What gets me is that even if Netflix offered them the worst licensing deal in the world that could not be negotiated further or was nonnegotiable, you can't just . . . do the show anyways??? That's not how it works?? You can't just say ✨no✨ and be like, "how about I do anyway"

it feels to me as if the girls got greedy? because netflix + shondaland _offered_ them a licensing deal, a legally sound way to stage the concerts so, it was mutually beneficial but they rejected it? it’s even more bizarre as barlow & bear _have_ agents and representatives, a whole team around them and even then, they turned it down and sealed their fate. it’s a shame that this could’ve so easily been avoided but now, there’s absolutely no chance that barlow & bear will win. and this spotlight on fan works + copyright will put other fan works at risk too.

I'm still shocked that they were nominated for and won a grammy using someone else's IP. Blows my mind.

At the end of the day, Barlow and Bear broke the law. IP laws are there to protect artists. Julia Quinn speaking out against this was the nail in the coffin for me.

okay, this may be TOO hot of a take, but- if they’re SO confident in their composition skills and writing talents, then why are they clinging so desperately onto content that isn’t even based in a story they created themselves??? If they truly believe they’re talented and capable, why can’t they just take this in stride and move on? Seems like a toxic combination of insecurity, pride, and greed to me

I find it worrying how many people support Barlow and Bear pretty much stealing someone else's work and making a profit. When it was a fun musical made by fans to celebrate they’re love for the franchise it was one thing, the second it crossed over into them selling out a concert and making profit it became stealing someone else’s work. The impact this could have on smaller creators is outrageously dangerous and people need to see past Netflix being a huge company and realise what Barlow and Bear have put into jeopardy. Fan made content has always been left untouched because we don’t make a profit off it, them crossing that line could make Netflix less likely to allow fan made content such as the original album to even happen in the future. They got greedy, no one should be supporting them.

when I first saw this I was angry at netflix, but Julia Quinn’s statement really changed my mind. As a writer, if someone took a book I wrote and created a musical, I would love that. But if they started to make money off of it I would be furious. I spent years creating those characters and those stories, they aren’t there for other people to profit off of

Oceans Away was a great line taken from one of the few gay characters in the show and given to Daphne for Daphne's song and that will never not upset me. It was a male character explaining that a straight man would never understand what it was like to not be with the person they love in a society that doesn't accept them. It was given to the straight female lead who is not in that situation whatsoever. Like... I'm sorry... but no. That's hands down not cool and why, even if this legal situation didnt exist, I still would be side eyeing B&B.

I’ve studied IP law and the biggest issue here is that they were profiting off of licensed product. They were profiting not only off the show but the merch, and this is where it differs from other transformative works (i.e. fanfiction, fanart, and simply writing the songs for fun).

I think Netflix has no choice. If they don't then what stops someone doing a Jukebox 80's musical of stranger things, or Emily In Paris the musical. If they were putting the musical on in a village hall I might have some sympathy for them, but selling out the Kennedy center with no rites to the material and misleading people into thinking they have Netflix blessing is wrong in my view..

What a mess, how was it even eligible for a nomination then winning a Grammy? Even that felt like a red flag. As for Netflix concern of Broadway Actors involvement performing at the Kennedy Centre; the optics of having well known Broadway Actors legitimizes the project as being legal professional performance. Could the Actors sue the authors as well? How did the Kennedy Center allow a non licensed show in such a heavely Unionized venue to go on?

Also, for women who are sooooo talented and innovative or whatever, they sure are clinging on hard to the Bridgerton musical. All of Barlow’s other music is practically ignored or unknown. Emily bear has been in the industry forever and her work is much more well known (she’s written songs for Disney, for example). But either way, why would you ruin your career before it’s even started by fighting with freaking NETFLIX over a mediocre musical made from stolen IP…

Rule #1 of creating any fan content: generally it's all good, unless you try to start making money off of it. This is just one of the reasons ao3 doesn't have ads on their website, or an app for reading fanfiction. It sucks that B&B decided not to take a licensing deal. I think the musical could've been something big given B&B had not been so greedy. While they own the music, they don't own the storyline or characters and it's messed up for them to act like they do.

As much as I usually stand up for the little guy, Netflix hasn't done anything wrong here. I don't see what other choice they would have had other than just letting people trample over their licensing rights. I'm confused about why the composers thought they could push it this far with no repercussions. If I were a producer/investor of big-budget musicals, I'd be wary about getting involved with these two on any of their future projects.

The Ratatouille Musical did it right. It was a TikTok collar to make an unofficial music, it was AMAZING, and it was free. One and done. That’s what this should’ve been. I love the songs so much but I struggle to support them now because of the potential ramifications of their greed on fan communities.

