’s deals or offers were probably lowballing B&B but at least they would be able to promote the musical correctly and without issue. It makes sense why Netflix waited, especially before B&B were profiting. Netflix clearly didn’t have an issue really until they did begin to profit, as well as creating false narratives that they were associated with Netflix’s Bridgerton. I’m just disappointed in B&B and this makes me not want to support them going forward. I’m most upset for Julia Quinn and Shonda. Edit: Lowballing wasn’t the right word for what I was trying to express; what I meant is that I’m sure the deal that Netflix laid out for B&B was probably not what the girls thought they were entitled to.
Lowballing B&B? My sweet summer child - you aren’t suggesting Netflix pay the people who stole their IP? The “deal”, being the license deal that the composers rejected , would have involved B&B paying Netflix- likely a substantial up front fee and then some percentage of profits from the musical going forward.
@@mariem24601 Lowballing wasn’t the right word for what I was trying to express; what I meant is that I’m sure the deal that Netflix laid out for B&B was probably not what the girls thought they were entitled to. I’m not saying that Netflix needs or even should pay B&B for anything.
Among other things, copyright and trademark law basically requires that the holders defend their property. If it can be shown that any breach was tolerated, it becomes harder to protect the property in future.
Currently remembering how Starkid Productions got hit with a cease and desist almost immediately for calling their parody show "Harry Potter: The Musical" and it got nowhere near as popular as this. I'm really surprised Barlow and Bear got as far as they did.
IP is a minefield. But this feels very brazen on the part of B&B. They reached out for permission, were denied but essentially told “as long as it’s not for profit we won’t stand in your way” and they’ve rallied ahead with a profit making venture which clearly infringes upon the copyright laws. It isn’t a parody. You could argue that the addition of MT style songs is transformative but I imagine that Netflix had that covered in their IP application. This isn’t just a cease & desist demand, which implies that there is clear infringement.
Musicals from books, movies, or television are not new. And copyright law consistently views them as derivative works - not transformative. Lin-Manuel Miranda did not consider Hamilton to be transformative- he paid Ron Chernow. And Chernow’s biography was non-fiction -which is nowhere near as strongly protected by courts as fiction.
@@mariem24601 Very true. I guess I’m playing devil’s advocate on that point! I think most people will agree that B&B are infringing upon IP & copyright laws based on the full facts available.
I don’t feel sorry for them, you can tell just by that Emmy picture that these girls are Spoiled… this is probably one of the first time these girls have faced any kind of repercussions
Its one thing to write a song or two for a t.v so and its all fun and games but when you want to go further and start making money off of it etc THEN you are in trouble. How the heck they didn't think they wouldn't be sued is beyond me!
I listened to it after they won the Grammy and I was like… did this deserve a Grammy? I remember when they started doing it and it was cute and I was caught up in bridgerton fever but like. It wasn’t even that good was it?
It never entered my head, not for a single second, that they hadn’t sought and got the correct permissions to do it. I’m flabbergasted and think Netflix are absolutely right.
i think if they weren't able to get a good deal, or a deal to their liking, it can be understandable they don't want to work with Netflix. that's justified, they are well within their rights to refuse or negotiate or both. but to then _continue_ with the work that takes direct quotes etc from the show/books and making money off them? like...i'm all for you doing you, not being ruled by corporate red tape, but it's still copyright! it's still other people's work! i wouldn't wish it on an independent artist, i wouldn't justify it on a company either! (and just because the Bridgerton IP is owned by a company, Netflix, doesn't meant it wasn't lovingly worked on by people.)
You should check out MWCA which is an unofficial Phineas and Ferb musical. It only took donations and donated to the Actors Fund like the Ratatouille musical, and was all filmed virtually by actors around the world! It's actually super impressive for what they were working with and the editing and casting is great. It has some PnF cameos too. It's a great example of keeping something volunteer and fun and using an IP carefully with permission from the creators themselves!
Seems to me that B&B got cocky and greedy. As soon as they started making money from it, it went beyond fan fiction or anything similar. Even if the license from Netflix was rubbish, they should’ve taken it anyway, because the choice was between taking the license and wilfully breaking the law. I feel like the statements from Shonda and Julia Quinn are the nails in the coffin here too. B&B don’t really have a leg to stand on. I’ll be interested to read their statement when/if they come out with one.
Honestly if Netflix have exclusive rights to put it on stage then this is pretty obvious IP infringement. I'm critical of copyright law and think things should enter public domain far sooner than they do, and I'm a big fan of fan projects like fanfiction, fan art, fan musicals, but this isn't anything to do with that. It's pretty open and shut. I feel bad for them a little, I don't want them to be bankrupted by this--- I think they'll probably settle and won't be able to perform it anymore in exchange.
like, i get the netflix license deal was probably shit, but they do hold the copyright, so being offered a bad deal isn't a legal defence, did they try to negotiate? even then if they did try to negotiate and netflix shot them down, they can't just keep performing it. also i think the fact they had broadway performers as part of the show indicates that this was moving towards a professional musical experience, the line between songs and musical performance are clearly blurred here which is why they flagged this
The Harry Potter Musical never got sued because it was covered under parody law in the US, in that it is critical of the original, transformative, and could not be mistaken with the original.
It had to change its name - and it was never actually considered fair use - Warner Brothers just didn’t sue them as long as they didn’t sell tickets. They also cannot license the show so if it is being performed anywhere outside of University of Michigan it is doubly illegal.
@@mariem24601 yup! There have been groups who have tried to do the show for profit or fundraising and that was a huge no no. Starkid didn't sell tickets, that was the difference.
Speaking as a law school graduate, the moment I saw this musical gaining hype and ESPECIALLY when I saw that they'd won a grammy and was now being courted by the 'great' ALW, I knew that it was only a matter of time before they were going to get sued. I don't think it's unfair by any means, legally speaking they don't have any rights to re-purpose someone else's creative content to make themselves rich. Yes, Netflix is a huge media conglomerate with a lot more resources and there will always be a power imbalance between them and smaller creators, but Barlow & Bear went miles ahead of most fan content with what they did. And now that we know they refused to work with Netflix that's just additional fuel to the fire. Anyways, great content as always, Mickey Jo!
I had bad vibes from the project from the moment the album was announced. I'd never listened to any of the music, nor have I watched Bridgerton, but the way it was marketed gave me the feeling that it wasn't meant to be a parody, and straight up saying "Unofficial" while making it for profit just came across like "we don't have the rights but we don't care". I was shocked when they won the Grammy. I can't believe that it took this long for them to get hit with the lawsuit.
Refusing the licensing deal is probably the most damning piece of evidence. Maybe they thought the grammy win would put them in a better position to negotiate a lisencing deal and it just totally backfired. The tone of the entire thing shifts after the Grammy's, going from asking Netflix if its ok to do a show, to informing them about their concert dates like they're doing them a favour. I'm so interested to hear the other side of the story and how they explain what happened. Something is up with the lisencing deal.
Honestly, this is the first I'm hearing about this case but I'd have thought it's fairly well-known by now that Rule #1 of fan-created content is that you just...do not ever try to make money for yourself off the back of a work that you simply do not own the rights to unless you have express unambiguous permission to do so. Me and a friend have been writing a musical of "The Gilded Age" for several months now but we'd never think of trying to profit from it. Hell, it's very probably never going to see the light of day. It's literally just a bit of fun for us as a composer/lyricist team playing off the fact that there are just so damn many Broadway stars in that show and we both think it's kind of funny to imagine Celia Keenan-Bolger, Douglas Sills and Michael Cerveris all having a song about being servants, or to imagine Audra McDonald and Denée Benton singing a mother/daughter duet. And that's really all these kinds of parody/unofficial musicals *should* be: just pure fun that allows fans to flex their creativity *without* trying to steal or make money off the back of something that, again, *none of us owns the rights to* . I know it's basically human instinct at this point to root for the small-time creators and boo and hiss the big corporations in these kinds of things, but this point, it seems very difficult for Barlow and Bear to play this as some kind of "David vs Goliath" battle when Netflix has actually been, by all accounts, incredibly restrained in this matter and B&B have fairly blatantly broken pretty much every rule, written and unwritten, regarding fan-produced content. *Edit* : Also, to the question of why Netflix feels it makes things worse that Broadway performers were involved in the Kennedy Centre concert, I'd hazard a guess that it's because it's just one further step out of the realm of "innocent fan-produced content" and pulls it even further into "thing we're clearly hoping actually makes it to Broadway at some point". In other words, it makes the musical look legitimate and official to have actual Broadway stars, some of whom are very well-respected in the world of musical theatre, attached to a concert being performed at a venue known for hosting pre-Broadway tryouts and concerts.
Netflix points out the casting of Broadway stars because the earlier terms of the streamed album required that it not be cast. That is why it was recorded as just Abigail's voice. To cast it and perform it with Broadway stars adds to the value of the concert and directly violates the terms of agreement. This whole case makes me sad. To see two young women who were offered the chance of a lifetime, especially to find out they were offered a license which they didn't have to do. Even if this is a case of bad legal representation, it really comes back on the girls, I cannot imagine they didn't know what they were doing.
