853 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by stuartmcd on Jul 30, 2022 9:32:38 GMT
But this is not any different to the Unofficial Harry Potter musical that was toured back in the day. It is commercialised fanfic. And I don't think there is enough case law to be certain where the courts might draw the line between tribute and copyright infringement. And isn't it now a little late for Netflix to be getting lawyered up? The pair have already won the Grammy for the album. If they were that concerned, they should have sued then or even earlier in the process. A few concert performances of the score is not going to harm the ratings for the TV show. But a messy court case very much will. Wasn’t that a parody though? Rather than an adaptation which is what this is more like. |
|
7,182 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jon on Jul 30, 2022 10:04:46 GMT
Parody is considered fair game hence why Luke Kempner's The Only Way is Downton was able to run successfully. Adaptation is a different ball game legally.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 30, 2022 10:09:36 GMT
It is that distinction that could tie this up in the courts for years.
But I don't think that is what Netflix are worried about.
It is more their loss of income from the sale of merchandise and other things that is driving this.
If the concerts have been using very close paraphrases of the scripts and there has been misrepresentation as to whether there is a licensing deal in place with regards to the use of the word Bridgerton, then the producers of these events are very clearly at fault.
But Netflix flexing their corporate muscle over what is a very small number of attendees at a couple of concerts seems excessive considering they took no action over the album
|
|
|
|
Post by fiyerorocher on Jul 30, 2022 10:34:10 GMT
What’s interesting is that they’re suing. Legal cases take money and risk reputational damage (big bag Netflix going after two teenagers who just loved the show! is how some people are going to chose to see it). Presumably they presented the two girls with a cease and desist that they chose to ignore/fight? Or Netflix is looking for money in regards to profits already gained from the musical. At least one lawyer out there thinks Barlow and Bear have a case, which feels a little strange because on the surface, they don’t.
|
|
19,780 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 30, 2022 10:37:13 GMT
Yeah, as I said previously it's such a borderline case of breaking copyright. Even more bizarrely its been supported and awarded by the entertainment industry I thought this thread was basically a spam thread, nice to see another viewpoint lol Just because no-one else is interested enough to engage in a discussion doesn’t make it spam. It’s interesting that people are only getting on board with a discussion now that it’s running into legal difficulties. No one on this entire forum apart from the OP seems to have the slightest interest in the actual piece. |
|
|
|
Post by anxiousoctopus on Jul 30, 2022 10:58:40 GMT
Reading the Whats On Stage article and it seems Netflix is working on its own ‘immersive Bridgerton experience’ - so it looks like they let this version run to test out public interest, and now they want to kill it to eliminate competition for their own official version.
Also apparently they used the official logo and were selling their own merchandise, which is probably what is going to screw them over as that probably can’t be excused as being ‘transformative’ of the original work.
|
|
|
|
Post by anxiousoctopus on Jul 30, 2022 11:16:22 GMT
Doing a bit more digging and it looks like (unless I’ve missed something) that live performances were always off the table when they made the deal with Netflix to allow them to release their album. So these huge Kennedy Center and Royal Albert Hall venues are against their original agreement.
It seems like it was a cute fan project that Netflix let slide when it was just an online thing, but now it’s become too big for them to ignore.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 30, 2022 11:24:52 GMT
Then it all comes down to the contracts that exist and how enforceable they are.
This is only going to make money for lawyers.
|
|
287 posts
|
Post by singingbird on Jul 30, 2022 12:24:00 GMT
Yeah, as I said previously it's such a borderline case of breaking copyright. Even more bizarrely its been supported and awarded by the entertainment industry I thought this thread was basically a spam thread, nice to see another viewpoint lol Just because no-one else is interested enough to engage in a discussion doesn’t make it spam. It’s interesting that people are only getting on board with a discussion now that it’s running into legal difficulties. No one on this entire forum apart from the OP seems to have the slightest interest in the actual piece. So true! It has piqued my interest now in a way it hadn't before. I'm just curious as to how much of a musical it actually is - or if it's just a set of songs? It's interesting that they won the musical theatre recording Grammy for what feels like a loose concept album rather than an actual musical theatre score... but I'm not saying any of this from an informed pov. |
|
3,485 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jul 30, 2022 13:57:01 GMT
Bripofferton.
|
|
|
|
Post by max on Jul 30, 2022 14:41:05 GMT
Well, of the Royal Albert Hall seating plan is accurate to actual sales, this is doing phenomenally well.
Has always felt extraordinary that this got so far on as 'unofficial' basis, yet using so much of the show's image direct, with little twist for affectionate parody. I can't help thinking this is another part of the game, and Netflix are just happy to take a big royalty payment.
|
|
1,495 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jul 30, 2022 15:11:28 GMT
Hmm, doesn't seem like a game. I just skimmed the complaint, and it's 25 very expensive pages of legal work, asking for a cease and desist, and any profits made on the back of the Bridgerton copyright.