I'm on Netflix's side even if the offered license was bad - it's tough luck you don't own the IP! Plus I find it weird that Bear liked a tweet saying Netflix should have filmed the unofficial bridgerton performance at the Kennedy centre and then put it up on the service! I really want to know how they thought IP/Copyright didnt apply to them! I'm very interested to see how BB will respond to this!

Total guess, but I imagine the use of broadway actors adds further insult because these are professional musical performers. So it (a) further takes the work out of the fan culture it originated within, (b) makes it look more 'official' and (c) has even more potential to infringe on a stage musical should Netflix themselves ever want to create one.

Coming from a film school background, I was advised that if someone steals your work and YOU KNOW IT and have proof, wait until the revenue comes in. Why? Because if you tell them before your creative idea takes off, the producers will kill it. You won't get any money and it won't be seen. If you wait and then see the revenue, you have a tangible amount that you can ask for. People will know that you wrote this thing and that another person stole it. That's probably why Netflix waited this long and was willing to work with the women.

Some people are saying that Netflix made a profit thanks to the musical. It’s questionable at best, but even if you assume they did… so what? Let’s say I published a book, and Netflix made a TV show based on it without licensing it. The show became a hit, and the sales of my book went through the roof. So I’m supposed to say thank you and all is well? The main point is simply the fact that they are selling a product that they don’t have full rights to. Any profits and so on are just secondary.

Being a romance reader for decades, I had read some of Julia Quinn's Bridgerton book series before the show was even thought of, and to be honest, when I heard that Shonda Rhimes was developing it as a TV series, I was both happy for Julia Quinn and the romance genre which has always been underrated and derided, but also mystified. To be frank, the romance genre is flush with historical romances set at the same time as Bridgerton and Bridgerton's not even the best of them, in my opinion. In any event, I just wanted to put that out there. I was really pleased that Bridgerton became a streaming success because I thought it would open the doors for more romance genre adaptations -- maybe of work I like better than Bridgerton. This is why, I support Netflix's position because *they* took the chance; they bought the rights off of a popular romance author; they saw the worthiness and invested money, time, and talent. Barlow and Bear, who I had never heard of before this, basically came in at the tail end, lifted most of the work, and put it to music, ultimately profiting off of others' vision, investment, and talent. But what *really* surprises me is that B&B won a Grammy and that the Kennedy Center put this show on without checking if they had the legal right to do so. The Grammy organization and the Kennedy Center are no neophytes! What the heck?!

I think Julia Quinn (the author of the books the series is based on) frequently gets overlooked in this. Although people are casting Netflix as villains due to them being a bit corporation, the fact that the original creator is also not getting royalties is definitely a bad look for Barlow and Bear. I really don’t know how they thought they’d get away with this, especially since Netflix tried to make them a deal and they turned it down. I also think if they had staged the concert at the Kennedy Center as a benefit concert, Netflix would have been less likely to crack down vs doing it for profit as they did.

I was not surprised when I saw this news at all. I’ve seen some asking why it has taken Netflix until now, but lawsuits can take time and are often the last resort. Tbh a part of me has no sympathy because this was obviously going to happen. But I hope it can be sorted out

Imagine if this legal case became a play and that play was faced with a suit

I'm a writer and I have a master's degree in publishing. The amount of money/work/efforts made by a publisher/producer/studio to transform a piece of work into a sellable and hit phenomenon is INSANE. It can cost SO MUCH (money and creative energy). That's why they earn money from the sales. That's why they take a cut of everything. Because THEY made it happen. I had never heard of Bridgerton before the Netflix show, and even if the books had their success, it hadn't crossed as much countries and hadn't reach nearly as much people as it did with Netflix. Making money off of Bridgerton BEFORE Netflix would already be problematic for the author, who was working hard on it. Now, it's profiting off the works of a lot of people. AND no one had the millions they probably invested to bring Bridgerton into the massive success they made it. Those two women are trying to take money without investing anything in broad marketing and intesive effort for making it known and sold. I am not on their side here ; Netflix has bought rights and invested a lot. They made it happen. They deserve the money they earned. Being a big studio/name doesn't change that.

Julia Quinn and Shonda have every right to this. Basically I don’t give a damn what Netflix as a corporation thinks in any moral argument, but those individuals actually matter

Tbh: they were really dumb. One of the first things I have learned in working in theatre was: make sure that you own the rights to literally EVERYTHING. And of them to say: "But I don't want to work with the original creators and be involved with Netflix" when they were offering to work with them is just ignorant and again really really stupid, because if they wouldn't have been so successful with what they are doing they would probably never have gotten the offer to get the rights. It is so hard as a creator to get the rights to something of this caliber and they just said: "No." And of course as a creator the Netflix team and Julia Quinn want to be involved in the process of creating something based on their work (it would have been much better of a show if the Barlow and Bear would have read the books, because they are suited much better for the stage than the TV Show but that is a different story). I do not wish to deny that Barlow and Bear do have potential and are talented. But the whole time they were just behaving really unprofessionally and as someone who works in the musical theatre industry and who knows how annoying the questions about rights and when you want to make changes to something etc. can be it honestly makes me a bit mad. Because: yes it is one of the not so nice parts of the job. But it also is part of the job. And I am sad to see young female talent wasted because of stupidity. Netflix will win this case because Netflix is in the right.