What gets me is that even if Netflix offered them the worst licensing deal in the world that could not be negotiated further or was nonnegotiable, you can't just . . . do the show anyways??? That's not how it works?? You can't just say ✨no✨ and be like, "how about I do anyway"
That last sentence I can hear.
this is so so true
it feels to me as if the girls got greedy? because netflix + shondaland _offered_ them a licensing deal, a legally sound way to stage the concerts so, it was mutually beneficial but they rejected it? it’s even more bizarre as barlow & bear _have_ agents and representatives, a whole team around them and even then, they turned it down and sealed their fate. it’s a shame that this could’ve so easily been avoided but now, there’s absolutely no chance that barlow & bear will win. and this spotlight on fan works + copyright will put other fan works at risk too.
They may be counting on some of the suits around transformative work in the last decade or so.
The work is obviously derivative they should get taken to the cleaners
Huh. I didn't know about that.
Not only that, they could have started a partnership to maybe even turn this into a full-fledged "event" like the Bridgerton Experience and even sweet talked them into a cameo or something on the show. But nope, they just did it the weirdest and worst possible way instead.
Honestly sounds like we don't have the full story, once their lawyers reply we might actually find out why they'd reject a license deal.
I'm still shocked that they were nominated for and won a grammy using someone else's IP. Blows my mind.
As a writer, myself.. it still makes me nervous about publishing in the near future
At the end of the day, Barlow and Bear broke the law. IP laws are there to protect artists. Julia Quinn speaking out against this was the nail in the coffin for me.
Agreed. People are very focused on it being all Netflix vs B and B, but Quinn is the original creator of everything Bridgerton. Her characters deserve the protection Netflix can afford.
Same.
I find it worrying how many people support Barlow and Bear pretty much stealing someone else's work and making a profit. When it was a fun musical made by fans to celebrate they’re love for the franchise it was one thing, the second it crossed over into them selling out a concert and making profit it became stealing someone else’s work.
The impact this could have on smaller creators is outrageously dangerous and people need to see past Netflix being a huge company and realise what Barlow and Bear have put into jeopardy. Fan made content has always been left untouched because we don’t make a profit off it, them crossing that line could make Netflix less likely to allow fan made content such as the original album to even happen in the future. They got greedy, no one should be supporting them.
I’ve written a musical adaptation of a film (Miss Congenitally) and I’ve posted songs and videos online for fun (no profit whatsoever). I’m just hoping that this doesn’t have a harsh impact on composers like me who are just having a bit of fun with an IP they love.
@@jencapella It just depends. Usually studios will just let it go. Well, most of the time, Disney is really strict with their IP. If it’s all in fun and you don’t try profiting from it, you’ll be fine. It’s the profiting that’s the big no-no. Also, I LOVE miss congeniality!
@@jencapella Studios don't really register it until people make money from it. I've worked at enough of these LA based companies to know that. Sometimes I'd flag something I saw online and they'd say "eh they aren't making money it's not worth it to us" Studios are worse about this. Bear and Barlow really only got hit when the money started going into their pockets. It simply got too famous.
@@kgal1298 But even more importantly - B&B got cocky; they deserve a comeuppance.
Actually, TBH, I'm shocked how many people on these threads actually support Netflix. I was in the licensing industry for 25+ years - you'd be SHOCKED how many people actually believe they can get away with anything they choose to do. The entire theatrical windowcard marketplace (with VERY few, minor exceptions) is a worthless muddle in the secondary market (outside the theatre) because a certain retail store decided to recreate/reprint vintage windowcards because the fans wanted them.
okay, this may be TOO hot of a take, but- if they’re SO confident in their composition skills and writing talents, then why are they clinging so desperately onto content that isn’t even based in a story they created themselves??? If they truly believe they’re talented and capable, why can’t they just take this in stride and move on? Seems like a toxic combination of insecurity, pride, and greed to me
Abigail tried to go on with her solo career after the album, actually. She released her own music, did a Vegas show, and tried to create three separate musicals including one about herself as she started the Bridgerton Musical. None of it worked out, so Bridgerton the Musical.
Emily has been writing and producing music since she was a child. She's worked with big names such as Quincy Jones and has written for Disney and other massive film studios. I'm scared this whole situation will negatively impact her career, since she clearly has the most to loose. Abigail's music career never really took off, so she had the most to gain from it and if it wasn't for Emily's skills and extensive knowledge of music and producing, Abigail would have never been so well known. I'm afraid Emily will be getting the short end of the stick if things really turn around...
(Doesn't take away the fact that they should have let Bridgeton rest after the Grammy win or organized licenses, but I really really wonder what happened behind the scenes there)
@@peytonwl I personally think how they may view themselves and their work and their personal opinions of themselves could be playing into the questionable decisions they’ve been making and will likely continue to make surrounding this issue. I just felt like it applied 🤷🏻♀️
@@tinkbella450 there were no questionable decisions...they did not steal anything...Netflix agreed to the album...the songs are performed daily by many others...in concerts, in auditions. etc. ...to say to the composer..you cannot stage your own songs is ridiculous... the whole lawsuit is only to get a bigger piece of the cake.., btw. Emily Bear and Abigail Barlow have many other projects...from the postponed Mexican Pizza Musical for Taco Bell to movies...Emily Bear scored a Netflix movie...which will be released in 2023? But as they are correct with contracts...NDAs ...they did not tell anything publicly. So you really think...that a such correct, experienced person...sudedenly acts totally foolish Emily Bear won an Emmy (LA region) for a docu score... so far she won more big awards than the whole Bridgerton series.. The problem for Shonda Rimes is...her own Bridgerton Experience is fast food ...the Barlow & Bear concerts are world class... it is just an inferiority complex. Btw. will she fine herself or Julia Quinn in the future if the sing the songs under the shower... or at a party... ? The music is out...Emily Bear, her lawyers should make a statement...and kick Shonda Rimes in the ass.
@@tillm2481 Regardless of whether Netflix agreed or not (which I don't think they did?), Julia Quinn explicitly has stated she does not agree with the situation and as the original creator and owner of the characters and plot line, if she doesn't agree then it is stealing as they lifted her work without her seeing a penny for it.
Oceans Away was a great line taken from one of the few gay characters in the show and given to Daphne for Daphne's song and that will never not upset me. It was a male character explaining that a straight man would never understand what it was like to not be with the person they love in a society that doesn't accept them. It was given to the straight female lead who is not in that situation whatsoever. Like... I'm sorry... but no. That's hands down not cool and why, even if this legal situation didnt exist, I still would be side eyeing B&B.
I HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR SOMEONE ELSE SAYING THIS!!!!!! I know nothing about this show but when I heard about this I was so annoyed. And it seems like no one is pointing this out as a problem???
ive been thinking the exact same thing! it felt seriously wrong to me but no one else was really calling it out
I’ve been looking for this! Also this whole B&B fiasco seems like they really used their privilege to think people would be on their side.
Yes! That rubs me the wrong way.
Also, for women who are sooooo talented and innovative or whatever, they sure are clinging on hard to the Bridgerton musical. All of Barlow’s other music is practically ignored or unknown. Emily bear has been in the industry forever and her work is much more well known (she’s written songs for Disney, for example). But either way, why would you ruin your career before it’s even started by fighting with freaking NETFLIX over a mediocre musical made from stolen IP…
I know who is NOT working with Disney again….
Thieves
What a mess, how was it even eligible for a nomination then winning a Grammy? Even that felt like a red flag. As for Netflix concern of Broadway Actors involvement performing at the Kennedy Centre; the optics of having well known Broadway Actors legitimizes the project as being legal professional performance. Could the Actors sue the authors as well? How did the Kennedy Center allow a non licensed show in such a heavely Unionized venue to go on?
That is what I'm curious about. I'm very surprised that the Kennedy Center allowed this unlicensed production to happen. I am not legal expert, but I feel like they could be on the line with Netflix, as well, for staging an unauthorized work.
Honestly I'm surprised they were eligible for a grammy, and able to win
It felt fishy to me..like someone has connections or idk but. I guess only time will tell. :/
@@natattacc99 Emily bear actually does have a lot of connections, as she was a child musical prodigy who was on multiple tv shows
I’ve studied IP law and the biggest issue here is that they were profiting off of licensed product. They were profiting not only off the show but the merch, and this is where it differs from other transformative works (i.e. fanfiction, fanart, and simply writing the songs for fun).
As far as anyone knows they only sold Barlow and Bear Merch not Bridgerton Merch. The issue didn't even arise until the concerts they were promoting because the merch has been sold since S1. It's almost like they waited for S2 to do this, it's possible, but it sounds like they actually didn't like them taking money from the Bridgerton Experience which is why it keeps coming up in these articles.
@@kgal1298 the train of thought is they are selling merch at an event attached to the “Bridgerton name” as thus are profiting off of the brand. Also until now the profits they made were minimal. The first show was for charity (Netflix isn’t dumb enough not green light that) it’s when they started selling tickets for upwards of 145 dollars for profit not charity which was a problem. That’s when it crosses into the line of theft. And I doubt it was a one time thing they hired professional broadway actors they were gonna try and make this a fully fledged tour they probably wanted to take it to broadway itself.
@@kgal1298 Netflix had tried offering a license deal, they didn't take it. That's why the lawsuit didn't happen immediately, Netflix was trying to work with the. Then Barlow and Bear then knew they didn't have the copyright or any legal permission to make any money off of this and continued to sell out shows making lots of money off of it anyway. Of course Netflix wasn't happy. Netflix has every legal right to not be happy right now as does the original author, frankly. But Netflix is the current trademark owner so they get to sue. Their right to Bridgerton includes derivative works, such as a musical. This not only gives them the right to do a musical should they want to, Bridgerton is their assest and it protects them from any 3rd party coming in (like Barlow and Bear) and doing a musical. They have very much have the legal right to not be happy here.
they are thieves!!!!!!! They knew what they were doing!!!!!!!
