No video
Netflix sues Bridgerton: The Musical. Why Barlow & Bear ASKED FOR this lawsuit.
Рет қаралды 60,271
Күн бұрынWhen does fandom cross over into copyright infringement? How do you tell the goodies from the baddies? And when does something turn from transformative to toxic?
JOIN THE GUMPTION CLUB: / thegumptionclub
Being in the club means you get: a free weekly podcast, access to a secret facebook group, a free poetry collection and play written by me, access to livestreams AND you get to access to all my videos before anyone else sees them!
ORDER my poetry collection, BARGAIN BIN ROM-COM! linktr.ee/barg...
// COME AND HANG WITH ME IN BETWEEN UPLOADS //
IF NEWSLETTERS ARE YOUR THING, sign up to get a little letter in your inbox from me once in a while! As a thank you for signing up, you’ll get a FREE downloadable list of my best books of all time: leenanorms.sub...
INSTAGRAM: / leenanorms
TWITTER: / leenanorms
WATCH THIS VIDEO for the full run down:
the BRIDGERTON musical is in trouble | Netflix lawsuit explained by MikeyJoTheatre
• the BRIDGERTON musical...
Other sources:
Why Bridgerton Fans Turned Against the Bridgerton Musical: slate.com/cult...
From cat names to fruit, here are 11 bizarre things celebrities have tried to trademark:
www.insider.co...
Netflix employees join wave of tech activism: www.theguardia...
Netflix Gender pay gap: www.refinery29...
Netflix’s ethical consumer profile: www.ethicalcon... (Worst Ethical Consumer rating for environmental reporting)
Other interesting videos to watch on copyright:
RiP: A Remix Manifesto
• RiP: A Remix Manifesto
Why this Gucci knockoff is totally legal
• Why this Gucci knockof...
I use Octopus Energy which are a clean green sustainable energy company - if you're in the UK and are curious, here are the two videos I talk about them in:
• My London flat failed ... and • 1 year to go zero-wast...
And here's my referral link if you'd like to get £50 off (I get £50 off too, woo!) share.octopus....
All music used is licensed through Epidemic Sound - I've been using them for years and hand-on-heart it's really fab. You get unlimited use of their music per month for a pretty bargain fee. Here's my referral link (if you sign up through it I get a free month): www.epidemicso...
If you're a company that makes plastic-free products, pays their tax and doesn't exploit people, I'd love to hear from you if you'd like to sponsor the channel: leenanorms@gmail.com
@roselover411 2 жыл бұрын
I think maybe I'm missing the point, but if they were offered a license and turned it down, I can't see why suing them would be problematic? They were literally offered protection against being sued for copyright infringement and said no. That sounds like a problem they created themselves.
@theemeraldruby 2 жыл бұрын
I 100% agree with this, however there's a small part of me that's wondering how expensive the licence was and if that factored into the decision?
@IHARumor 2 жыл бұрын
@@theemeraldruby Oh I’m willing to bet good money that the license was either pretty expensive or there were probably certain conditions attached to the license (like a large percentage of Barlow and Bear’s profit going to Netflix). Accepting Netflix’s offer would have saved Barlow and Bear a lot of trouble (also how cool would it have been if their fanmade ‘unofficial’ musical was suddenly ‘official’?) so there must have been a good reason they refused. I just wish they would have found a way to still work it out and obtain that license. I love the Bridgerton musical and it’s songs and was really hoping to see it staged one day, but with this lawsuit it seems very unlikely we’ll ever see that now.
@roselover411 2 жыл бұрын
@@IHARumor I'm sure, but I don't think it would have been more expensive than a lawsuit 😞
@deeanndavis1256 2 жыл бұрын
@@IHARumor it's very likely it was the percentage issue. I really recommend Emily D. Baker, she went over the filed documents and I think is going to continue to cover the story. She's a lawyer and explains things well and likely reasons people (or companies) made the decisions they did, when it comes to legal stuff.
@KiraFriede 2 жыл бұрын
They could have left it non-monetized too.
@jaedie 2 жыл бұрын
Something I feel a lot of people have overlooked in this scenario is that Bear is not exactly an underdog in the industry. She's been a professional pianist and composer for most of her life at this point - she became internationally famous as a child prodigy and has major connections. She would have a team of management, agents, and at least have the resources to work with an entertainment lawyer who could advise them. The whole scenario feels strategic, and I mostly feel for the cast and crew in London who lost a job quite suddenly because the women employing them decided to play chicken with Netflix.
@ZaydaFleming 2 жыл бұрын
AH, this answers on of my questions. I'm not on TikTok so my only experience of the behind the scenes recording was the clips in this video - and I definitely was like "Wait a second, how underdog are you with access to that kind of recording studio"?
@tillm2481 2 жыл бұрын
@@ZaydaFleming they rented it...everyone can rent a studio...paying money for hours...at first they wanted to record it in two days...but realized that this would not work for Abigail‘s voice...15 songs...so they rented two more days... they did not need a recording engineer...just a room for Emily and a room with a mic... btw. Emilys laywee is also the lawyer of Will Smith, wife, kids, Herbie Hancock etc. etc. ...Billie Eilish, Finneas are clients of Abigails lawyer....so they both have very experienced laywers...Emily‘s film music agent is one of the most experienced agent wide... this is what makes me scratching my head for two weeks now...
@tillm2481 2 жыл бұрын
no it is for sure no strategic....it seems to me that there were discussions...but no one of them thought that Shonda Rimes would not act according to protocol..and would threw kind of an atomic bomb...Shonda Rimes wants a bigger piece of cake...but it is not normal using a public smear campaign....very likely Shonda Rimes wanted an insane sum of money....so no sane person could take this licence... if someone acted strategic...it is Shonda Rimes....
@faraboverubieskerry 2 жыл бұрын
Exactly! She grew up being mentored by people like Quincy Jones from the very start of her career so of course she had knowledgeable people around her when making this choice. She has worked/performed in THE top of the industry for a while so she knows about this kind of stuff. Disappointing.
@tillm2481 2 жыл бұрын
@@faraboverubieskerry perhaps the people knew what they were doing - I just doubt that the Netflix lawsuit/claims show the whole picture - Abigail Barlow and Emily Bear hinted both in commrnents on tiktok - that they would like to talk/tell their view - if they could - but it seems they are forced to stay silent - perhaps just waiting
@thatjillgirl 2 жыл бұрын
The thing is, if you don't defend your intellectual property ownership, sometimes you can lose it. It's very possible that Netflix NEEDS to stop them from doing an unlicensed production that uses their IP, because if they don't they can lose the right to defend their copyright at all if somebody they feel less kindly toward were to try to profit off of it. And in this case, Netflix literally offered them licensing rights. If you're using someone else's work and they literally offer you licensing rights to keep using it, you can't turn it down and think it's going to be fine to keep doing what you're doing.