And the creators of the TV show and Novels have each put out statements in support of Netflix:
"Shonda Rhimes Statement:
There is so much joy in seeing audiences fall in love with Bridgerton and watching the creative ways they express their fandom. What started as a fun celebration by Barlow & Bear on social media has turned into the blatant taking of intellectual property solely for Barlow & Bear’s financial benefit. This property was created by Julia Quinn and brought to life on screen through the hard work of countless individuals. Just as Barlow & Bear would not allow others to appropriate their IP for profit, Netflix cannot stand by and allow Barlow & Bear to do the same with Bridgerton.” -Shonda Rhimes
Julia Quinn Statement:
“Abigail Barlow and Emily Bear are wildly talented, and I was flattered and delighted when they began composing Bridgerton songs and sharing with other fans on TikTok. There is a difference, however, between composing on TikTok and recording and performing for commercial gain. I would hope that Barlow & Bear, who share my position as independent creative professionals, understand the need to protect other professionals’ intellectual property, including the characters and stories I created in the Bridgerton novels over twenty years ago."
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 30, 2022 16:25:06 GMT
The songs will persist. I can see this being quickly rebranded as That Regency Musical or something similar
Get rid of the word Bridgerton (and any character names) and there is nothing that can be done about performances of the material.
This all feels unnecessary and something that should have been solved through arbitration rather than actively involving the courts.
|
|
4,804 posts
|
Post by Mark on Jul 30, 2022 16:34:19 GMT
Just a thought, maybe they needed to wait for an actual performance to happen before they were able to sue? And that’s why it’s taken so long.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 30, 2022 17:05:50 GMT
They could have issued a cease and desist notice at any point from when the first tracks started appearing online
But they didn't
They didn't act when the album won the Grammy. Or when the song book was published.
But they didn't
Only when a big live performance happened did they choose to initiate legal proceedings.
I am not defending the songwriters. But I do question why it took so long for Netflix to react.
|
|
1,495 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jul 30, 2022 17:30:44 GMT
They could have issued a cease and desist notice at any point from when the first tracks started appearing online But they didn't They didn't act when the album won the Grammy. Or when the song book was published. But they didn't Only when a big live performance happened did they choose to initiate legal proceedings. I am not defending the songwriters. But I do question why it took so long for Netflix to react. I think it's the age we live in. The line between viral fandom and harmful copyright infringement is almost impossible to draw nowadays. Most fan content may infringe copyright, but it is not only not harmful, it's actually beneficial in virally spreading the word about the awesomeness of the original content far and wide. Look at all the fan videos of gigs posted to YouTube that bands and record companies have chosen to leave there for years, some for more than a decade. Look at Netflix's statement here: ""Netflix Statement: “Netflix supports fan-generated content, but Barlow & Bear have taken this many steps further, seeking to create multiple revenue streams for themselves without formal permission to utilize the Bridgerton IP. We’ve tried hard to work with Barlow & Bear, and they have refused to cooperate. The creators, cast, writers and crew have poured their hearts and souls into Bridgerton, and we’re taking action to protect their rights.” The first thing Netflix says is that they support "fan generated content." They are clearly wary that this lawsuit will imperil viral fan-generated content from boosting their properties in the future. Ironically, Barlow and Bear are unfortunate in being too successful. Their content threatens to become the definitive musical representation of "Bridgerton." This is why creators like Fat Rascal go the parody route, in something like "Unfortunate," the Little Mermaid parody. Not only do they have a satirical comment fair-use defense, but also, the saucy rude content is materially different from the underlying wholesomeness of the copyrighted material, and Disney don't feel threatened. Like you said, when lawyers are called in, everybody loses, so it's bad for everyone involved.  |
|
853 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by stuartmcd on Jul 30, 2022 17:33:00 GMT
They could have issued a cease and desist notice at any point from when the first tracks started appearing online But they didn't They didn't act when the album won the Grammy. Or when the song book was published. But they didn't Only when a big live performance happened did they choose to initiate legal proceedings. I am not defending the songwriters. But I do question why it took so long for Netflix to react. By the sounds of it the creators of Bridgerton seemed fairly supportive originally when the TikTok videos first started. Now why didn’t they react when the album and Grammy happened? Well Netflix is claiming that they reached out to the composers to see if they wanted to officially license the rights to Bridgerton and they declined. Not sure when that happened exactly but it seems like Netflix were still supportive of it all and wanted to see it continue in an official capacity but the composers didn’t want that. So maybe Netflix thought that was the end of it and nothing more would come from it. So then the live concerts start and not only concerts but also merchandise. It’s much clearer to see from this the kind of money that was being made. They would just need to look at ticket prices and size of venue to be able to figure out a rough estimate of how much profit they were making. And so here we are with the lawsuit. People might say that Netflix has only jumped in now that the composers are clearly making money from it. Well yeah of course they are. Netflix is a business and other people are making money using their IP. |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jul 30, 2022 17:56:04 GMT
Absolutely this. Companies can be either completely gung-ho in protecting their IP, with teams of paralegals constantly sending cease and desists full time as their one and only job. I’m looking at you, Disney, McDonalds, Nintendo.
