|
|
Post by max on Aug 2, 2022 16:30:21 GMT
If I was plotting a defence, I wouldn't bother with "fair use," cos it almost certainly isn't, given that it isn't a parody, and they've cribbed massive chunks of the IP. I'd argue that Netflix gave me permission to create the work and that I relied on that permission. I'd highlight any written communications to that effect, including any praise, or any purchases of the album or tickets by the creatives or Netflix executives. And I'd argue that in consideration for the permission, I provided them the positive publicity they were after. I'd point out that by implication they concede in their complaint that they gave me informal permission, by arguing that I didn't have "formal" permission, and I'd argue that informal permission is still permission. Even then, I wouldn't back myself, and I'd be begging for a deal. This feels like a spot on summary, for my taste. I certainly wouldn't be backing myself. Both the writers seem prodigiously talented, and from a young age. I can't help thinking that they've had (and worked/trained hard for) a life in which people have been delighted by their skill and youthful charm, and because of that they've rarely heard the word "No". They need to play this well, or it could look like arrogant entitlement. Could I write a musical of Peaky Blinders, using the show Title, Characters, Situations, even some dialogue - without permission? Of course not. If I was given a warm nudge that it was fine for TikTok short vignettes would I think it was fine to develop a full musical without permission? Absolutely not. We've all heard of Rights being sold for some media but not others, or for some territories not others. Would I use the Tiktok material to ASK if I could be the one to get those rights, given the existing success, and the cool 'viral' style that the rights holders might find attractive? Of course, but that's an Ask not a Take. |
|
19,780 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 2, 2022 17:04:52 GMT
If I was plotting a defence, I wouldn't bother with "fair use," cos it almost certainly isn't, given that it isn't a parody, and they've cribbed massive chunks of the IP. I'd argue that Netflix gave me permission to create the work and that I relied on that permission. I'd highlight any written communications to that effect, including any praise, or any purchases of the album or tickets by the creatives or Netflix executives. And I'd argue that in consideration for the permission, I provided them the positive publicity they were after. I'd point out that by implication they concede in their complaint that they gave me informal permission, by arguing that I didn't have "formal" permission, and I'd argue that informal permission is still permission. Even then, I wouldn't back myself, and I'd be begging for a deal. This feels like a spot on summary, for my taste. I certainly wouldn't be backing myself. Both the writers seem prodigiously talented, and from a young age. I can't help thinking that they've had (and worked/trained hard for) a life in which people have been delighted by their skill and youthful charm, and because of that they've rarely heard the word "No". They need to play this well, or it could look like arrogant entitlement. Could I write a musical of Peaky Blinders, using the show Title, Characters, Situations, even some dialogue - without permission? Of course not. If I was given a warm nudge that it was fine for TikTok short vignettes would I think it was fine to develop a full musical without permission? Absolutely not. We've all heard of Rights being sold for some media but not others, or for some territories not others. Would I use the Tiktok material to ASK if I could be the one to get those rights, given the existing success, and the cool 'viral' style that the rights holders might find attractive? Of course, but that's an Ask not a Take. I think they’ve been pushing this project for so long and with such intensity that they’ve actually started believing their own hype that they’re entitled to use the material they stole. |
|
3,485 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Aug 2, 2022 22:14:54 GMT
100% what Burlybear said above.
|
|
221 posts
|
Post by Peter on Aug 3, 2022 15:12:37 GMT
As well as it progressing (as far as Netflix are concerned) from a cute side project to something more serious, it's possible that they also perceived some overlap with their own live 'Bridgerton Experience' which is currently touring the US? The lawsuit seems a bit draconian (though entirely within their rights) - I would have thought that Netflix might have considered bringing it in-house (with the creators) to provide additional content for their platform (their screening of Diana certainly indicates a healthy approach to risk!). Although it's an interesting rumour that the authors were offered a licence (conditions unknown) but chose not to take it...
|
|
213 posts
|
Post by l0islane on Aug 4, 2022 9:04:26 GMT
This provides a bit more detail (if it's true)
|
|
|
|
Post by austink on Aug 4, 2022 9:32:51 GMT
Yeah that’s an odd game of chicken to play. They may have thought Netflix wouldn’t find it worthwhile to sue. This provides a bit more detail (if it's true) |
|
731 posts
|
Post by sophie92 on Aug 9, 2022 17:17:06 GMT
The Royal Albert Hall concert has now been cancelled
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 9, 2022 17:30:25 GMT
Inevitable under the circumstances
|
|
|
|
Post by max on Aug 9, 2022 22:01:30 GMT
|
|
19,780 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 9, 2022 22:40:37 GMT
They got greedy and cocky and have been slapped down by corporate law.
|
|
287 posts
|
Post by singingbird on Aug 10, 2022 15:40:09 GMT
If I was them, I'd capitalise on the fact they're in the spotlight by creating a new musical about their battle to stage a musical about Bridgerton. It could include elements of the score of their current musical = the songs they think are strongest - but they'd be telling their own story in a totally original way. They're unlikely to ever get this much attention again, so they should make use of it!
