221 posts
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Aug 1, 2022 6:14:35 GMT
This is e.g. one point which is totally wrong...the whole lawsuit seems to be written with hot needle in a Rita Skeeter style. Even at Kennedy Center they did not sell any merch using the logo/trademark... www.barlowandbear.com/merchIt was just Barlow & Bear |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Aug 1, 2022 6:16:53 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. Yes they are. |
|
221 posts
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Aug 1, 2022 6:39:30 GMT
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. Yes they are. Yes the lawsuit is from a marketing standpoint totally extra stupid...they are damaging their own brand...their own staff..,,there is not a single serious reference...just newspaper etc. articles...as if with all the lawyers etc. involved ..not a single piece of paper was exchanged...this whole attitude... we a big company like Netflix don‘t stand in the way...without making contracts... Why are these contracts not linked? Why the whole lawsuit at Friday afternoon...so that during the weekend no one can check anything..but all news outlets copy and paste. three days after the Kennedy Center concert...why not stopping it...before. The whole lawsuit seems like bullying. But again I am not defending anything. We should all wait. |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Aug 1, 2022 7:01:07 GMT
It’s not bullying. It is protecting copyright. Netflix messed up badly in the first place by allowing what started as harmless free publicity to get out of hand. Writing fan-fiction is fine. Selling fan-fiction isn’t. Netflix aren’t blameless in this.
This will never make it to court, it’ll be settled soon enough by the lawyers. Either a) it’ll be licensed and become officially endorsed, with Netflix and the show’s creators getting their fair share or it’ll be completely nixed with the creators “ceasing and desisting”. The latter is more likely but, the one thing we agree on, only time will tell which of the two outcomes will come to pass.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Aug 1, 2022 7:12:07 GMT
I've also wondered what Netflix was thinking previously about this one. On the one hand, just because I call something "unofficial" doesn't give me the right to use someone else's work for my own benefit. On the other hand, I doubt the Friends musical and others got permission and no one got sued (as far as we know...).
I'd always assumed Netflix allowed it as it was generating interest for their show, so on balance they counted it a good thing. I suspect when it was on tiktok only they were really happy with the free advertising. But now it's grown to full, fee paying concerts they may have decided it's become too big of a monster. If they don't step in now, what's next and when do they step in? So they allow a fully staged Broadway run? Surely that's not fair to the original creatives.
But at the same time, they would be stupid to try and do their own Bridgerton musical as it can only be unfavourably compared so that can't (surely?) be their motive so a better approach (and one with less PR headaches) would seem to have been to approach B&B quietly and negotiate rights. But I'm guessing they have reasons and a game plan. Although that hasn't stopped bad decisions having been made before by huge corporates.
|
|
7,182 posts
|
Post by Jon on Aug 1, 2022 7:25:46 GMT
I've also wondered what Netflix was thinking previously about this one. On the one hand, just because I call something "unofficial" doesn't give me the right to use someone else's work for my own benefit. On the other hand, I doubt the Friends musical and others got permission and no one got sued (as far as we know...). I'd always assumed Netflix allowed it as it was generating interest for their show, so on balance they counted it a good thing. I suspect when it was on tiktok only they were really happy with the free advertising. But now it's grown to full, fee paying concerts they may have decided it's become too big of a monster. If they don't step in now, what's next and when do they step in? So they allow a fully staged Broadway run? Surely that's not fair to the original creatives. But at the same time, they would be stupid to try and do their own Bridgerton musical as it can only be unfavourably compared so that can't (surely?) be their motive so a better approach (and one with less PR headaches) would seem to have been to approach B&B quietly and negotiate rights. But I'm guessing they have reasons and a game plan. Although that hasn't stopped bad decisions having been made before by huge corporates. This is the same Netflix that let password sharing slide but has recently started cracking down on it. |
|
5,896 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Aug 1, 2022 8:17:44 GMT
This is all too weird. So bizarre that Netflix didn’t jump on this sooner
|
|
121 posts
|
Post by MusicalTalk on Aug 1, 2022 8:20:42 GMT
You'd think as opposed to Netflix being moaning and power hungry so-and-sos - they'd work with (thus becoming) the producers and creators to make this the hit people want it to be.