OR they can let fan stuff slide because it is basically free advertising, as long as the viewer/consumer is fully aware the “product” is completely unofficial, and doesn’t have anything in it to damage the brand.
What becomes the issue is when you start making profit using someone else’s IP.
I think best practice would’ve been to kill it dead immediately with a cease and desist, but the ship has sailed on that one.
|
|
19,780 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 30, 2022 17:58:02 GMT
Exactly, these two composers have pushed it to the absolute max. If they get slapped down it’s their own fault. Don’t steal other peoples ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by h86 on Jul 30, 2022 18:16:49 GMT
This was always bound to happen with the success they have had.
I’ve listened to the album and quite enjoyed it. It’s completely Netflix’s IP though - characters and storylines from the show are used throughout the album.
|
|
3,485 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jul 30, 2022 18:52:14 GMT
I've found the constant pumping of the concept on this thread irritating too (yes, Eulen). Of course, I could choose not to click through, but the theft of somebody elses's artistic IP has bothered me since day one.
|
|
221 posts
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Aug 1, 2022 3:47:52 GMT
I am not defending anything...it is all very strange... Emily Bear ...as mentored by Quincy Jones since the age of 9...is in contact the best lawyers since her childhood. Her film music agent is one of the most experienced agent in the industry. kraft-engel.com/clients/Also one of her lawyers kenhertz.me/ this is world class She is now represented by the world leading agency CAA In all the years she (and her mother before she was 18) have been extra correct, extra careful with contracts, licences, NDAs etc. etc. ...always lawyers etc. involved... her great grandfather was a well known and respected judge From the start ...lawyers and agents etc. were involved... Until now we only have the Netflix statement.... As we all learned in the Depp/Heard trial...not all claims are correct. Kennedy Center is not an elementary school... Royal Albert Hall ...the BBC concert orchestra are not amateurs...do you really think that no person there checked anything... Again ...I am not defending anything...but something does not add up... For two years these two composers, the Bridgerton Musical have been exploited by Netflix, Shonda Rimes etc. because it was the best promo for the series... I see that they have a problem... because the Musical is way way better than their own gala shows and many people think even at the series The audience at Kennedy Center totally freaked our during the performances. the new song The lawsuit is totally stupid... Netflix should have jumped on the bus a long time ago... promoting the Royal Albert Hall gig... a big BBC production...inviting William,Kate and the kids. |
|
221 posts
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Aug 1, 2022 4:15:42 GMT
If you look in the comments.. Chris van Dusen... showrunner of the series applauding Ellen Mirojnick the costume designer http://instagram.com/p/Cgkrtu4M9vW It seems there are many people in the Bridgerton series staff who will be ashamed by the lawsuit |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Aug 1, 2022 5:17:29 GMT
Re: the frankly bizarre post above.
Does this mean I can write and produce a Stranger Things musical, using the show’s plots, characters, likenesses and branding? Then, without anybody’s permission, stage sell-out concerts of “Stranger Things: The Musical”, selling hundreds of thousands of dollars of tickets and merchandise featuring the show’s official logo?
And I get to keep all the profits?
Why has nobody else thought of this before?!!
With my profits, I am going to do a stage adaptation of Ghostbusters. Also, I’m thinking of starting a new animation studio called “Disney”.
Sorry, the phone is ringing - I think it’s my solicitor.
|
|
1,260 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Aug 1, 2022 5:58:48 GMT
Re: the frankly bizarre post above. Does this mean I can write and produce a Stranger Things musical, using the show’s plots, characters, likenesses and branding? Then, without anybody’s permission, stage sell-out concerts of “Stranger Things: The Musical”, selling hundreds of thousands of dollars of tickets and merchandise featuring the show’s official logo? And I get to keep all the profits? Why has nobody else thought of this before?!! With my profits, I am going to do a stage adaptation of Ghostbusters. Also, I’m thinking of starting a new animation studio called “Disney”. Sorry, the phone is ringing - I think it’s my solicitor. I don’t think the posts above are bizarre at all. The poster is not saying that it’s OK or endorsing it. They do however make very valid points that we don’t yet have the full picture and rights and liabilities would almost definitely have been checked by various parties along the way. I’m sure we will get the full picture soon. |
|