I'm planning on studying IP as well. I wouldn't even call this transformative, as it doesn't add any additional meaning, nor is it a parody, a commentary, nor a critique. It doesn't stray from the plot, it uses the same characters, expressions, and even dialogue. A derivative most definitely, but it is in direct competition with Netflix if they were to create a musical of their own. Netflix is in the right on this one and it would be better for B&B to settle rather than take it to court. Just because they won a Grammy doesn't give them the right use IP that wasn't there's to begin with and make money off of it.
when I first saw this I was angry at netflix, but Julia Quinn’s statement really changed my mind. As a writer, if someone took a book I wrote and created a musical, I would love that. But if they started to make money off of it I would be furious. I spent years creating those characters and those stories, they aren’t there for other people to profit off of
I would love for people to take any of the books I wrote and turn them into musicals, or movies, or even fake movie trailers! But I would also like to be involved, and have a legal contract protecting my rights as the original author.
I've read fanfic that is better than the source material, and there are entire fandoms that I don't touch because the fanfiction is toxic AF and makes me wonder if the people writing it ever actually read/watched the same source material I did.
Rule #1 of creating any fan content: generally it's all good, unless you try to start making money off of it. This is just one of the reasons ao3 doesn't have ads on their website, or an app for reading fanfiction. It sucks that B&B decided not to take a licensing deal. I think the musical could've been something big given B&B had not been so greedy. While they own the music, they don't own the storyline or characters and it's messed up for them to act like they do.
I wrote fanfic and I absolutely agree: you're not making money off your real work, even if it's your work/Original characters/words. you're profiting from somoene else's success and investments and efforts… not okay
Some people are saying that Netflix made a profit thanks to the musical. It’s questionable at best, but even if you assume they did… so what? Let’s say I published a book, and Netflix made a TV show based on it without licensing it. The show became a hit, and the sales of my book went through the roof. So I’m supposed to say thank you and all is well? The main point is simply the fact that they are selling a product that they don’t have full rights to. Any profits and so on are just secondary.
this! Netflix owns the trademark and rights to derivative works, including musicals. It's that simple. Doesn't matter if Netflix doesn't have a musical or gets views off this or what. Not to mention, the author's chunk of it comes from whatever deal they have with Netflix, not anything to do with fan musicals selling out shows. Netflix is actually protecting the author too by protecting the trademark they own.
Love your idea. If a big company did what those girls did and took from a small business; then the company would be crucified.
Saying Netflix made a profit because of THEM is delusional.
@@Author.Noelle.Alexandria Big time delusional. Bridgerton was in the top ten most viewed shows on the subscription service BEFORE the musical was finalized.
Total guess, but I imagine the use of broadway actors adds further insult because these are professional musical performers. So it (a) further takes the work out of the fan culture it originated within, (b) makes it look more 'official' and (c) has even more potential to infringe on a stage musical should Netflix themselves ever want to create one.
Are the actors who were in the show part of Equity (Broadway union)? If so makes it look even more legit.
@@meghanobrien592 They are. Both Solea Pfeiffer and Kelli O'Hara are highly respected, top-tier performers (Kelli has a Tony Award win for Lead Actress alongside numerous nominations) who have performed at the top venues in the country. Speaking as someone with experience working in a professional theatre environment, that means they *had* to be paid professional wages and work in a very specifically laid-out work environment in order to even do the performance. Contracts had to be negotiated, agents and managers to be coordinated with, etc.
Thanks for that information. :) I wasn’t sure on how it would work with the union.
I was shocked to see the Broadway actors that signed up for the Kennedy Center! You’d think their teams would have questioned the legality.
I agree with C especially...I would guess that the contracts Netflix has with this series includes the rights to doing a musical if they ever wish do one. The contracts to the right to something like a novel often goes that deep, even if nothing comes out of it- if not just to protect the holder from something just like this, someone else coming along and do a show themselves
As much as I usually stand up for the little guy, Netflix hasn't done anything wrong here. I don't see what other choice they would have had other than just letting people trample over their licensing rights. I'm confused about why the composers thought they could push it this far with no repercussions. If I were a producer/investor of big-budget musicals, I'd be wary about getting involved with these two on any of their future projects.
I'm on Netflix's side even if the offered license was bad - it's tough luck you don't own the IP! Plus I find it weird that Bear liked a tweet saying Netflix should have filmed the unofficial bridgerton performance at the Kennedy centre and then put it up on the service! I really want to know how they thought IP/Copyright didnt apply to them! I'm very interested to see how BB will respond to this!
Right! Netflix really didn't have to offer them any kind of deal at all, they could have immediately issued like a cease and desist. Netflix holds the trademark, period. It doesn't matter how good you think your own ideas are or if anyone likes them, you don't just get to go making money off someone else's trademark... especially not doing things like selling out fan musicals at the Kennedy Center ffs
Yup. If you put in the work before acquiring the rights, you put yourself in a bad negotiating position - and it’s only your fault. The other side knows that you have much more to lose if the deal doesn’t go through, so they may negotiate hard.
My guess is that Netflix could have offered not bad financial terms, but wanted a lot of (total?) creative control. But yeah, tough luck.
Yea...it's just tough luck if the license was too expensive. It isn't your IP, if you can't afford, move on or don't profit and just do for fun (like so man fan creators)
I was not surprised when I saw this news at all. I’ve seen some asking why it has taken Netflix until now, but lawsuits can take time and are often the last resort. Tbh a part of me has no sympathy because this was obviously going to happen. But I hope it can be sorted out
Netflix was attempting to make some kind of deal with Barlow and Bear, but they wouldn’t budge. Lawsuits are expensive and take time, almost always a last resort. No doubt they’ll settle before it goes to court. They have to know they won’t win. As much as I don’t like agreeing with Netflix, they are in the right in this case.
It's obvious from the curt file here that they did try to issue cease and desist, formal requets, conversation… before suing. Which imo is an honorable move from them. That's probably why it took time ; and also, it's cheaper and faster to make a formal legal request peacefully than to take people to court. Everyone wants a quick resolve, even a big group such as Netflix would probably prefer to avoid the energy and time it will cost…
The Ratatouille Musical did it right. It was a TikTok collar to make an unofficial music, it was AMAZING, and it was free. One and done. That’s what this should’ve been. I love the songs so much but I struggle to support them now because of the potential ramifications of their greed on fan communities.
Being a romance reader for decades, I had read some of Julia Quinn's Bridgerton book series before the show was even thought of, and to be honest, when I heard that Shonda Rhimes was developing it as a TV series, I was both happy for Julia Quinn and the romance genre which has always been underrated and derided, but also mystified. To be frank, the romance genre is flush with historical romances set at the same time as Bridgerton and Bridgerton's not even the best of them, in my opinion. In any event, I just wanted to put that out there. I was really pleased that Bridgerton became a streaming success because I thought it would open the doors for more romance genre adaptations -- maybe of work I like better than Bridgerton. This is why, I support Netflix's position because *they* took the chance; they bought the rights off of a popular romance author; they saw the worthiness and invested money, time, and talent. Barlow and Bear, who I had never heard of before this, basically came in at the tail end, lifted most of the work, and put it to music, ultimately profiting off of others' vision, investment, and talent. But what *really* surprises me is that B&B won a Grammy and that the Kennedy Center put this show on without checking if they had the legal right to do so. The Grammy organization and the Kennedy Center are no neophytes! What the heck?!
This will almost certainly settle.
What people need to understand is you can lose IP rights if you don’t enforce them. Most organizations tolerate low level stuff like fan fiction, but a large amount of infringement becomes problematic.
That is true of some forms of IP but not copyright.
@@ryanwagner7980 the problem is by using thre "Bridgerton" name they are also absolutely infringing on trademarks as well. The merch, the tickets, that's use in commerce. And trademarks absolutely are enforce or lose. (And Netflix includes trademarks in their complaint)
Netflix also may have enforcement obligations as part of their contracts with Quinn and her publisher as well.
US copyright law is insanely complicated. Do people think netflix doesn't have the lawyers to deal with this? They do those guys are basically experts in copyright and trademark law you have to be.
@@kgal1298 as I mentioned earlier Barlow and Bear had these experts from the beginning - this is the really strange thing - to me it seems that it in reality a fight between the expert lawyers on both sides - all want to show who has the longer penis - but sadly on the back of Barlow and Bear
organizations don't "tolerate" fanfiction. fanfiction is protected by law.
I think Julia Quinn (the author of the books the series is based on) frequently gets overlooked in this. Although people are casting Netflix as villains due to them being a bit corporation, the fact that the original creator is also not getting royalties is definitely a bad look for Barlow and Bear. I really don’t know how they thought they’d get away with this, especially since Netflix tried to make them a deal and they turned it down. I also think if they had staged the concert at the Kennedy Center as a benefit concert, Netflix would have been less likely to crack down vs doing it for profit as they did.
Here’s something else, the Kennedy Center is where shows that are intended for Broadway often debut/have their out-of-town runs. B&B could have picked any number of amazing venues in D.C., picking this one was big ol signal what their future intentions were. Those “Broadway stars” weren’t there by accident, those were people prepping for a future a long-running gig.