@SusanBryantInsomniacBookworm 2 жыл бұрын
Small difference; you actually don't need to protect copyright. Trademark, yes; copyright you can let go as many times as you like and still own the IP and sue for unlicensed use.
@sennnia 2 жыл бұрын
@@SusanBryantInsomniacBookworm they were, from my understanding, using the trademark without permission in addition to the copyrighted material. So, maybe the original comment still stands.
@bunnywar 2 жыл бұрын
Netflix is not the sole copyright owner, the author still holds copyright
@SusanBryantInsomniacBookworm 2 жыл бұрын
@@bunnywar Netflix do own the adaptation rights though, which is obviously relevant with the musical adaptation Barlow and Near wrote/performed.
@bunnywar 2 жыл бұрын
@@SusanBryantInsomniacBookworm yes but it doesn't just effect netflix but the author as well
@intotheunknown6736 2 жыл бұрын
Netflix is right. It was fun when it was a fan-made musical to celebrate a love for the show/books; when they decided to monetize it, that's where it went too far. Not to mention if in some crazy world B&B were to win, what a dangerous place it would put fan-made content. Their argument is, "why didn't they stop us sooner?" It would be companies would have to start going after people not making a profit to ensure their IPs aren't stolen and put fanfiction and other works in jeopardy. It also puts small creators who aren't Netflix at risk; they don't have the legal team of such a big company if someone takes their work and begins to profit off it; without a licence, who's gonna protect them?
@fizzychizzy 2 жыл бұрын
The fact that Netflix offered the duo a licensing agreement meant that Netflix was willing to have a conversation about it...which I believe was option #2 in your three option solution. However, the duo turned it down. They don't have anything to stand on. The moment they started making money off of it is the moment they were essentially stealing from a female TV producer and a female author. And I can't cosign that even if Netflix appears to be the big bad. Shonda and Julia released statements regarding this lawsuit. I would feel put out if I was Shonda and Julia. And ultimately, for those two creators, I think Netflix had to act.
@tillm2481 2 жыл бұрын
If it was fair use...they did not steel anything..we all don‘t know...
@fizzychizzy 2 жыл бұрын
@@tillm2481 what is fair use? They used literal lines of dialogue, characters, and their characterizations, and plot. This is not something that has been out in the world for 100 years or something. The writers are still alive and able to comment on the usage of their intellectual property. This crosses the line of fair usage.
@tillm2481 2 жыл бұрын
@@fizzychizzy there are lawyers even law professors who think that Barlow & Bear might win this.. I tried to link it here...but not possible...this is the problem of these kind of trash chit chat youtube videos... theydon‘t allow serious sources....I don‘t know if Barlow & Bear will win... but we are only amateurs... no legal experts...perhaps the uploader should link all available sources by lawyers in subtitles...but I doubt she will ;) Using this clickbait title „asked for“is bringing more clicks....I don‘t know if Barlow & Bear will win, if they lose...but many people are generating many clicks on their backs in the moment...
@fizzychizzy 2 жыл бұрын
@@tillm2481 I have a sister who focused on IP law. She completely agrees with Netflix which is why I’m perplexed by your using of fair use. There is a limit to fair use claims. The duo, in trying to go viral on Tik Tok, clearly laid out how they pulled actual lines from the show and rewatched scenes over and over to come up with their music. And while the laws may be unfair in themselves as they are, based on the laws on the books, this is a very clear case. By all means, post the links to the lawyers and law professors that support this clear theft of intellectual property. I would be interested to see what the opposing side has to say. My thought is that they assumed Netflix not coming down on them sooner was some sort of tacit approval. But it clearly was not.
@fizzychizzy 2 жыл бұрын
@@tillm2481 I want to reiterate that fair use usually applies to use of copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Putting on the show in the Kennedy Center did not amount to scholarship or research or teaching or news reporting. And the show was not critiquing the original work. And nowhere in their tik toks did they say the music was based on parody or giving an underlying critique regarding the major themes of the show. If B&B decided to make a musical that points out how ridiculous it is for the women to live in a system that puts so much stock into who they marry, that would be one thing. But that is not what is going on.
@liv97497 2 жыл бұрын
I can't believe I'm siding with Netflix on this🙃 shouldn't the creators of the musical, at least to cover their bases, have sought out legal advice when they received the letter about the license? Even if they didn't consider anything about copyright before, that should've been the point when they started to worry about it.
@jenicat55 2 жыл бұрын
Also the ratatouille musical was a truly collaborative social media event - no one claimed overall “ownership” there were hundreds of ideas from across the world. Disney got involved and allowed a charity concert and slimmed down all the songs/ideas into a cohesive segment and kept the “home made” vibe with actors having very home made costumes and filming on their phones! B&B booked actors, hired venues, recorded and released an album, and seemingly at every turn have reflected discussions with Netflix. Its sad as they are obviously talented but whatever the outcome this will always be what they are remembered for - infringing on copywrite - how will it affect their future projects?
@madhattie34 2 жыл бұрын
As my job is based on copyright and licensing I love this video! Fascinating analysis. But small picky gripe - there's a difference between copyright and trademark. Those musicians are trying to trademark those phrases, specifically to stop people selling merch that would be associated with them. Copyright doesn't need to be applied for - it exists from the moment that work is generated.
@BookChats 2 жыл бұрын
Thank you! I had the same thought during that section. Trademarks are meaningfully different than copyright in the USA and presumably elsewhere.
@madhattie34 2 жыл бұрын
@@izzyNFT69 interesting. I think in most of the world copyright is automatic, but it's true if you do end up needing to go to court you might need a certificate in some places. Mostly though that's just to prove you created it first - your work is still copyrighted without it.
@mophead_xu 2 жыл бұрын
thank you for mentioning it. while some of the TM attempts may still be arguably silly, differentiating those registrations from copyrights is still important to understand the whole thing. while it was just a small part of the video, it still felt distracting to notice.
@viridianacortes9642 Жыл бұрын
Who do you think will win? Just asking.
@cassaroooo 2 жыл бұрын
I just truly do not understand why they said no to the license!! It seems so counterintuitive.
@honestlyholly7657 2 жыл бұрын
Leena: you look radiant today Me, a goblin with period pain, unwashed hair and hormonal acne: thank u
@hibaz5157 2 жыл бұрын
LITERALLY ME RN
@ToDoListChecklist 2 жыл бұрын
Copyright is a wonky thing. To think that it's the reason Disney keeps making those horrid live action films just to keep the copyright and keep their IP from going into the public domain disturbs me. Yet, short-term, I as an artist want to make sure that I can be paid and have my direct descendants be able to live off my hardworking and IP. Having that right be stripped away from me and mine by someone who just randomly *liked* my idea or who wants to add their *twist* to my content without asking feels wrong and icky to me.