|
|
853 posts
|
Post by stuartmcd on Aug 1, 2022 8:26:20 GMT
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. They tried. Netflix offered them a license to which they declined. |
|
|
|
Post by fiyerorocher on Aug 1, 2022 8:35:34 GMT
What feels a little sad is that this is only going to encourage IP holders to crack down on ANY fan engagement that generates new content, even if it genuinely isn't being exploited for profit (that's where the exploitation comes in here. Netflix have in no way exploited the unofficial musical, despite the comment above). Amateur fan content creation is a gateway into professional (legal) creative work for a lot of people because it's great practise. Shame Barlow and Bear didn't know when to stop. They should have taken what they learnt from the unofficial Bridgerton album and used it to create something new, with their own IP. They had a perfect springboard with the following I assumed they've gained and now they appear to just have caused themselves a mountain of problems.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 1, 2022 8:38:25 GMT
Surely this is headed for a settlement?
At some point IP holders do have to enforce their rights, otherwise they give the impression that everything is up for grabs, and will have unofficial musical versions of their content popping up all over the place.
The point is always to let people know that there are deals to be done and rights to be granted, you can’t just go ahead and do your on thing selling IP-related content without license or permission.
|
|
|
|
Post by fiyerorocher on Aug 1, 2022 8:40:39 GMT
The word is they've already been offered licensing agreements and refused, though. Presumably they're either trying to claim they don't need one (which would be mad) or they're not happy with the terms (which, considering their show would not exist without the Netflix show, is a bold move).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2022 10:05:07 GMT
Fair use has always been a nebulous concept in terms of how US courts interpret it, but the musical does seem to have crossed typical boundaries for sampling others IP for profit-making unlike say Forbidden Broadway.
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Aug 1, 2022 10:27:38 GMT
The word is they've already been offered licensing agreements and refused, though. Presumably they're either trying to claim they don't need one (which would be mad) or they're not happy with the terms (which, considering their show would not exist without the Netflix show, is a bold move). I did actually ask a solicitor who has dabbled in copyright a little about this the other day. He humoured me, and I’ll try and replicate what he said as best as I understood it. Sorry if I get any of the legalese wrong! B&B’s legal argument appears to centre around their “fair use with permission” of Bridgerton as both a trademark and its copyrighted intellectual property. He told me in lay terms that at the centre of this legal dispute appears to be a gross misunderstanding of what “permission” is. Permission in a legal sense for a company like Netflix would need to be a legally binding agreement as to what could/couldn’t be used, for what purpose, until which date and so forth. Solicitors for both parties would therefore sign a Copyright License Agreement which clearly states what could/couldn’t be done by the third party. It was his opinion from quickly looking at the posters for the concerts and other promotional materials that B&B assumed “implied permission” (I can’t remember the exact term he used), because the plaintiff Netflix had not previously enforced a legally binding agreement protecting the use of their IP. In other words, “we did the thing, you didn’t stop us doing the thing until now, so we thought it was okay”. In his opinion, this would not be a strong legal defence if Netflix prove they have openly plagiarised and financially benefitted from doing so. He thinks they’ll likely settle as companies like Netflix have bottomless pockets and the best lawyers in the country. He doesn’t know enough about the case to say anything more. *Edit I should add this is a British solicitor, so he was coming at it from British law I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by fiyerorocher on Aug 1, 2022 10:38:38 GMT
Surely being served with cease and desist letters is a request for them to stop doing the thing, though? Which has, reportedly, happened with regards to the live performances.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 1, 2022 10:41:55 GMT
US copyright law is different from U.K., but I’d be very surprised if there wasn’t a case under US law.
Copyright can be enforced at any point - choosing not to pursue them until now means nothing.
|
|
7,182 posts
|
Post by Jon on Aug 1, 2022 11:14:16 GMT
Honestly, reading into the lawsuit, Netflix are in the right. It seems the creatives refused to cooperate with Netflix on any level
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 1, 2022 11:22:30 GMT
Well the documents prepared by lawyers paid for by Netflix are going to make it look like Netflix are in the right.