Possibly. It's true that the Kennedy Center often hosts pre-Broadway shows, but the Kennedy Center has 3 main stages (the Opera House and Eisenhower theater typically host plays/musicals/operas/ballets whereas the Concert Hall hosts concerts, comedy shows, etc) plus literally dozens of chamber spaces and the new outdoor complex at the Reach. A quick Google search tells me this event happened in the Concert Hall. Not a venue suitable for a fully mounted show. You could argue they just wanted the association of the KC name, but I don't see how this concert would take the place of an out of town tryout. For the record, I think they were absolutely wrong and overstepping appropriate fan content. But just wanted to clarify bc the Kennedy Center hosts all sorts of shows, not only Broadway-style productions.
Hosting? They paid money for the venue that evening?.. to put on an event without copyright? That’s like allowing a pawn shop to sell stolen goods imo.😎
I believe they were invited to perform there. Part of that evening is somewhere on TH-cam floating around
@@ThexImperfectionist Also, there are a number of shows that have had their try out at other local DC theaters, like Woolly Mammoth and Arena. In fact, I think the play that won best musical this year was tried out at Woolly.
@@sassycatz4470 I didn't know that A Strange Loop played at the Wooly Mammoth. I knew about DEH at the Arena and Come From Away at Ford's Theatre. And the temptations musical was at the kennedy center too. And that's off the top of my head from just recent years. I'm sure there are many others around town
Coming from a film school background, I was advised that if someone steals your work and YOU KNOW IT and have proof, wait until the revenue comes in. Why? Because if you tell them before your creative idea takes off, the producers will kill it. You won't get any money and it won't be seen. If you wait and then see the revenue, you have a tangible amount that you can ask for. People will know that you wrote this thing and that another person stole it. That's probably why Netflix waited this long and was willing to work with the women.
I mean no - these people don’t have the rights to make money on Julia Quinn’s and Netflix’s properties without paying for it. I should think it should be obvious.
Julia Quinn and Shonda have every right to this. Basically I don’t give a damn what Netflix as a corporation thinks in any moral argument, but those individuals actually matter
Amen to this 🙌
But Netflix have the resources to actually protect the art. Also, we wouldn’t have bridgerton a series without Netflix and the individuals they employ. And post people, like myself, wouldn’t have known of the books either. So I do agree Netflix to completion deserves to profit off what they created
Pretty much this. No one wants to take the side of a megacorporation, but B&B literally stole Julia's original IP and Shonda's adaptive concepts for profit, and that is absolutely not ok.
I just did the math about their income from Spotify streams alone. Based on their streams and the average income per stream, they have made (excluding tax or other fees I may know nothing about) around $190,471.66. That is nearly $200,000. From IP that is nowhere near theirs. Netflix is fully within their rights to want to pursue a legal course of action for what can really be considered stealing at this point.
Disney got a ton of bad press over the years for going after day care centers with Mickey Mouse painted on their walls etc. In this current climate of fan content, Netflix's restraint makes sense. But it's hard to insert yourself into a David and Goliath story when you've just filled the Kennedy Center with a performance of a property you had no rights to. Though, I wonder if they counted on the proceeds from these performances to fund their own stuff, especially if they couldn't attract backers? Mounting a show is insanely expensive.
Honestly I thought the concerts were just them performing the songs and not doing full on performances with dialogue and sets, which is what most of us thought and since no one's seen it...we just thought it was like the performance they originally did at the Kennedy Center, but that one they didn't make any money from either.
@@kgal1298 I was at the Kennedy Center for the concert and it was very much a concert. There was no 'script'/dialogue or sets. The big push for the concert was that it was a performance of the songbook with the National Symphony Orchestra. Which is what it was. I had assumed when I went that they had licensing rights to do it. I thought that the moment they were allowed to record it and were nominated for the Grammy. At the concert, the video display distinctly said that Netflix and their partners DID NOT sanction the concert. I noted it because I thought it was weird. I will be curious to see where this goes and what B&B's response is. For me I don't understand why Netflix waited to file. The concert was broadly advertised in the DC area for weeks. They could have stopped the concert from happening. That's the part that's curious to me. I also wonder how/if there's legal distinction between the lyrics - which in some songs are direct lifts from the scripts of the show and the music, which they wrote organically.
@@kgal1298 the Kennedy Center very much was for profit. The seats sold for over $150/seat. When you start making that much off of an explicit copyright violation, you're gonna start to ruffle some feathers.
It's bizarre because B&B's people told Netflix it was a charity show but it sounds like they just....profited off of it instead?
@@dpvny3411 There is distinction, in a sense. They have full rights to the music - they could freely perform it instrumentally, for example (as long as they don’t advertise it as Bridgerton). As long as they don’t use reorchestrated theme from the show, for example - but I don’t believe they do. If they removed the Bridgerton content from the lyrics, they could also perform and sell it. But that would be difficult - it’s not just about removing the names and quotes, but also the plot of Bridgerton, and it’s baked deeply into the musical. However, iIf they were able to rewrite the story to something clearly different from Bridgerton, then they would have full rights to it. It would be like Fifty Shades of Grey, which started as a Twilight fanfic, but was changed enough that it stands on its own legs in order to be monetised.
Tbh: they were really dumb. One of the first things I have learned in working in theatre was: make sure that you own the rights to literally EVERYTHING. And of them to say: "But I don't want to work with the original creators and be involved with Netflix" when they were offering to work with them is just ignorant and again really really stupid, because if they wouldn't have been so successful with what they are doing they would probably never have gotten the offer to get the rights. It is so hard as a creator to get the rights to something of this caliber and they just said: "No." And of course as a creator the Netflix team and Julia Quinn want to be involved in the process of creating something based on their work (it would have been much better of a show if the Barlow and Bear would have read the books, because they are suited much better for the stage than the TV Show but that is a different story). I do not wish to deny that Barlow and Bear do have potential and are talented. But the whole time they were just behaving really unprofessionally and as someone who works in the musical theatre industry and who knows how annoying the questions about rights and when you want to make changes to something etc. can be it honestly makes me a bit mad. Because: yes it is one of the not so nice parts of the job. But it also is part of the job. And I am sad to see young female talent wasted because of stupidity. Netflix will win this case because Netflix is in the right.
I absolutely ADORE Barlow & Bear, but still I fully support Shondaland and Julia Quinn in this. Barlow & Bear did take this too far. They clearly poured a lot of work into writing the songs, but their songs do include direct quotes and dialogue from the show/books, which is material they just simply do not own. The licensing deal Netflix offered them was probably not that great (Netflix probably wanted a huge cut of the profit), but Barlow & Bear probably still should have taken it or either tried to negotiate a new deal (which maybe they did, we don’t know yet). Or if they didn’t want that they should have pulled an E.L. James and just heavily rewrite and change the songs to create their own story and remove the Bridgerton references.
I'm a writer and I have a master's degree in publishing. The amount of money/work/efforts made by a publisher/producer/studio to transform a piece of work into a sellable and hit phenomenon is INSANE. It can cost SO MUCH (money and creative energy). That's why they earn money from the sales. That's why they take a cut of everything. Because THEY made it happen. I had never heard of Bridgerton before the Netflix show, and even if the books had their success, it hadn't crossed as much countries and hadn't reach nearly as much people as it did with Netflix.
Making money off of Bridgerton BEFORE Netflix would already be problematic for the author, who was working hard on it. Now, it's profiting off the works of a lot of people. AND no one had the millions they probably invested to bring Bridgerton into the massive success they made it.
Those two women are trying to take money without investing anything in broad marketing and intesive effort for making it known and sold. I am not on their side here ; Netflix has bought rights and invested a lot. They made it happen. They deserve the money they earned. Being a big studio/name doesn't change that.
It's funny because months ago at my college (I go to a theater conservatory) we were talking about this musical and Ratatouille. My teacher was telling us how upset he was that the two composers were getting away with this because they didn't have permission, and that he could see this having large legal ramifications for this show and any other musicals that did this
I’ve honestly been under the false assumption the whole time that this was a parody musical they had written. I had not listened to any of the music, but now that I know it isn’t really the same as some of the other parody musicals we’ve seen before this, I’m just surprised it took Netflix this long to file a lawsuit. It does seem like Netflix was attempting to work out a deal with them which maybe explains why it has now come to this.
Its not a parody at all, I'm not sure if they have a full script outside of the music but its pretty much a straight adaptation they made.
There's also a legal test for what is and isn't parody. You can't just say something is a parody and then get to do whatever you want.
I'd be really surprised if there was not some kind of behind the scene negotiations that broke down. Going through the courts tends to be a slow and expensive process, and it can make for bad press depending on how such a public action is taken. Not mention, there was a real possibility here of a mutually beneficial situation.
I initially thought this was like the Harry Potter one that was a legit parody (and still got into a legal mess until they sorted it out with the rights holders). It's clearly not. I hate to be on Netflix's side here, but the Bridgerton Musical isn't parody and stopped being a fun fan tribute when they started making money. They need to get a license if they want to keep selling this or write something new that's all their own.
B&B did get “permission” to release an album and that's pretty much it. Netflix offered them a license for the musical, but I'm guessing the two artists got greedy with their grammy award, declined the offer, and breached their copyright. They should've known who they were messing with.
Imagine if this legal case became a play and that play was faced with a suit
Maybe that's B&B's endgame all along - create a situation on which they can then make a banger original musical XD
Suitseption
Barlow, Bear, and the Bridgerton Suit
@@Phelie315 HAHAH
Thank you for actually going through the detail of this. Initial reaction is to hate the big corporation and route for the little guys but when you read the details, netflix has been incredibly restrained in not kicking off until the point where Barlow and Bear really stepped over the line and performed this and yes turned a profit, because the reality is money makes the world go round and its what is going to upset people.