@tanwencooper6928 2 жыл бұрын
The other thing a lot of people forget is that if it's okay for people like Barlow and Bear to take an existing property, make (according to some estimates) millions off it, without paying ANYTHING to the original copyright holders, then it seriously undermines the law for when it happens the other way around. If this goes B&Bs way, then its setting the stage for people - including Netflix - to use the same arguments to adapt the creative works of people who don't have the funds to fight back. Also let's not forget a good portion of that license fee would have gone to Quinn via her deal from Netflix, and her name doesn't seem to appear on any of the PR material (at least as far as I've seen). "Fans make millions off of author's work without credit or payment" hits a bit differently, don't you think?
@the3rdquark 2 жыл бұрын
Small point regarding “this sick beat” (Taylor Swift) and “god’s plan” (Drake) - these are trademarks, not copyrights. They don’t prevent other people from writing songs that includes those phrases, they prevent other people from selling t-shirts with those phrases on them.
@BookChats 2 жыл бұрын
Yes! Although to be very picky they prevent others from creating whatever it is that the trademark is for. It may have been for merch or it may have been for something else. Kylie's application was a vague "publicity services" which is, I imagine, why Kylie Minogue definitely cared.
@carolinemcgovern4488 2 жыл бұрын
That makes a lot of sense now.
@thebookgoddess7380 Жыл бұрын
yes this bothered me when lena mentioned it lol
@ForTheLoveOfMusicals 2 жыл бұрын
I think writing songs based on something copyrighted is fun fanfiction, but yeah before you sell it you should have the original artists consent and I truly don’t understand why they didn’t take the licensing opportunity as that seems like it would have been the best solution for all involved
@vegselene 2 жыл бұрын
Another layer to this, though, is that it’s Netflix who owns the rights to Bridgerton, not Shonda Rimes and Julia Quinn. (Disclaimer: I don’t have expertise in how copyright and licensing work.) Quinn owns the copyright to the books on which the show is based, but she sold the television/film rights to Netflix the corporation. Rimes created the show with her usual level of genius, but my understanding is that Netflix ultimately gets to decide what happens to that intellectual property. So even if Barlow & Bear had taken the licensing deal, does that actually constitute consent from Rimes and Quinn? Or only consent from the suits at Netflix?
@ForTheLoveOfMusicals 2 жыл бұрын
@@vegselene I’m not an expert on this too by any means, but I think we have to assume that when creators sell rights to their work and the contract includes that Netflix can give licencing agreements to third parties, that means the creators also consent to these third party projects. Otherwise that seems something to put in the initial deal when you sell the rights to your project
@vegselene 2 жыл бұрын
That all makes sense! I guess it wasn’t clear that my questions are rhetorical. A piece of this whole kerfuffle that I find intriguing is precisely this issue of creators’ consent: because Julia Quinn sold the rights to Netflix, she’s not the one who actually gets to make decisions about how the intellectual property is used. When B&B we’re offered a license, it was the corporation Netflix, not Shonda Rimes, who made the offer. Even if Quinn or Rimes hated the idea of a musical (theoretically - I’m not saying they wouldn’t be into it), they’re not the ones with the legal right to give consent to that use, because Netflix owns the copyright. I agree with Leena that Netflix are not the villain here. But I am interested in how the different levels of creative control color that conclusion, if that makes sense.
@kathrinlindern2697 2 жыл бұрын
@@vegselene Creative Control is probably not part of it at the side of Netflix, Rimes and Quinn - they make business decisions based on capitalistic interests. That's it. However, Julia Quinn probably realises that an adaptation is an adaptation in the eyes of the law and that Netflix paid her good money for the rights. So they own the property and are entitled to protect it. She probably also realises that if the rights to adaptations can not be covered, companies like Netflix could just take her work without paying anything. Because that is the way in which Barlow and Bear operate here. It is pure exploitation. And in front of the law, it does hardly matter whether you exploit a big, morally corrupt company or a single, poor author.
@jomi025 2 жыл бұрын
One successful outcome is Ingrid Michaelson's album "Stranger Songs" which she made as a love letter for Stranger Things and she spoke/worked with Netflix/ST people while making and writing it. So really, all of this could've been prevented if B&B just did the same.
@nett6051 2 жыл бұрын
I appreciate them creating the musical songs based on the show, but profiting on it without the licensing or permission from netflix or the show, its kind of unfair not only to the show crew and cast, but to the author.
@lananieves4595 2 жыл бұрын
I don't even understand why anyone is discussing this as if it's a grey area. They took characters - names and all - from someone else's intellectual property, and used them to make money. And then they called it Bridgerton. If they didn't understand intellectual property, they should have after they were sent correspondence explaining that they would need to pay for licensing if they wanted to use the characters and title. They ignored it. For all the people who are all, "Who cares if Netflix loses," I'm fairly sure if it were THEIR novel or play or screenplay being stolen, if THEY were the ones being deprived of income, they would flip out. They ignored the very clear laws around intellectual property and profited from it. They should be held responsib le.
@Phaedramatics 2 жыл бұрын
As somebody who writes fanfic (ironically, it includes Bridgerton fanfic) this whole thing stresses me out. Fanfic writers are basically operating on a "well as long as we're not making money...", and I still remember the Anne Rice C&D's, the fic purges, and the disclaimers of "I don't own this world or these characters" at the top of every chapter. We're surviving essentially on a lack of legal precedent, and B&B doing this and basically inviting a lawsuit could have far reaching consequences for fanworks as a whole, and idk I don't want to go back to password protected forums and the risk that any reader could actually be a lawyer about to slam down the hammer. I have so many thoughts on what happened and fanworks in general but it basically boils down to ✨stress✨
@kathrinlindern2697 2 жыл бұрын
The problem is the monetary aspect. Fan culture as a hobby HELPS the interest of the corporations. That's why they often actively endorse fanart. And AU works specifically might be sufficiently transformative to not infringe on copyright at all. This is just an unlicensed adaptation that runs for profit.
@JoJoThmonkey 2 жыл бұрын
Love this ! I think beyond the monetary aspect, I personally wouldn't be ok with someone taking something I created and taking credit for it or puting their name on it. That would just plainly hurt my feelings! We all want credit for what we've created. At the same time, yeah, I didn't create the medium or the style or the tropes i could've used to make art.
@claravian 2 жыл бұрын
Why didnt they just licensed it when it was offered??