So that should come as no surprise
There are always two sides in cases like this and so it is important to also consider there may be details from the defendants that present an equally compelling case.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Aug 1, 2022 11:27:30 GMT
Reading all this makes me wonder how the producers of this little number are feeling currently  |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Aug 1, 2022 11:30:47 GMT
Well the documents prepared by lawyers paid for by Netflix are going to make it look like Netflix are in the right. So that should come as no surprise There are always two sides in cases like this and so it is important to also consider there may be details from the defendants that present an equally compelling case. I was going to post very, very similar. Then I did stop and think “actually, it would have to be a bally good defence they’ve got”. It does seem to me, from the outside, like a project which ran away from them a bit. What they needed was a really good producer on board when they exploded, to sort out all the negotiating and licensing and whatnot. Someone with their finger on the pulse of what kids like nowadays, with loads of recent successes - like Andrew Lloyd Web… oh… |
|
543 posts
|
Post by WireHangers on Aug 1, 2022 12:20:48 GMT
I do find it bizarre that people are trying to push the “there’s two sides to every story” narrative, and that this case has even been compared to the Depp/Heard case.
At the end of the day this is a simple case of copyright infringement. Large portions of dialogue were lifted directly from the TV show, so it’s plagiarism.
Why are Netflix getting involved now rather than when the musical first appeared? That’s not true, Netflix has been very involved with this show since it’s inception and even set out exactly how the B&B can record the album and still keep within the law. That included not having “a cast” on the album and having everything sung by one performer. Now that seemed to satisfy Netflix until B&B then put together a cast, contradicting what Netflix originally told them, and started selling out large venues that are no doubt compensating B&B for their performances. This musical hasn’t just crossed the line from parody to adaption, it’s driven headfirst into adaptation territory.
Netflix also own the stage rights to Bridgerton and I’d buy a hat just to eat it if they haven’t already had conversations about eventually turning Bridgerton into a stage musical. Plus they have their “Bridgerton Experience” show that’s going on tour so they do have a duty to protect their IP.
“
So I think Netflix has been more than generous up until now and seen the musical as free advertising but given that B&B are taking a mile for every inch that Netflix gives I think Netflix are well within their rights to sue.
I don’t for a second thing B&B are doing this maliciously and I don’t think they haven’t acted in what they thought was within the law but they have crossed a line. As someone stated above, they should have used this as a springboard to get another of their projects off the ground and used their fame for all the right reasons.
I hope Netflix doesn’t go too hard on them, and that they can come out relatively unscathed because they are incredibly talented.
|
|
19,780 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 1, 2022 12:32:44 GMT
They sound like a right pair of chancers. Let’s face it, it’s the name Bridgerton that’s filling concert halls. Every song I’ve heard has been either unremarkable or pretty dreary.
Now stop stealing, take the experience you’ve had from this and write something you’ve thought of yourselves, and see if you can sell the RAH out with that.
|
|
221 posts
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Aug 1, 2022 13:28:41 GMT
He is very confident that Netflix does not really has a case and tthat there will be a settlement shortly...winwin for both sides @burlybear BurlyBeaR you really have no idea... the fans of the musical filled the Kennedy Center they freaked out multiple times, standing ovation etc. and you may not like the songs...OK... but as long as their peers...awarded them the Grammy, world class musicians, your view is totally irelevant If they sell out the RAH... I don‘t know... but if there will be a concert...with the right cast .... very likely... This will be the event of September in London...if there is a settlement. |
|
19,780 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 1, 2022 13:53:38 GMT
He is very confident that Netflix does not really has a case and tthat there will be a settlement shortly...winwin for both sides @burlybear BurlyBeaR you really have no idea... the fans of the musical filled the Kennedy Center they freaked out multiple times, standing ovation etc. and you may not like the songs...OK... but as long as their peers...awarded them the Grammy, world class musicians, your view is totally irelevantIf they sell out the RAH... I don‘t know... but if there will be a concert...with the right cast .... very likely... This will be the event of September in London...if there is a settlement. It was up against ALW’s Cinderella 😬 |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndyc4ne on Aug 1, 2022 14:23:37 GMT
Reading all this makes me wonder how the producers of this little number are feeling currently as long as they don't wholesale steal lines from the tv series i'm sure they'll be fine. Real events covered in a documentary can't be classed as intellectual property. Interested to see the details of licensing agreement Netflix offered and the musical creators rejected. Feel like that's a missing puzzle piece here. |
|