Barlow and Bear are either being very badly advised, naive or just plain greedy to think this is OK. If someone else took their songs and played them in a big concert with out their permission they wouldn't like it, so they can't take netflix IP and use it to make a profit even if netflix is a big corporation.
I hope netflix is just suing to make a point and not for any major financial sum. Just to try and deter anyone else from doing this.
End conclusion: Fanfiction is fine, just don't profit from it
They had to sue to get an injunction to stop Barlow and Bear from basically going ahead and staging a global concert tour of their IP without paying them a dime. The court can require that they stop the concerts- since Netflix already tried asking them not to do the concerts and they said “Fuck off”.
Totally agree. This is hardly fanfic. This is making a whole new thing out of someone else's copyrighted idea, making obvious profit and merchandising out of it. Plus Netflix likely has rights to do a musical as part of the rights they hold with Bridgerton.
As a published author I would be livid if someone took my original book -- whether it had been made into a TV show or film or not -- and decided to create a new work without the permission of me, my publisher, and so on. In actual fact, even I -- according to my book contracts -- cannot create derivative works without the permission of my publisher. These two women are either completely ignorant of, or have no respect for, copyright.
I find it strange when creators abuse the rights of other creators. Would they be happy if someone created a work based on their original content without obtaining a license or other rights.
I’ve seen some people act like Netflix should give B&B a pass because the musical was good promo. Not denying that the musical was good promo for the show, but it’s clear to me that B&B benefitted from the association more than Netflix did. When the show aired it was starting with a built in fanbase from the books and the Shonda Rhimes brand. Add to that everyone binging because of the pandemic and it was bound to be a hit. Any fans the show picked up from the musical were just gravy.
B&B are incredibly talented but they wouldn’t be performing at the Kennedy Center at this point in their career if they weren’t attached to Bridgerton. The musical became famous because of the popularity of the show not the other way around. I’m sure the terms of the deal Netflix offered them weren’t great, but they could have used the opportunity to build their brand and audience before launching an original project.
Ya, Netlix really didn't have to offer them any kind of "decent" deal at all, legally. They held the trademark and rights to any derivative, fair and square. They legally could have ceased and desist really. But it was smart of Netflix to offer the deal because once B&B turned it down they basically acknowledged they knew they didn't have permission to do this musical AND made money off of it anyway.
Correction: Abigail wouldn't have performed there at this stage. Emily has in the past performed at Carnegie Hall, Lincoln Center, Montreux Jazz Festival, many prestigious places before she was 18 y/o. Which is why I'm leaning towards bad/impartial advice from their legal team, because Emily had been in the music industry since a child and one of her longtime mentors is Quincy Jones. I just don't see her making such a dumb mistake. I hope she'll be able to leave this mess behind her and continue her career, because she is incredibly talented and there is so much more beautiful music we could enjoy from her in the future.
I am a big believer in "girl, get that coin", esp when it comes to fanfiction turned original fiction. And I also spent mannny years as a StarKid fan, who are most known for their parody musicals. As someone who creates fan content, I truly love the creativity of fan communities and support people making money. However, this whole situation concerns and disappoints me. I think they are putting fanworks broadly in jeopardy if it doesn't go their way (and I don't think it will). Which really sucks, because fanworks are the backbone of so many fan communities. Barlow and Bear took it too far with their for-profit performances, especially as they were actively saying f you more or less to Netflix in their private interactions with them. It seems like this could have continued and been resolved with little issue, but they (or their legal counsel) weren't super interested in that.
It seems to me that Barlow and Bear wanted to be the next combo of Starkid and Marlow and Moss. They wanted the fame/fandom that came with a fanwork on the poppy/viral scale of SIX. But they should have, as you suggested, used their Bridgerton work as a platform to launch their original work. Yet, because of this, I think they will be as stuck as they once feared to be, broadly known as the Bridgerton girls.
yes!! Starkid was such a great example of how to do a fan musical. They worked hard to make sure they were seen as a parody, they listened to Warner Bros when they wanted them to change stuff and very clearly made it known they weren't involved with the OG material. They also never sold tickets for profit. Even just in this comment section, so many people are surprised they didn't have permission to do the Bridgerton musical or that it wasn't official- their names were absolutely becoming linked to Bridgerton which is a no-no like you said. Esp when you are profitting smh
it BOGGLED me that, regarding the show, they were just "notifying" Netflix of the show rather than seeking permission, then announced the show just a few days after. it feels like such a big middle finger to Netflix - because i would've just assumed they had try to do the show anyway, because they really wanted to do the show and hope, extremely natively but hope anyway, that Netflix would not notice. seek forgiveness rather than permission kind of thing - again, it would have been extremely native of them, but i would actually have been less surprised. the fact that they emailed Netflix about the show and made it clear they were going to do it anyway regardless of what Netflix said just seems so....rude, especially when Netflix still tried to extend a licensing agreement to them. rude and mean.
I’d be really interested to hear counter arguments from BnB’s legal reps. I can’t believe they would have gone this far knowing Netflix was actively opposed.
this is so cut and dry. B&B have zero rights to this property and to think otherwise is arrogance. Netflix was being generous to let them take it this far. sadly, if B&B had been more cooperative we might have seen an official version. Now we will never see a B&B Bridgerton and B&B have just shot their career in the head.
The Devil works hard but Mickey Jo works harder 💖 Reading legal filings for our benefit on his holidays, truly above and beyond.
Not only is this theft, but Netflix have an incentive to act (from a legal standpoint) to preserve the brand identity of their product too. If someone sees the musical and isn't impressed, they may mistakenly believe its quality is a reflection on the quality of Netflix/ the Bridgerton show and books. There are also some odd laws about defending trademarks, where they could lose their Bridgerton branding rights if they don't actively defend it from being used by others.
Your last point is too often overlooked. Abandonment is a huge deal in IP law; it’s why so many corporations (especially Disney) are so diligent about copyright.
So glad you decided to talk about this! I saw a news article yesterday and wanted to know more about it. Also I am on Netflix's side on this😶 I think Barlow & Bear should work on an original musical, now that they have a good following and people like their music.
it is original music ...there is a video by an US lawyer...a few hours ago ....he literally mocks most of Netflix lawsuit
@@tillm2481 it's original music but the lyrics are not did you Watched the video ?
A Grammy. They have a Grammy. Many professional composers don't have that
@@samuelblachon95130 It isn't going to be as clear cut because transformative works are a thing in US copyright law.
@@tillm2481 It's original music - until you get to the lines lifted from the show to make lyrics, and the complete use of characters, plot, and setting from the show. They really don't have a leg to stand on here.
As a writer/creator, I honed my writing skills as a youngster by writing (dull and tame) fanfiction for various novels and films - but it would never have occurred to me to try to sell it, especially without permission. Frankly, I'm pretty appalled at the chutzpah. I honestly don't know how the album even made it to the Grammies, much less won. What Barlow and Bear don't grasp is that copyright law exists in large part to prevent small-time creators - i.e., most of us - from being exploited.
Assuming there isn't some glaring misinformation in the Netflix legal filing (which seems unlikely), they were so much more reasonable about all of this than they had to be. There have always been unofficial lines in the sand when it comes to fanworks and Barlow and Bear seem to have flagrantly just decided they didn't apply to them.
Also did no one at the Kennedy Center ever actually talk to Netflix? If they didn't, I'm a bit surprised they aren't named in the suit too.
I'm so stumped about the whole Kennedy Center thing. That really shows you B&B were marketing themselves to have held permission to do what they were doing. But still...just...huh?
@@accountforwastingtime Yeah, if the show included the actual Bridgerton trademark, you think someone would have wanted to verify at least. Even if B&B can ultimately prove fair use (which seems a stretch), they definitely used the trademark without permission.
I keep misreading/mishearing ‘Barlow and Bear’ as ‘Barnum and Bailey’ so I keep having circus imagery in my mind when this lawsuit is being discussed
I grew up with Abigail Barlow and knew her family in Alabama and they’re all HORRIBLE entitled people. Anna grace her sister especially who is also an actress, but they’re all bad apples. It does not shock me at all that Abigail is acting so entitled. I hope they get the book thrown at them.
Abigail is of middling talent, that’s a fact. Why Emily agreed to collab with Abigail is beyond me. Emily is too gifted for that bs.
Ohhh give us more tea! Spill some stories. Inquiring minds want to know 😅
Oh… 😃
Well now that makes sense given Abigail is the one with the most to gain here, given she never had any success of her own compared to Emily. No wonder shes trying to force this, its the only way she can have a career and she thinks shes owed that career
“It is Netflix or Barlow and bear.” That got me chuckling 😂😂 thank you for commenting on all the drama ❤️
Someone should write a musical about Barlow and Bear’s rise using bits of the unofficial soundtracks and their words from their tiktoks ect and sell it as a for profit show and see if they see it all in a different light 😂
Amazon should take all their songs - make a filmed version of the musical- and refuse to pay them a dime. See how they like it.
i find it really silly that Barlow and Bear refused the license? It would have saved them from all of this hassle, again the terms aren’t known as you said, but they could’ve simply renegotiated until it got to a point where both parties where satisfied? They need to remember they don’t own this it’s someone else’s and they’ve taken it
Not only that but by refusing the licensing agreement that's basically like acknowledging they know they don't have legal permission and at that point are very blatantly infringing upon copyright law. Like what, did they think they'd say no and at some point magically be given a trademark Netflix ones lmao
Also...they basically lied to Netflix by saying they were doing a charity show with their music and then just...blatantly did a for profit performance of the Bridgerton songs?? Wut!
this is why im rlly curious to see how the girls respond bcuz I simply can't believe they'd be that stupid
I'm glad you covered this story. I haven't followed it all, but it seems clear that Abigail Barlow and Emily Bear are completely in the wrong. If I staged a musical called OHMYGOD HEY! based on your site and life, including direct quotes from your videos and reviews, with Aeron James and other people from your life as characters, I hope a team of lawyer would descend on me like harpies. In the US (I can't speak for the UK), copyright goes into effect the moment a work is created, whether it's registered with the copyright office or not. The fact that Netflix was "nice enough" to let Barlow and Bear pursue their work (until it became too profitable) shouldn't keep them from going after them now. I suggest that Barlow and Bear sue their legal representatives for malpractice (or the legal equivalent) once this suit is resolved.