@theonlyenekoeneko 2 жыл бұрын
Oooh this tickles my brain because I really hadn’t thought about this conundrum before! Honestly, I haven’t seen the show, read the book, or knew about the musical, but still enjoyed your discussion here. You know when you’re having a group discussion and you say something actually good but no one paid you any attention and then that one more popular person says what you actually said, sometimes word for word/ signed exactly, and everyone responds like oh wow yes amazing you! But they didn’t credit you at all for saying it first. *Crushing!* It’s the worst feeling! Now a big old company like Netflix doesn’t necessarily have feelings that can be crushed, but they have artists that they have paid to use their work and I would say it’s not far off. The charity concerts of fan made musicals were one thing, but when they decided to have an expensive for profit show, I don’t understand why they would say no to paying for the license, especially as the artists who originated those characters and words are still alive 3D humans that have to pay for the land they stand on and the water they drink. Great video as ever Leena 🌻
@tillm2481 2 жыл бұрын
do you know if the claims are true...do you know if they made big profit...paying all thr musicians etc... do you know if it is not fair use...this speculation drives me crazy...
@leenanorms 2 жыл бұрын
Yup - the whole 'we are 3D humans who need to pay for life' is a big one for me. Love the idea of a brain being 'tickled' - maybe that can be the remit for my channel: I'm not trying to find the perfect answer, I'm just trying to TICKLE people's brains!
@theonlyenekoeneko 2 жыл бұрын
@@tillm2481 no I don’t know, but it’s interesting to consider
@theonlyenekoeneko 2 жыл бұрын
@@leenanorms I’m now imagining Mr Tickle (of the Little Miss & Mr books) in iconic Leena dungarees and flower earrings as your channel mascot ☺️
@tillm2481 2 жыл бұрын
@@theonlyenekoeneko perhaps then also considering that Chris van Dusen (showrunner, executive producer), Ellen Mirojnick (costume designer) of series liked the concert on Emily Bears insta - even in comments - it seems they think that they did not steal anything
@ChristopherDraws 2 жыл бұрын
Given how recently we've witnessed a fanfic becoming a huge financial success following name changes - 50 Shades / Twilight - I'm really surprised these composers didn't go down the route of disconnecting their work from Bridgerton in the same way. Although possibly, once they'd already had success and publicity with that product (even if the financial return was for charity/they weren't "paid" for it), the moment they take the same product with some name changes, Netflix could still pursue them for breach of copyright, as they've already traded off a public understanding that it *is* Bridgerton (whereas, for an outsider, the story of 50 Shades bears no resemblance to Twilight). I think B&B took a risk not entering into a licensing agreement with Netflix, and presumably one they could afford to take.
@puffmaggie 2 жыл бұрын
Fantastic discussion as always, Leena! I so agree we need ORIGINAL content, even if it at least inspired by other stories rather than adaptations. Especially with musicals, there are so many musicals that are adaptations of an already done story. Even one of my fave musicals is Hadestown and that story is a very old tragedy. And original content does sell - look at 'Everything, Everywhere All At Once', it's one of the most high regarded movies of the year and it's a fresh story. Unfortunately I think Netflix isn't fully wrong here even if I wanna side with the 'small artist', especially if it means more women getting paid for the work and stories they've created.
@leenanorms 2 жыл бұрын
Totally, that's a great example - another one of an original musical that was something completely new and not derivative that audiences got behind is Come From Away. There's hope for the future for definite!
@marianneshepherd6286 2 жыл бұрын
Agree! I would love to see a historical series drama where each series is set in one year of history say 1756 then each episode is set in a different country/part of the world, and its 24hrs of something that happened within that year that was significant to that country's history. X
@chatnoir60609 2 жыл бұрын
@@marianneshepherd6286 This is a brilliant idea!! Love it
@seabreeze4559 Жыл бұрын
@@leenanorms netflix stole 365 days
@danielleoliver1734 2 жыл бұрын
There’s a difference between fanfic which is what the musical started out, and making money off someone else’s property. They were also releasing their musical in the same town and time as the Brigerton experience which would have impacted their revenue. I’m sorry, they were offered the ability to legally make profit off their work and they said no. Hate to say it but I think I’m on Netfilx’s side, if B&B win then all artists are put in jeopardy as their works are up for grab for anyone to mess with and make money from
@Orlagh 2 жыл бұрын
Completely agree!
@meremeth 2 жыл бұрын
I'm honestly surprised to hear people think Netflix are the bad guys in this situation.
@livelovelife32 2 жыл бұрын
When you like someone and become huge fans of their work you don't want to believe they're even in the wrong. You start thinking maybe this and that and they didn't understand and they got wrong legal advice etc. It's normal.
@testosteronic 2 жыл бұрын
Tbh I think they should've pulled an E L James/Cassandra Clare/Anna Todd and filed the serial numbers off. Setting romance in the regency isn't exactly copywritable Edit: looked up their ages, Bear is _20._ Ugh. Rude.
@livelovelife32 2 жыл бұрын
This would have solved a lot of problems.
@heartbeat1198 2 жыл бұрын
Maybe it's harder to do this with musicals because in a book you can change the names and some surface characteristics and it doesn't have any structural effects. But in a musical if those are part of the content, like people singing names of locations and characters, then that's a bit harder to rewrite, especially when the original is already established enough to win a Grammy. But you're right, imo it would be worth the effort because Netflix is not wrong on this one. For once lol.
@calebl6586 2 жыл бұрын
I feel like especially with Disney lobbying copyright is overly protective in the US (to the point of having a few decades where nothing even entered public domain), but Bridgerton is very new and whether the contract would have been fair they offered legal licensing and turned it down then tried to profit off of the IP anyways
@Victoriasm31 2 жыл бұрын
Purely from a legal standpoint, Netflix may actually run into difficulties because they didn't enforce their copyright earlier. It can be a bit of a "use it or lose it" situation, which is why some companies will act in what seems a very aggressive way against smaller parties. However, the offer of the licence, if they can show it was reasonable, may save them there.
@SusanBryantInsomniacBookworm 2 жыл бұрын
That's actually only the case with trademark in the US: not copyright. (I only know this because I said the same, then a US lawyer corrected me so I looked it up and that's the actual law.)
@Victoriasm31 2 жыл бұрын
@@SusanBryantInsomniacBookworm Oh that's really interesting. I only really know about the UK, so good to know.
@angelawesneski5029 2 жыл бұрын
Oh my God, hey! It's Mikey Jo Theatre!
@leenanorms 2 жыл бұрын
Love him!
@sarahdugdale2764 2 жыл бұрын
As ever, I love the nuance you bring to a conversation like this and the great quotes you reference. I've been fascinated by this case for similar reasons. The fact Barlow & Bear have released no statement either makes me so curious about how it's going to play out.