|
|
19,780 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 10, 2022 17:22:00 GMT
If I was them, I'd capitalise on the fact they're in the spotlight by creating a new musical about their battle to stage a musical about Bridgerton. It could include elements of the score of their current musical = the songs they think are strongest - but they'd be telling their own story in a totally original way. They're unlikely to ever get this much attention again, so they should make use of it! Genius idea. And one I might support if I wasn’t already completely sick to death of them! 🙂 |
|
|
|
Post by austink on Aug 10, 2022 18:21:28 GMT
I think they would need to be careful as doing a show about violating copyright isn’t the best way to get around a court case and not going to magically fix your prior predicament If I was them, I'd capitalise on the fact they're in the spotlight by creating a new musical about their battle to stage a musical about Bridgerton. It could include elements of the score of their current musical = the songs they think are strongest - but they'd be telling their own story in a totally original way. They're unlikely to ever get this much attention again, so they should make use of it! |
|
3,485 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Aug 10, 2022 23:43:08 GMT
I think they would need to be careful as doing a show about violating copyright isn’t the best way to get around a court case and not going to magically fix your prior predicament If I was them, I'd capitalise on the fact they're in the spotlight by creating a new musical about their battle to stage a musical about Bridgerton. It could include elements of the score of their current musical = the songs they think are strongest - but they'd be telling their own story in a totally original way. They're unlikely to ever get this much attention again, so they should make use of it! That's one view, admittedly, but what everybody on this thread really wants to know is: What does EulenSpiegel think? |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Aug 11, 2022 1:34:01 GMT
I think they would need to be careful as doing a show about violating copyright isn’t the best way to get around a court case and not going to magically fix your prior predicament That's one view, admittedly, but what everybody on this thread really wants to know is: What does EulenSpiegel think? I think it’s very clear what EulenSpiegel thinks. |
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Aug 11, 2022 11:04:14 GMT
Some stories have a happy ending
|
|
221 posts
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Aug 12, 2022 14:27:25 GMT
That's one view, admittedly, but what everybody on this thread really wants to know is: What does EulenSpiegel think? I think it’s very clear what EulenSpiegel thinks. I think that is is not so easy...in reality nothing changed...a show was not possible...very likely this whole legal circus will take some time... We still have only the deadline article...the rest is all only copy&paste...speculation. Barlow & Bear (very likely on their lawyers advise) made one big mistake...staying silent...an absolute No Go in todays Social Media sh*tstorm world. Even a simple statement that proclaims they did nothing wrong and asking everyone to reserve judgment until all the facts have been revealed would have done wonders. I find it interesting that the likes and positive comments by Chris van Dusen and Ellen Mirojnick on Emily Bear’s insta are still there...so in a kind of way...the creatives of the series are showing Shonda Rimes the middle finger...are not amused about the lawsuit. My point is...we should all wait before starting a witch hunt.. |
|
221 posts
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Aug 12, 2022 14:39:50 GMT
Some stories have a happy ending I don‘t think that Netflix is the problem...but Shonda Rimes... „In March 2022, following Barlow & Bear’s Grammy nomination, Netflix reached out—again—to reiterate the lines. Barlow & Bear’s representative assured Netflix that they did not have any Bridgerton-related plans other than the Grammy nomination and any follow-up interviews if they were to win.“ Shonda Rimes was very likely pissed about the nomination...and praying that they won‘t win...but they won...and Shonda Rimes despite many nominations ...nothing, nada. Now this 20 yo brat Emily Bear has a Grammy and an Emmy (LA region)...and Shonda Rimes still nothing. Her ego is hurt...“Ego is just overdriven insecurity“ (Quincy Jones) Her own Bridgerton Experiences are trash...fast food Oh I forgot ...very likely Inon Zur ...Syberia video game score is a favorite for a Grammy in 2023...and who played the piano... so perhaps next year 2nd Grammy ...or at least involved...and Shonda Rimes still having a tantrum. |
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on Aug 12, 2022 14:44:09 GMT
The fact the OP is defending Barlow & Bear and slagging off Shonda Rhimes does make me think they're either Barlow or Bear or perhaps someone who works for them.
|
|
221 posts
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Aug 12, 2022 14:49:11 GMT
The fact the OP is defending Barlow & Bear and slagging off Shonda Rhimes does make me think they're either Barlow or Bear or perhaps someone who works for them. No it is only logical...read the lawsuit...watch the Bridgerton Experience video... injured vanity can be very dangerous |
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Aug 12, 2022 15:02:22 GMT
|
|
221 posts
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Aug 12, 2022 15:10:08 GMT
I posted a few things more...I defending both...because we all still don’t know nothing...Amber Heard claimed a lot...Trump is still claiming that the election was stolen..even with lawsuits.., But this is not how a legal system should work...not the person who screams the loudest, has the biggest influence, the best marketing strategy...should win...but who really acted according to law. And we still don‘t know. |
|
853 posts
|
Post by stuartmcd on Aug 12, 2022 17:05:08 GMT
The duos silence is deafening.
|
|
19,780 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 12, 2022 17:13:18 GMT
The duos silence is deafening. Someone must be advising them not to comment. I’m not sure that’s good advice. I mean, don’t say anything incriminating but after putting it about relentlessly on SM for the last year just going off-grid like this makes them look guilty AF |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2022 17:24:02 GMT
People defending B&B and blaming the people who created Bridgerton is quite incredible. B&B have no rights over bridgerton, it's never been their property. Saying those who did create it and own the rights are jealous is so misjudged and disrespectful.
Any creatives who see someone else take their creation and use it to boost their career and profit off of would be annoyed.
B&B knew what they were doing, they could have written a show about anything but chose the biggest tv show in the world. They could have left it as a fun tiktok thing, but no they chose to go bigger and bigger.
|
|