I'm curious about the guidelines that govern the Grammy organization. Nominating and awarding a prize to work that is clearly not original seems completely irresponsible. I understand wanting to ride the coattails of a successful project -- which is exactly what Barlow and Bear did as well -- but surely someone on their board should have asked some hard questions somewhere along the line.
Copyright in the UK also goes into effect from creation, but we don't have a copyright register here. People who want to get an official date stamp on their material may for example send it to their IP representative.
IF all things in the lawsuit is true it raises at least three questions:
1. Are Barlow & Bear's legal advisers stupid?
2. Are Barlow & Bear stupid?
3. Have Barlow & Bear's legal advisers just lied to Barlow & Bear?
(or do we in Europe just not at all understand the Amerícan lawsuit culture and is this just a part of the negotiation??)
It sounds like their lawyers were ignoring Netflix's lawyers. Suing them absolutely is a way to force them to the table. It's also not clear if Kennedy Center was unaware that the performance was unauthorized but Royal Albert Hall now absolutely is and their legal team may nix the performances over the legal issues.
The reality is the overwhelming majority of lawsuits settle (at least in the US) and chances of this going to trial are likely slim. Lawsuits are very expensive.
1. No. 2. No. 3. No. It's historically been easier to say - Ooops, sorry, can we make a deal NOW? TBH, as sleazy are B&B/their legal team are - netflix will gain younger, more free spending subscribers and they're in desperate need of a stock price rise. It will be settled, even if B&B lose any $$ they made from it. It gave them a reputation.
That would be a very costly part of the negotiation, seeing as in the US, the losing side does not cover legal expenses of the winning side like in (most of?) Europe.
Netflix does not stand to gain any substantial number of new subscribers. Any fans of Bridgerton the Musical have already watched Bridgerton on Netflix (and probably 95% of them before listening to the musical), so they are already subscribed. Netflix could potentially lose a lot image-wise, which is probably why they waited so long with the lawsuit. Maybe that’s what B&B were counting on - that Netflix "wouldn’t dare go after independent creators" for fear of tarnishing their image. But yeah, they really left them no choice.
They were probably thinking they would get away with it because it would have been a bad look for Netflix to go after them because fans would all be on their side.
I think it’s been easy for their fans and people to make Netflix the baddie in this but Barlow and Bear did copy and paste the IP of several writers, the producers and Julia Quinn. The fact they were offered a licensing deal and didn’t take it while also using the logo and design etc without permission, they’ll lose if they can’t settle. Great breakdown Mickeyjo and I agree with everything you’ve said. I’m new to your channel and have been binge watching for the past few days
This is kinda why I hate that transformative works (fanfic, fanart, etc.) have gone mainstream. Like yes we should have the power to create these things but we shouldn’t think that it gives us the right to them. Just because I write Ted Lasso fanfic doesn’t mean that I own it, and should make money on it. Do I want fan works to be considered good art, yes. Just because you riff off the original doesn’t make what you do bad, it just has it’s time and place. Bridgerton the Musical had its time and it’s place, and unless Netflix and Shondaland are going to partner with them, then Barlow & Bear should create new content. Or have retooled the idea of a regency era musical to make it their own, with it’s own book and some new songs.
Fanfic is wonderful (I salute you for writing it and enabling my obsessions) but it is completely crucial to both the culture and the legalities of it that it isn’t at all financial
@@londongirl2768 yesssss! Most of us just want to write our angsty gay lil fanfics in peace. Then stuff like this comes along and gives us all a bad name.
This is why every fanfic author (myself included) knows you put the little "hey, I don't own the material or characters" disclaimer before or after the fic. Even wattpad writers know that.
The problem is this is far bigger than just big cooperation goes after small creators. They dont have the rights to the work they are trying to profit from. And this doesnt just affect fan works.
Say the courts decide that Bear and Barlow are well within their rights, what's to stop Netflix or Disney or some other big company from just adapting a popular book into a film or tv series without the author's permission or compensation for using their IP. Big corporations would now legally be able screw smaller creators by just taking their IPs to adapt instead of having to purchase rights
I'm on Netflix's side as it seems they did try to work with them and probably explains why they took a while to shut it down
Fast becoming the theatre drama channel 48 MINUTES!!!!!!!
Not sure why people are saying netflix not sueing earlier was a bad thing. How many small businesses out there profit from making unlicensed stranger things, bridgerton, tatbilb, etc merch? If they wanted, netflix could’ve already sued all of them for using their copyrighted ip as well. Barlow and bear just got greedy. Netflix clearly is only sueing because b&b got out of hand.
Netflix had been offering a licensing deal (even if it sounds like it was bad) so I'm guessing that's why, this was like their last chance and now they're getting sued since they refused a deal. Honestly surprised Netflix didn't sue as soon as they started making money and winning a freaking Grammy from it.
Fanworks for media are so much more commonly accepted or supported these days. Thirty years ago it wasn't unheard of for fanfic authors *who were making no profit* to receive cease and desists. I love that these fan creations can spark out of online spaces and it's a delight to get to share love for a media in a personal and creative way, but their existence is dependent on their not-for-profit nature. Barlow and Bear may be setting a precedent that really concerns IP holders in the future, especially by doing this after their representatives apparently assured Netflix that they were not intending to use it for profit right up until they did. I really hope this doesn't impact fan creators in the future.
That's all we fans ever wanted was for Barlow and Bear to work with Netflix in hopes for the Bridgerton musical to come to stage one day. Hearing that they refused any deals with Netflix is highly disappointing 😞
This is a wonderful breakdown! As a theatre nerd, a legal nerd, and someone who’s been in fandom for over thirty years, this lawsuit sits perfectly in the Venn diagram of my interests. I have not read/seen/listened to Bridgerton in any form, but Netflix has shown an admirable amount of leeway to Barlow and Bear up to this point. Fanworks are awesome, but I could have seen them initiate legal action at the point where it became a commercially available album. Obviously legal filings are allegations and shade, and we have yet to see B&B’s response, but if Netflix’s account of the timeline of events and communications is substantially true, they are absolutely correct in suing at this point and need to do so in order to protect their IP.
If you’re interested in a lawyer’s take on this situation, Hoeg Law on TH-cam covered it this morning.
One of the legal standards that a successful copyright case in the US has to cross is proving that the infringing work is causing a negative monetary impact to the rights holders. Most fan made songs, fanfictions, fanarts, etc. will never meet this legal standard. A musical that wins a grammy, performs at prestigious venues, AND outright implies that it's an actual authorized work on the other hand? That does.
Very weird.
I don't understand how they seem to have no understanding of intellectual property laws.
The BBC Concert Orchestra are involved in this escapade at the Albert Hall. Strange that they have not pulled their participation on this.
Hello! I am investigator on finance law so I know a little bit about IP infringement. I think Netflix’s filing was very sound and needed. Sounds like Barlow + Bear got greedy and Netflix has great legal grounds to win this case especially after offering a licensing deal. As far as the compensation goes, that will be very tricky to determine: firstly Netflix needs to provide some sort of evidence that compensation was lost in DC because of the Kennedy center show (yes it is easy to infer but you gotta have evidence); secondly some accountants will figure out the math for the supposed lost revenue. But, based off of some basic Googleing the Kennedy Center holds 1,164 people so if everyone paid for a top tier ticket (~$150) that is $174,600 from filled seats so $150,000 for Netflix’s lost revenue sounds reasonable to me. But of course there could come the punitive damages for the IP infringement and the lost revenue, which Washington DC does not have a cap (example there is a cap in VA of $350,000 which we saw in the Heard/ Depp case) so the jury (if it gets to that point) can come up with what they think is a reasonable amount, which could be millions because Bridgerton is so popular. I think it would be in Barlow +Bear’s best interest to settle because I don’t think a jury will side with them. Also, I don’t think Netflix’s filing was that “messy”, it seems sound, well researched, and reasonable.
*This is not legal advice, I am not a lawyer but a subject matter expert on financial fraud investigations*
I tend to distrust corporations like Netflix on principle, but I am willing to side with them in this instance given the compelling case their lawyers have presented.
Hi intellectual property paralegal here, I think the thing that stands out the most of me is the bold use of TM images in both the Netflix logo and the Bridgeton mark, that’s indefensible. Essentially to use the Mark they’d have to have seen the TM or CO marking meaning they took it and used it anyway.
I’d imagine they’d go for damages no greater than the revenue incurred by the concert and possibly the Grammy win simply because it would be a bad look for a successful company to go further but they seem to have ever right to.