@BookNomming 2 жыл бұрын
I’m guessing the have been advised to go quiet on social media? I would love to hear their side though
@elenaacosta482 2 жыл бұрын
Correction: trademark and copyright have distinct legal meanings. Copyright is generally used for creative works (books, paintings, films, songs, etc) while trademark is used for businesses (logos, catch-frases, etc). Some things can be both trademarked and copyrighted as in the case of a corporate jingle but some things can only be trademarked as in the case of a name or phrase. Copyright simply exists wherever a creative work exists while trademark has to be registered in order to be nationally recognized. Copyright has much stronger protections for artists while trademark is mostly in place so that people do not confuse two distinct brands, products, companies, etc. Taylor Swift and the other celebrities mentioned were actually attempting to trademark (not copyright) particular words and phrases in order to protect their brand. They did not succeed because they failed to prove that these phrases were truly unique to said brand and could not be used to refer to anything else. It would be like Kellogg trademarking Raisin Bran which is simply a description of the product that can be sold by anyone. Where as Special K can be trademarked because it is a word that can only be used in reference to a particular product that only Kellogg sells with not confusion.
@kronos1794 2 жыл бұрын
It's bad when you agree with Netflix...
@WhiteRaven696 Жыл бұрын
I think EVERYONE is on Netflix’s side in this wild situation. I mean, they even offered the girls the licensing rights! Which the girls refused! Netflix is right to sue them for making a profit off of work that’s not theirs!
@Poeticbadger 2 жыл бұрын
I really enjoyed this analysis! I do wish you also included an analysis of the fact that the books came first, then the series and the lack of "credit" to Julia Quinn. This could branch out to an interesting conversation about adaptation vs storytelling in various forms vs what needs and can and shouldn't happen to a story.
@Spargle22 2 жыл бұрын
I’m so curious what Barlow and Bears side of this is? Did they receive awful legal advice or do they have something we won’t know about until the legal mess is handled? Also I’m very concerned about the impact this will have on other fan works and future creators once this sets a precedent
@maddychurchhouse4556 2 жыл бұрын
This!! By pulling this stunt and going down with their ship they're potentially going to take so many other fan works and creators down with them and set some unpleasant precedents for major IP holders suing fan creatives! Like idk how they think the fan community will side with them on this 🙄
@fa1ruz 2 жыл бұрын
Barlor & Bear sounds like a clothing brand
@snoopygonewilder Жыл бұрын
I love this musical, but I'm honestly on Netflix's side on this. If Netflix offered them a license and they didn't accept that's on them. Some people might say "oh, but maybe Netflix wanted too much." Yeah maybe, but at the end of the day Bridgerton is Netflix's IP and if someone else is making money off of it, Netflix deserve their share, however big the cut they want, they own it, they bought the rights from the author and don't even have to offer anyone a license if they don't feel like it. And like someone else said in another comment, if Netflix doesn't defend their intellectual property it can cause problems for them in the future. I think if they hadn't monetized the musical, Netflix probably wouldn't have done anything, if anything it would have brought new fans to their shows, but once they started to earn from it, the gloves came off.
@chifuchi 2 жыл бұрын
I think everything would be solved by them just changing the names and a bit of the story such as EL James did with 50 Shades, and there you go
@livelovelife32 2 жыл бұрын
But then they won't have gotten the hype that they did. They chose Bridgerton because it's wildly popular. If they change the name now I'm not sure it would matter. Netflix can say 98% of the property is still theirs. 50 Shades did have the right people behind it covering the legal aspects. It wasn't just people trying to scam the original creators out of their share of the profits.
@sallys.2707 2 жыл бұрын
That's a fantastic discussion. And I will add, lack of original content make you're audience shrunk in the end. We see this with the Marvel franchise. People are tired !
@leenanorms 2 жыл бұрын
Yeah I'd totally agree - people love NEW worlds, not just new scenarios for the same characters in the same settings.
@hannahhyslop6327 2 жыл бұрын
I honestly love the musical and love small scale adaptions of my favourite media, Terry Pratchett community centre plays are always a joy, but hadn’t really thought about what happens if one of them were to get big like this. It seems like they were fully aiming to turn this into a major musical which is an odd goal without Netflix/creator backing. And one I disagree with. But I do wonder if they were to do this on a smaller scale and make no or little profit if Netflix would have come down just as hard? Slightly worried for ramifications for other smaller scale fanworks…
@rowanwax 2 жыл бұрын
Considering the previous charity events that didn’t get sued, I don’t think they would have done anything as long as it stayed nonprofit…?
@kathrinlindern2697 2 жыл бұрын
@@rowanwax They would not have sued, bc that would have been a bad look as long as it was for charity. In the long term, Netflix might have liked to come to a licensing agreement anyway as they would be in a bad spot to make their OFFICIAL Bridgerton musical now and apparently there is a pretty big demand for such a thing - with Barlow and Bear's music, at least.
@hannahhyslop6327 2 жыл бұрын
@@rowanwax good point! I meant more I wonder if they’ll crack down on people doing things like musical adaptions on tik tok far earlier now… probably won’t want to get into this situation again
@livelovelife32 2 жыл бұрын
@@hannahhyslop6327 Yes this is a possible consequence of this. A once bitten twice shy kind of response is probably a realistic expectation from Netflix.
@HaveanIcedaymx Жыл бұрын
It blows my mind they did not take the licencing agreement
@lucypeace6132 2 жыл бұрын
This was a brilliant video. I love the way you put things sometimes, giving insight in a really funny and quirky way. As a writer, if I ever have someone write fanfic, I'll absolutely love and support them. But someone stealing my work to profit, which even for me as an unknown author does happen, no. That's just not right. I don't care how rich Shonda Rimes and Julia Quinn are, what they did is blatant theft.
@katiekress5787 2 жыл бұрын
I cant tell u how much i appreciate and derive hope from your content! Current cultural norms dont really reward someone who is willing to uphold their values over their "side" of a debate (in this case, big biz vs small biz)! And i love to see it!! It's what makes the world go round
@motoroladefy2740 Жыл бұрын
If they refused the license may be the lawyers calculated that the money to pay in the lawsuit is less than the cost of the license.
@NemuiDoraneko 2 жыл бұрын
I love your analysis and the discussion! For me as an autistic it all seems so clear - there are 2 topics to the thing that are separate issues: 1) Did B&B abide by the current "playrules"? (if we are being strict) - No, as they are making money using some one elses IP (and those people are still alive) 2) Is the current copyright laws problematic and be changed? - This is the hard part with no real right answer (only different ways it benefits different people) Do I think that people writing fanfics and similiar as hobby should get copyright strikes and have to license every time? No (I have a heart :winking_face:) Do I think the laws need to be adjusted to help and protect creators during their lifetime, but maybe not the giga-corps that buy up the copyright after their death? Yes, yes I do. Thank you for making the video, I really enjoyed it and also reading all the comments!
@alexh8716 2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for this! There was something niggling at the back of my brain about corporations and copyright of works whose creators have died, but I don't have actual knowledge of that. I just have a vague remembrance of some corporation managing to extend copyright past public domain and people being upset about it.
@rowens.yarnings 2 жыл бұрын
I love the unofficial bridgerton musical but I was hoping they'd use it as jumping off point to create their own 'original' content. personally I believe copyright should end the calendar year after the creator has passed away, at that point their ability to exploit the content has ended, personally I don't really see a point in their estate being able to both exploit and gatekeep that content for another seventy or so years.
@leenanorms 2 жыл бұрын
Yeah I think I agree with that! Especially because I'm not massively pro-inheritance (as a concept) - in a better and fairer world we wouldn't need it.
@liv97497 2 жыл бұрын
That's an interesting point, and it brings up the question of whether copyright is supposed to protect the artist/creator or if it's just a tool to commodify ideas. I think I would have to agree with you, especially when one considers the existence of companies that specialize in owning the rights to works/image of deceased people.
@Anna-ie4dq 2 жыл бұрын
About the belief that copyright should end the calendar year after the author has passed away: I used to believe that too, but Neil Gaiman wrote some things that changed my views. Namely, if an author only becomes successful late into their life or passes away while their children are still underage, the income from the books should go to supporting their family (grieving partner currently unemployed due to childcare included). So I think a copyright of up to 20 or 25 years after death would be fair and would enable partners and children to become financially stable. But 70 years is just excessive...
@viewholicsanonymous Жыл бұрын
Girl, I am sure loving your video, touching on so many good topics. The ending was beautiful and you didn't tear anybody apart, but instead tried to bring people together, love ya!
@astronutn 2 жыл бұрын
Even with no knowledge of law, we can all probably agree the girls took it too far and it intuitively feels icky. I hope they don’t win 🤣😭
@mb.7105 2 жыл бұрын
This reminds me of Warner Bros (I think? Whoever owns the rights to Harry Potter) suing the college kids who made "A Very Potter Musical" way back in 2010ish. Although those kids weren't getting significant financial compensation or awards attention, it was just a silly low-budget parody that got a lot of views online.
@KaylaKasel 2 жыл бұрын
I think Starkid has come to some kind of a legal agreement now? But I don't know all the details.
@mb.7105 2 жыл бұрын
@@KaylaKasel yeah I think they ended up having to rename the show. But it's still pretty amazing that they were able to keep it online despite using characters that belong to a big franchise.
@atkcsc 2 жыл бұрын
Bridgerton (the novel especially) is not original in the sense that the novels repetitively use the same rom-com tropes (and it doesn't even have the racial diversity and tongue-in-cheek juxtaposition of the past with the present that the series is maybe most known for). However, those are rom-com tropes that the writer has not based on and even named and marketed as the same (copyrighted) thing that has existed previously. So this isn't a discussion about copyright laws being taken too far, I think it is fair to sue in this context. If Barlow and Bear would have taken the tropes and some character and story beats from Bridgerton but named the story + characters something else once they started profiting off it, we would be having a more exciting discussion. Maybe it would be something more akin to if Stephanie Meyer tried to sue E. L. James.
@liviasoro1959 2 жыл бұрын
What I think is: the theater scene, especially big musical scene, is so hard to access by small creators. Without a platform like tik tok and the Bridgeton name they could have never had the exposure they got. But what if at some point they changed the name of the protagonists and called it something else... Would that protect them from lawsuits? And would that be fair?... And then I think about Starkid, for example. Starkid do parodies, but still... Where do you draw the line? Let's say I decide to make a musical adaptation of a movie or a grafic novel I like... Should I just change the names and make it mine, or should I involve the original creator? And if the original creator says no, is it too late to just change the names and make it my thing?
@juanitacanon3120 2 жыл бұрын
With Avpm they had a deal with wb and didn’t charge money for any showing, and it falls in fair use as it’s a parody. And I’m not sure if just changing the names would do anything if they still copy the plot , but there are fanfics that have been published like 50 shades or mortal instruments , so I guess on how much you change the original work.
@mophead_xu 2 жыл бұрын
@@juanitacanon3120 sorry to nitpick a typo, but you said "... _fails_ in fair use ..." when that should've been "falls". the typo changes the whole meaning of the sentence, lol. as for 50sog and mortal instruments, afaik they both started as AUs? (i remember for sure 50sog was; idk how much of an alternate universe TMI was though.) so from that alone, even in their original fanfic form before all the names and settings were changed, they were already well established to be within the transformative works boundary. whereas for the UBM, i heard they also lifted several quotes from the show/book verbatim. so that, coupled with ... everything else, i feel is what makes their work more dubious in terms of transformative works compared to the other examples.
@juanitacanon3120 2 жыл бұрын
@@mophead_xu yah I agree the UBM is infringing copyright , they just adapted the same story , plot, characters, lines, into another medium.
@mophead_xu 2 жыл бұрын
@@juanitacanon3120 true. and when they started charging actual cash money for their performance ... yeah that's a bye bye. 💀💀
@juanitacanon3120 2 жыл бұрын
@@mophead_xu not only that, but also refusing the license Netflix offered, like bruh 🙈💀
@immaskinnywhitebitch 2 жыл бұрын
It would be interesting to compare this to 50 shades of grey. To me this is the biggest modern example of a work of "art" that was directly and brazenly taken from another existing franchise but changed enough before release that it can be considered different. I don't know if Stephanie Myers received anything for it? I'm assuming not.
@livelovelife32 2 жыл бұрын
I read an interview at some point. Can't remember if Myers got compensation but she did say that she found the whole thing 'weird'. I don't think she ever did watched the movies. However, got to say whilst it's based on Twilight and have certain similarities most people won't even know it was unless told. That to me shows how you can use a story as a basis yet still do your own thing.
@amandagrubbs3855 2 жыл бұрын
I found this video the most insightful discussion of the topic I've seen, and I really, really appreciate your views from an artistic expression. I do love the ways of compromise and considering compromise in the future as to how we look at things, but ultimately I agree with you on all counts! Excellent video, and thanks so much for saying things I haven't heard elsewhere!
@Baddylongway 2 жыл бұрын
I thinking your approach to this as a issue of creativity is really liberating. I was just talking about a fringe show i saw that was focused on riffing on other media, and genuinely a lot of it was just pointing at the original and laughing, which is unfortunate because the best and brightest of the show was when that was just the jumping off point. The current dramatical practice is one of taking the Shakespeare and running, as it were, because the bard is long dead and so you can take the skeleton and find your own excitement within. But with these franchises there's no space for that not just for copyright reasons but for risk of alienating the audience and while I think fanfiction gets this, larger works like these really can't, which is a shame because fundamentally these creators lock themselves in a cage of having to retell another person's story.