What really gets me about this story is how Emily Bear is often referred as an unknown TikTok star. My guess is that's because most people don't know that she has been an accomplished professional musician since she was about 6 years old. She has performed with countless symphony orchestras, at the Hollywood Bowl, at jazz festivals, and had released 7 albums of original music before this musical was ever thought of. Her mentor is Quincy Jones for heaven's sake. She absolutely should have known better, which makes this story even more disappointing,
Perhaps someone along the way thought the word "Unofficial" would save them from a lot of things. I'm interested to hear what Barlow and Bear's response/their side of their story and if they don't respond, well, isn't that a response.
Oof, what a mess. Without all the information it's easy to root for the smaller party, but this...seems pretty clear cut in Netflix's favor.
This reminds me of the lawsuit involving JK Rowling and the Harry Potter Lexicon website. The creator of the website wanted to turn the website into a book after the series was done. For obvious reasons this was a problem. Not only was it Rowling's work, but many fans world wide had contributed to this website and he was wanting to take credit for it all. The laughable thing about this is he got a no account publishing company here in Michigan to go along with this scheme because no credible publishing house would touch it with a 10 foot pole. Seriously this all happened within a 45 min radius of where I live. This dude, the publishers, and their lawyer came to the University I graduated from to explain how they were very confused why Rowling was suing them. The only reason I knew about this was my youngest sister was a writing major at the time at the same school and told us about it.
My sisters and I went to this forum and I went to this forum to see and hear for ourselves what was going on. I just happened to have a digital camera that took video (this was 2007), so I took it along and recorded their lawyer trying to explain their befuddlement as to why Rowling would do this and uploaded it on TH-cam. The local media was very anti Rowling and Warner brothers in this lawsuit and I think we were the only pro Rowling people there. We met the guy who was trying to publish this lexicon and really tried to play it as though we were neutral about the whole thing.
Message boards and Livejournal were very big things back then and I was a part of one of the biggest Harry Potter message boards at the time. The three of us found out that (and this is rather quite funny) in the thread about this trial people I had posted the link to my video. People were also linking to two other reviews of the same night and I was like those would be my two sisters. The other thing was it was suspected that Rowling's lawyers were actually reading this particular thread so our reviews and my video may be in a court filing somewhere.
It's going to be an uphill battle for these two gals. Especially if they explained their creative process in their videos. Having lived through the circus of the lexicon lawsuit this will be even crazier because inevitably it will be played out on social media.
As someone who has read quite a bit on IP rights, I'm not really suprised about this case at all and I clearly side with Netflix on this.
Thanks for talking about this with such detail, by the way!
You summarize this very well and eloquently. Anyone who thinks what Barlow and Bear are doing is okay have never produced intellectual property. The end.
How about if I come over and steal your car? Why not? People don't really own things, right? I need a car, and you have two, and I like it a lot. I'm a fan of it. Gimme it.
Yes, it is the same thing. The writer and creators of Bridgerton OWN THE RIGHTS TO IT. You're not allowed to steal it just because you like it and you want part of it. Write your OWN characters and storyline, and then you can make a musical of it. And again, anyone who thinks it's okay has never created characters or a storyline. It may look easy, but it isn't.
Mickey, I just wanted to say you did a great job taking a legal document and summarizing it in an easy way for an audience that probably has very little experience of them. Well done.
I'm not too familiar with USA law so not sure how much they could be seeking. But given the show is being staged in the UK and the our courts tend to award larger amounts I don't think this is really about the money. This is Netflix warning everyone, not just Barlow & Bear, to not steal their IP. It's an investment in all the property they already have the rights to including things that haven't been released yet. They are setting themselves up in the statement as the advocate of the creatives they work with, and not as a giant money grabbing corporation. Winning the case isn't just about the legal decision it is about the court of public opinion. And they got off to a bad start in public. But the 'sassy' legal filing is part of the narrative they are trying to create. It's tone is a little bit reminiscent of Lady Whistledown. Or to quote Colin Bridgerton "what a barb". And it is well timed. Shooting for season 3 is underway, focusing on the story of Colin and Penelope.
Stop now to avoid book Spoilers
Penelope (aka Lady Whistledown) is protective of her IP when another character claims to be the author instead. A key part of the Romancing Mister Bridgerton story is Pen protecting the legacy she has created. Just like Julia Quinn, and Shonda Rhimes are doing now. And Pen doesn't do it for money, she does it as a matter of pride.
But that's just my view. And I could have just spent too much time reading fan fiction and have their characters voices in my head!
Oop-no!! They made merchandise?? No, Barlow and Bear. You can’t do that unless they don’t care 😂 But no, they got a bit too greedy near the end there. I really thought they were gonna make the Netflix deal, it would’ve been big. But I guess they just wanted the full recognition-from a OG product that was not even theirs?? 😂
There is not a single merchandise connected /with Bridgerton ...this is a complete lie... you can find the merch on their website
@@tillm2481 I'm curious if you were at the Kennedy Center event. There could easily have been merch sold on site (openly or covertly) that isn't listed in the store. I would not be at all surprised if Netflix had someone attend the Kennedy Center event to report on it. And I would be surprised if there was no documentation for the merch claims for them to include in the lawsuit. It will be interesting to see more on this if B&B don't settle quickly should the lawsuit press turn the tide from their favor.
@@xphiler06 „So fun fact about this Netflix vs Barlow & Bear lawsuit…there was absolutely NO Bridgerton merchandise sold at the Kennedy Center at the concert, not even the unofficial musical album. Just Barlow & Bear branded shirts, hoodies, stickers, and keychains. I was there. I saw it.“ you can find the tweet on twitter...there has been never any merch with Bridgerton on it... it was always thecsame things designed by Sam Bates...
@@xphiler06 as someone found out in Germany there are a few sides on the internet who sell Bridgerton merch...but there is no connection to Barlow & Bear... do you really think thatvthey are stupid... the whole lawsuit is chit chat in Rita Skeeter style... very likely written by an intern
@@tillm2481 LOL, Yes, I do think they are really that stupid, since you asked. It might be extreme entitlement fueling it, but the end result is the same.
I see you have spammed the comments section in troll-like fashion with considerably less writing skill than that of the Netflix lawsuit. I also see that your channel is all Bear* video uploads. So my follow-up question to you is, are you a Bear* intern or someone with permission to upload her videos, or are just someone who is pro-theft?
*Edited to correct Barlow to Bear
The issue with Broadway performers performing shows is that it shows that there was an attempt to present the show as a professional event. Netflix has apparently reached out repeatedly about copyright concerns thus retaining their copyright. It sounds like Netflix tried to work with the Bridgerton group, again retaining their copyright. Abby and Emily have no strong defense against this lawsuit.
Thank you for the detail on this!
I wonder how B&B being advised? As it seems a bit “childish” to think they can do what they want…
Take the name Netflix out of this... An author who before that Netflix deal may have made enough to quit their day job but probably isn't living in a mansion had their work stolen from them. Whether you like the books or not is not the issue. You are profiting off an authors work and that I take issue with.
Did B&B and no one on their team think of the negative consequence of this? Aside from a massive lawsuit, being shamed by Shonda Rhimes, on the bad side of Netflix, having their names associated with legal battles, and general embarrassment. Did they not think how this would impact their careers going forward? Where is the shame? Where is the decorum?
Mickey Jo, you ask why Broadway performers add insult to injury? Because Broadway performers further legitimize the work. It pulls it even further from the realm of innocuous fan fiction, to something far more professional and worthy of high ticket sales.
Thank you for covering this issue, my problem with this is that both girls are rich white girls, talented, but still so so very privileged and STILL going to this length for profit? Or "fame"
Considering how a lot of talented musicians have their dreams cut short bc of a lack of resources it seems wrong to give them a pass. If they have the talent and the money, why not stick to original content? Or accept the license and giving Netflix their cut? Unacceptable tbh
That's my problem with them! They have been rich privileged girls from birth! Their parents are rich. Emily's Grandma taught her piano at a freaking young age because her Grandma was the Chicago Symphony Orchestra's pianist. Her parents dished out money to send young Emily to Juilliard and NYU film scoring program. Two college educations that most families could never afford. Emily's mother has a music degree from Columbia University in NYC and she's the one that campaigned for Emily on the local Rockford news and eventually the Ellen Show. Her mom sold Emily's albums and it has always been about the money. All I see is a perfect example of privilege here. If it was a black girl from a low income family, she would never have gotten that far. But it's Emily Bear, a white girl from a wealthy family who can afford the best agents and representation. I hope Netflix wins because they're in the right.
I don't have tiktok or know anything about these girls but wait in the wings also released a more in depth analysis of the girl with the colorful hair and her background of getting denied a music label or contract. Basically her parents were supporting her and bc nothing was following through for her dream job they told her to get a job to support herself. Instead of working on her craft and being diligent *in my opinion* she found a way to cheat the system. She and her partner did not collaborate with other artists, study copyright law or do their research, the songs are a cash grab from something popular and from her behavior on red carpets and in interviews she comes off as the typical narcissist that insists they're talented without listening to constructive criticism. She wanted to be famous and did it in a shitty way.
Meh...B&B are morons for stealing someone else's story. In fact, it seems like they did it as free marketing for their songs. If they had named it "Essex the musical" it probably wouldn't have gone viral.
I was wondering when this was going to happen and I’m not surprised in the least. I don’t know what the girls were thinking here. I understand that Netflix’s deals or offers were probably lowballing B&B but at least they would be able to promote the musical correctly and without issue.