@victoriakmartin 2 жыл бұрын
I think Netflix's Bridgerton was always going to be successful, pandemic or not. The books have been big in the romance world for twenty years. But I am not sure if the Unofficial Musical would have blown up as much.
@OlgaDoletskaya 2 жыл бұрын
This is not entirely related, but I was surprised to find out that in the Soviet Union copyright only concerned things produced within the soviet union, so any and all films, music and books made outside of it were fair game. This, of course, isn’t the way to go, but it created a wonderful world of amazingly skilled translations of western books and music integrated into films and cartoons. For example, the first time soviet people would’ve heard the Beatles was in a childrens animation by Soyz Multfilm
@holdensanders2858 Жыл бұрын
I watched a couple of legal analyses of this. I liked your artistic take.
@Imallwrite212 Жыл бұрын
Well said! Something that really bothers me about the TV show (I never read the book) is that the main character in season 1 purposely breaks consent lines with her husband while having sex, and it really bothers me that we're still supposed to root for her and not look at that critically and with distain and call it SA. Sure, she was lied to, mislead, etc, but I just don't think it's okay, and def don't feel good about a happy ending in that regard that seems so easily won in comparison to what happened between them.
@pamelagroat7294 2 жыл бұрын
Gosh this is so thoughtful, much appreciated content! Thank you for back-peddling on not wanting another magic mike movie.
@ambersampson744 2 жыл бұрын
Some of the quotes you used were just, 10/10, chef's kiss.
@TheFlowMind 2 жыл бұрын
When I heard they were doing this musical I was surprised they let it slide but it was covid and so on. Well Netflix has all the rights to sue them. It’s a fanfiction, you can’t go on and sells a fanfiction written I’m using characters, concepts, music of other artists.
@glimmeringshard 2 жыл бұрын
When I saw the vid I was curious what you might add, because I know you always manage to ✨elevate✨ a topic and you managed it again, to ask bigger questions from one particular example.
@kdonaldson7308 2 жыл бұрын
Great video, on my initial view I’m with Netflix from a legal POV but I would be interested in seeing if lawtube publish/cover the suit for both sides, but from a social POV I do like the idea of reducing copyright laws or relaxing them to allow others to be able play with creative pieces more without stealing … also I got your collection in the post today from Waterstones 💕
@tillm2481 2 жыл бұрын
as long as there is no statement it all is just speculation...it is the same as there would have been only Amber Heards claims...until court....all these youtube videos are now making pr for Shonda Rimes...and she knows this...the lawsuit was released on a Friday....since then only copy&paste articles....Shonda Rimes knew that Barlow&Bear won‘t be making a public statement for weeks...so she is influencing the public ...very clever
@ravic6286 2 жыл бұрын
Articulate and concise, respects, thank you
@FrenchTheLlamas 2 жыл бұрын
I agree with you on this case but somehow my opinion is different for A Very Potter Musical despite the fact that they also monetised their production at certain points. Is it just because it's so damn good?
@liriodendronlasianthus 2 жыл бұрын
A Very Potter Musical is a parody, protected by parody law. B&B are using Bridgerton lines to write songs. Starkid has made many many original musicals since. B&B has yet to do anything outside of Bridgerton, at least nothing as successful.
@mophead_xu 2 жыл бұрын
didn't duchamp submitted the urinal to challenge the gatekeeping of art itself, wherein a couple people (i.e. committee boards of art houses/exhibitions) decide by their own biases what is considered art and what isnt? framing the urinal as him being a "fine artist" exercising the privilege of doing whatever and having people call it art solely because it was him doing it, feels really disingenuous tbh. edit: just double checked, and, yeah. ALSO not only did he submitted the urinal to challenge the notion of "what is art", he also did it anonimously, to the very exhibition he was part of the board of, after his peers claimed they were willing to accept any submission of art in any form as long as the artist paid the entrance fee. _and they rejected his urinal._ it definitely wasn't a case of "claimed to be art because a well known artist made it and slapped their signature on it." no one even knew it was his at first, and his signature wasn't what elevated the urinal into an art piece; all the context surrounding it was what made it an art piece.
@9thgalaxy778 2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the video, Leena! Did anyone see the issue with Hamilton recently? A church in Texas put on an unauthorised production of it, but switched some lines to randomly reference Jesus/god. I think there was one line which was originally “I’m not afraid, I know who I married” but it became “I’m not afraid, my hope is in Jesus.” And I think after some shows they had sermons where they compared homosexuality to alcoholism. I think it raises an interesting point about the way commercially successful and culturally significant art can be hijacked.
@konxthxn7401 2 жыл бұрын
They Cressida Cowper-ed Julia Quinn lmao
@user-es7ui5mc1m 2 жыл бұрын
Did you forget to put the paragraph from Breaking into Song? I can't find it in the description and there's no pinned comment. Very sorry if it's super obvious and I'm just missing it!
@valeniricibar6644 2 жыл бұрын
Was just wondering if Mickey Jo did a video on this and of course you quote him 😂 I haven’t interacted with Bridgerton per se (except Hannah Witton’s analysis of it in a Pleasure Trove vid, I think) but really enjoyed your take and am really curious to see how this turns out. Hopefully fans will still be able to interact with the music/concept album Edited to add 1) Jack Edwards’ video reading Bridgerton and 2) Karolina Zebrowska’s analysis of season 2 costumes! Again, haven’t watched Bridgerton but they were very interesting 😅
@mathilde4117 2 жыл бұрын
Leena, you never disappoint me. Thank you for your videos.
@bookishkat.3390 2 жыл бұрын
Thank you Leena for this very interesting video. I've never watched Bridgerton the show and I'm not on tiktok so only heard about the musical in passing but I enjoyed thinking about the different facets of the problem.
@katierose6424 2 жыл бұрын
I think bridgerton did have an impact bigger than panny D - we're all still talking about it more than we are than even Persuasion which came out... Two.... Three weeks ago? I bet a lot of people forgot about tiger king as well! So fascinating in this situation thinking about who Mosley whom as to what b&b could and couldn't perform. B&b lawyers? B&b themselves? Netflix confusing legal jargon? Internet? Tbh I think Netflix right to sue if all they filed for is true, but also brings a lot of other fan made content into question. If a creator is paid to be at a comicon and they go dressed as a character, what happens? Verrrrry murky area
@blushingbearhere 2 жыл бұрын
I find original concepts are strange and impossible and I’m doing a PhD which to even pass it needs to be an “original contribution to knowledge”. I also find copyright law suits strange like the Kat Von D tattoo and photographer law suit.
@phoebetaylor8247 2 жыл бұрын
Incredible video Leena, so insightful. Definitely opened my mind.
@schmauften 2 жыл бұрын
One question I haven't been able to find the answer to - did they not make money from the album? Streaming and sales?
@flagerdevil 2 жыл бұрын
I would love to have a world without money, and so no need for copy rights. (Ubuntu movement, if you want to know more)
@somanypetals 2 жыл бұрын
I agree!!! And god do we need new ideas and less echoes!!! But also I’m uhhhh…gonna go back to writing freak folk songs that use verbatim lines from Riverdale as song lyrics and feeling like a galaxy brain genius about it bc sometimes the muse just has an itch to scratch 😌
@deeanndavis1256 2 жыл бұрын
I haven't finished the video yet-about a 3rd in, but I highly recommend Emily D, Baker, who is a lawyer and has started to cover this. She goes over the documents and I believe intends to continue to cover it. It may help explain why they turned down the licensing. It did for me, but I couldn't explain it like EDB does.
@harrypotteravenclaw 2 жыл бұрын
What's the issue with replicas? Wouldn't you want to see what made the original so popular?
@samanthabartlett4562 2 жыл бұрын
Tldr: late stage capitalism is a bitch As someone working on a masters in information and library science I have THOUGHTS and FEELINGS about copyright. I will try not to get into the full rant but the short version is that (in the US at least) Disney lawyers had a Huge hand in the actual wording of some of the most recent copyright laws (specifically the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998) that expanded protection of copyrighted works, especially works with corporate authorship and now they are absolutely insane and SO far from the origional intent of copyright which was (supposedly) to protect individual creators/thinkers and encourage the advancement of ~society~
@MollyLikovich 2 жыл бұрын
I have no idea why they didn’t just change the names & not use direct line by line dialogue. EL James that sh1t guys.
@sunnys2434 2 жыл бұрын
Absolutely loved this video! Such a good critique and discussion
@flora2419 2 жыл бұрын
That's such a good video, and on a great theme too ! As an artist, it's VERY interesting 🤔
@sophiawoodward4838 2 жыл бұрын
Do NOT come fro the treasure that is Magic Mike XXL!
@olivelee1 2 жыл бұрын
yesss love when my fave creator covers things i've been so fascinated by!!! you're the best leena!
@user-em3vg6ui4g 2 жыл бұрын
Now I think about it Barlow and Bear were profiting off a show created by a Black woman
@-White-Noiz- 2 жыл бұрын
Oh common now, the books were by a white woman🙄 not everything is about race
@mimosho7875 2 жыл бұрын
Based on novels by a white lady…. Sort of an identity politics ouroboros
@tillm2481 2 жыл бұрын
with a fake black queen...Queen Charlotte born in North Germany....not all Germans are blonde with blue eyes....so the story is ridiculous....
@timtreefrog9646 2 жыл бұрын
Leena you need to watch Emily D Baker on You Tube. She is an ex-lawyer who covers pop culture. She is reading all of the court documents surrounding this and explaining them. Bear and Barlow do have lawyers. Their project is "The Unofficial Bridgerton. " I need to catch up, but the last legal document showed that Netflix HAD in fact given Barlow and Bear permission to use The Unofficial Bridgerton before the paid for musical performances were produced. They didn't just let it slide during the early stages, permission was sought and given. The court case seems to be specifically surrounding the copying of characters. I will edit this comment once I've caught up with Emily's analysis.
@soniashapiro4827 2 жыл бұрын
Copyrights last much too long. 25 years seems like a good compromise. 10 years might be better except it might take 10 years to write a book. At the rate we're going nothing will ever be added to the public domain again!
@debbiep99 2 жыл бұрын
I don't understand what being women have anything to do with this situation. So are you saying if it was work created by a man it would be fine for them to steal it and not pay them for the use of their brand? This rhetoric needs to stop. Wrong is wrong regardless of if it is a male or female doing it
@stephaniedalportofantasy 2 жыл бұрын
Fascinating!
@gamewrit0058 2 жыл бұрын
Oof, this is going to be bad for transformative works everywhere, whatever the official outcome. And I assume the laws of at least two countries are involved. Did you say it's the same characters and a lot of verbatim lines? Of a currently running show. Maybe the score is unique or transformative? Haven't watched or listened to either of them, but I trust your thought that it's like your little brother following you around all day copying everything you say. But I do understand why there would be at least hesitation to entering a licensing agreement, especially at the point it was offered: Netflix could own it, require changes, or pull the plug; accepting a licensing agreement or any compensation - even a McDonald's gift card - could be considered settling out of court?!!!; and there's the artistic integrity argument that individuals, corporations, and publishers like to cite.
@BookNomming 2 жыл бұрын
I absolutely adore the musical songs that Barlow and bear created and was a big ganz went to the London charity concert and was debating the royal Albert hall one before it was cancelled. But it’s frustrating when it looks like Netflix is in the right. I think they are young and got wrapped up in the response and the excitement and also want the fans were asking for. I think social media has a lot to answer for things about copyright as well at the moment. I don’t think bridgerton is unique however, it’s a well known genre that got a bit more steamy and was on a large platform that marketed it well. In the case of Barlow and bear I so want to root for them but the lines became murky on who owns what. Do I think conversations with Netflix should have started earlier.. yes… do I think that the struggling company saw a way to make money and so decided to call it in… also yes…. But do I also think Barlow and bear should have continued and ignored Netflix … no. It’s a fine line I guess with artistic license and as someone who is writing her own fan fiction. I know the ultimately it could never see the light of day but I’m having fun on the journey. Basically I have mixed feelings as a huge fan, I kind of feel let down and frustrated but also wishing that there was a better solution that wouldn’t have come down to this
@jazzycat8917 2 жыл бұрын
Its not murky at all. Netflix, Shondaland and Julia Quinn own the collective rights here. B&B do not. The second they started charging money for content containing characters and story they dont own with word for word dialogue they didnt write under a copyright protected logo they did not have permission to use, they were immediately in the wrong, legally AND ethically. Its cut and dry.
@oushbaboosh5578 2 жыл бұрын
This video feels messy, if I’m following: original ideas don’t exist, we always build on other ideas and creativity is an interactive process, but also copy right and trademark matter because financial gain without legal claim is bad, also some examples of copy right going too far, then again we do need more ‘original’ ideas e.g. films because so much of the same shite is being produced… it’s not just a messy topic, you mix up many assiociated but distinct problems and concepts. Such as, the difference between original and creative, copy right and trademark and its limitations for creativity and the power of bigbusiness, the endless reproduction of ideas (culture industry), and frankly the difference between scientific ideas building on each other, scoentific or technological inventions and art.. And lastly, what is really at stake when an (artistic) idea is stolen? (apart from missing out on financial gains..) Great video but it needs some demarcation..
@CraigSimmonds 2 жыл бұрын
FOURTH!
Still Watching Netflix
Рет қаралды 175 М.
ET Live
Рет қаралды 44 М.