It makes sense why Netflix waited, especially before B&B were profiting. Netflix clearly didn’t have an issue really until they did begin to profit, as well as creating false narratives that they were associated with Netflix’s Bridgerton.
I’m just disappointed in B&B and this makes me not want to support them going forward. I’m most upset for Julia Quinn and Shonda.
Edit:
Lowballing wasn’t the right word for what I was trying to express; what I meant is that I’m sure the deal that Netflix laid out for B&B was probably not what the girls thought they were entitled to.
Lowballing B&B? My sweet summer child - you aren’t suggesting Netflix pay the people who stole their IP? The “deal”, being the license deal that the composers rejected , would have involved B&B paying Netflix- likely a substantial up front fee and then some percentage of profits from the musical going forward.
@@mariem24601 Lowballing wasn’t the right word for what I was trying to express; what I meant is that I’m sure the deal that Netflix laid out for B&B was probably not what the girls thought they were entitled to. I’m not saying that Netflix needs or even should pay B&B for anything.
Among other things, copyright and trademark law basically requires that the holders defend their property. If it can be shown that any breach was tolerated, it becomes harder to protect the property in future.
Currently remembering how Starkid Productions got hit with a cease and desist almost immediately for calling their parody show "Harry Potter: The Musical" and it got nowhere near as popular as this. I'm really surprised Barlow and Bear got as far as they did.
IP is a minefield. But this feels very brazen on the part of B&B. They reached out for permission, were denied but essentially told “as long as it’s not for profit we won’t stand in your way” and they’ve rallied ahead with a profit making venture which clearly infringes upon the copyright laws. It isn’t a parody. You could argue that the addition of MT style songs is transformative but I imagine that Netflix had that covered in their IP application. This isn’t just a cease & desist demand, which implies that there is clear infringement.
Musicals from books, movies, or television are not new. And copyright law consistently views them as derivative works - not transformative. Lin-Manuel Miranda did not consider Hamilton to be transformative- he paid Ron Chernow. And Chernow’s biography was non-fiction -which is nowhere near as strongly protected by courts as fiction.
@@mariem24601 Very true. I guess I’m playing devil’s advocate on that point! I think most people will agree that B&B are infringing upon IP & copyright laws based on the full facts available.
I don’t feel sorry for them, you can tell just by that Emmy picture that these girls are Spoiled… this is probably one of the first time these girls have faced any kind of repercussions
Thieves should not be able to profit from their theft. They should have to give all the money they raise to charity.
Its one thing to write a song or two for a t.v so and its all fun and games but when you want to go further and start making money off of it etc THEN you are in trouble. How the heck they didn't think they wouldn't be sued is beyond me!
I listened to it after they won the Grammy and I was like… did this deserve a Grammy? I remember when they started doing it and it was cute and I was caught up in bridgerton fever but like. It wasn’t even that good was it?
It never entered my head, not for a single second, that they hadn’t sought and got the correct permissions to do it. I’m flabbergasted and think Netflix are absolutely right.
i think if they weren't able to get a good deal, or a deal to their liking, it can be understandable they don't want to work with Netflix. that's justified, they are well within their rights to refuse or negotiate or both. but to then _continue_ with the work that takes direct quotes etc from the show/books and making money off them? like...i'm all for you doing you, not being ruled by corporate red tape, but it's still copyright! it's still other people's work! i wouldn't wish it on an independent artist, i wouldn't justify it on a company either! (and just because the Bridgerton IP is owned by a company, Netflix, doesn't meant it wasn't lovingly worked on by people.)
You should check out MWCA which is an unofficial Phineas and Ferb musical. It only took donations and donated to the Actors Fund like the Ratatouille musical, and was all filmed virtually by actors around the world! It's actually super impressive for what they were working with and the editing and casting is great. It has some PnF cameos too. It's a great example of keeping something volunteer and fun and using an IP carefully with permission from the creators themselves!
Seems to me that B&B got cocky and greedy. As soon as they started making money from it, it went beyond fan fiction or anything similar. Even if the license from Netflix was rubbish, they should’ve taken it anyway, because the choice was between taking the license and wilfully breaking the law.
I feel like the statements from Shonda and Julia Quinn are the nails in the coffin here too. B&B don’t really have a leg to stand on. I’ll be interested to read their statement when/if they come out with one.
Honestly if Netflix have exclusive rights to put it on stage then this is pretty obvious IP infringement. I'm critical of copyright law and think things should enter public domain far sooner than they do, and I'm a big fan of fan projects like fanfiction, fan art, fan musicals, but this isn't anything to do with that. It's pretty open and shut. I feel bad for them a little, I don't want them to be bankrupted by this--- I think they'll probably settle and won't be able to perform it anymore in exchange.
like, i get the netflix license deal was probably shit, but they do hold the copyright, so being offered a bad deal isn't a legal defence, did they try to negotiate? even then if they did try to negotiate and netflix shot them down, they can't just keep performing it.
also i think the fact they had broadway performers as part of the show indicates that this was moving towards a professional musical experience, the line between songs and musical performance are clearly blurred here which is why they flagged this
The Harry Potter Musical never got sued because it was covered under parody law in the US, in that it is critical of the original, transformative, and could not be mistaken with the original.
I’m sure Starkid have spoken about Warner Brothers trying to sue them though…..?
It had to change its name - and it was never actually considered fair use - Warner Brothers just didn’t sue them as long as they didn’t sell tickets. They also cannot license the show so if it is being performed anywhere outside of University of Michigan it is doubly illegal.
@@mariem24601 yup! There have been groups who have tried to do the show for profit or fundraising and that was a huge no no. Starkid didn't sell tickets, that was the difference.
Speaking as a law school graduate, the moment I saw this musical gaining hype and ESPECIALLY when I saw that they'd won a grammy and was now being courted by the 'great' ALW, I knew that it was only a matter of time before they were going to get sued. I don't think it's unfair by any means, legally speaking they don't have any rights to re-purpose someone else's creative content to make themselves rich. Yes, Netflix is a huge media conglomerate with a lot more resources and there will always be a power imbalance between them and smaller creators, but Barlow & Bear went miles ahead of most fan content with what they did. And now that we know they refused to work with Netflix that's just additional fuel to the fire. Anyways, great content as always, Mickey Jo!
I had bad vibes from the project from the moment the album was announced. I'd never listened to any of the music, nor have I watched Bridgerton, but the way it was marketed gave me the feeling that it wasn't meant to be a parody, and straight up saying "Unofficial" while making it for profit just came across like "we don't have the rights but we don't care". I was shocked when they won the Grammy. I can't believe that it took this long for them to get hit with the lawsuit.
Refusing the licensing deal is probably the most damning piece of evidence. Maybe they thought the grammy win would put them in a better position to negotiate a lisencing deal and it just totally backfired. The tone of the entire thing shifts after the Grammy's, going from asking Netflix if its ok to do a show, to informing them about their concert dates like they're doing them a favour. I'm so interested to hear the other side of the story and how they explain what happened. Something is up with the lisencing deal.
The moment you start to make money from someone else's property, it becomes a problem. Hope they have deep pockets 😑
Honestly, this is the first I'm hearing about this case but I'd have thought it's fairly well-known by now that Rule #1 of fan-created content is that you just...do not ever try to make money for yourself off the back of a work that you simply do not own the rights to unless you have express unambiguous permission to do so. Me and a friend have been writing a musical of "The Gilded Age" for several months now but we'd never think of trying to profit from it. Hell, it's very probably never going to see the light of day. It's literally just a bit of fun for us as a composer/lyricist team playing off the fact that there are just so damn many Broadway stars in that show and we both think it's kind of funny to imagine Celia Keenan-Bolger, Douglas Sills and Michael Cerveris all having a song about being servants, or to imagine Audra McDonald and Denée Benton singing a mother/daughter duet. And that's really all these kinds of parody/unofficial musicals *should* be: just pure fun that allows fans to flex their creativity *without* trying to steal or make money off the back of something that, again, *none of us owns the rights to* . I know it's basically human instinct at this point to root for the small-time creators and boo and hiss the big corporations in these kinds of things, but this point, it seems very difficult for Barlow and Bear to play this as some kind of "David vs Goliath" battle when Netflix has actually been, by all accounts, incredibly restrained in this matter and B&B have fairly blatantly broken pretty much every rule, written and unwritten, regarding fan-produced content.
*Edit* : Also, to the question of why Netflix feels it makes things worse that Broadway performers were involved in the Kennedy Centre concert, I'd hazard a guess that it's because it's just one further step out of the realm of "innocent fan-produced content" and pulls it even further into "thing we're clearly hoping actually makes it to Broadway at some point". In other words, it makes the musical look legitimate and official to have actual Broadway stars, some of whom are very well-respected in the world of musical theatre, attached to a concert being performed at a venue known for hosting pre-Broadway tryouts and concerts.
Not to mention it is not just stealing from Netflix but from Julia Quinn.
Netflix points out the casting of Broadway stars because the earlier terms of the streamed album required that it not be cast. That is why it was recorded as just Abigail's voice. To cast it and perform it with Broadway stars adds to the value of the concert and directly violates the terms of agreement.
This whole case makes me sad. To see two young women who were offered the chance of a lifetime, especially to find out they were offered a license which they didn't have to do. Even if this is a case of bad legal representation, it really comes back on the girls, I cannot imagine they didn't know what they were doing.