I mean no - these people don’t have the rights to make money on Julia Quinn’s and Netflix’s properties without paying for it. I should think it should be obvious.

This will almost certainly settle. What people need to understand is you can lose IP rights if you don’t enforce them. Most organizations tolerate low level stuff like fan fiction, but a large amount of infringement becomes problematic.

Here’s something else, the Kennedy Center is where shows that are intended for Broadway often debut/have their out-of-town runs. B&B could have picked any number of amazing venues in D.C., picking this one was big ol signal what their future intentions were. Those “Broadway stars” weren’t there by accident, those were people prepping for a future a long-running gig.

I just did the math about their income from Spotify streams alone. Based on their streams and the average income per stream, they have made (excluding tax or other fees I may know nothing about) around $190,471.66. That is nearly $200,000. From IP that is nowhere near theirs. Netflix is fully within their rights to want to pursue a legal course of action for what can really be considered stealing at this point.

It's funny because months ago at my college (I go to a theater conservatory) we were talking about this musical and Ratatouille. My teacher was telling us how upset he was that the two composers were getting away with this because they didn't have permission, and that he could see this having large legal ramifications for this show and any other musicals that did this

this is so cut and dry. B&B have zero rights to this property and to think otherwise is arrogance. Netflix was being generous to let them take it this far. sadly, if B&B had been more cooperative we might have seen an official version. Now we will never see a B&B Bridgerton and B&B have just shot their career in the head.

As a published author I would be livid if someone took my original book -- whether it had been made into a TV show or film or not -- and decided to create a new work without the permission of me, my publisher, and so on. In actual fact, even I -- according to my book contracts -- cannot create derivative works without the permission of my publisher. These two women are either completely ignorant of, or have no respect for, copyright. I find it strange when creators abuse the rights of other creators. Would they be happy if someone created a work based on their original content without obtaining a license or other rights.

I absolutely ADORE Barlow & Bear, but still I fully support Shondaland and Julia Quinn in this. Barlow & Bear did take this too far. They clearly poured a lot of work into writing the songs, but their songs do include direct quotes and dialogue from the show/books, which is material they just simply do not own. The licensing deal Netflix offered them was probably not that great (Netflix probably wanted a huge cut of the profit), but Barlow & Bear probably still should have taken it or either tried to negotiate a new deal (which maybe they did, we don’t know yet). Or if they didn’t want that they should have pulled an E.L. James and just heavily rewrite and change the songs to create their own story and remove the Bridgerton references.

Disney got a ton of bad press over the years for going after day care centers with Mickey Mouse painted on their walls etc. In this current climate of fan content, Netflix's restraint makes sense. But it's hard to insert yourself into a David and Goliath story when you've just filled the Kennedy Center with a performance of a property you had no rights to. Though, I wonder if they counted on the proceeds from these performances to fund their own stuff, especially if they couldn't attract backers? Mounting a show is insanely expensive.

I’ve honestly been under the false assumption the whole time that this was a parody musical they had written. I had not listened to any of the music, but now that I know it isn’t really the same as some of the other parody musicals we’ve seen before this, I’m just surprised it took Netflix this long to file a lawsuit. It does seem like Netflix was attempting to work out a deal with them which maybe explains why it has now come to this.

I’d be really interested to hear counter arguments from BnB’s legal reps. I can’t believe they would have gone this far knowing Netflix was actively opposed.

The Devil works hard but Mickey Jo works harder 💖 Reading legal filings for our benefit on his holidays, truly above and beyond.

Not only is this theft, but Netflix have an incentive to act (from a legal standpoint) to preserve the brand identity of their product too. If someone sees the musical and isn't impressed, they may mistakenly believe its quality is a reflection on the quality of Netflix/ the Bridgerton show and books. There are also some odd laws about defending trademarks, where they could lose their Bridgerton branding rights if they don't actively defend it from being used by others.

I’ve seen some people act like Netflix should give B&B a pass because the musical was good promo. Not denying that the musical was good promo for the show, but it’s clear to me that B&B benefitted from the association more than Netflix did. When the show aired it was starting with a built in fanbase from the books and the Shonda Rhimes brand. Add to that everyone binging because of the pandemic and it was bound to be a hit. Any fans the show picked up from the musical were just gravy. B&B are incredibly talented but they wouldn’t be performing at the Kennedy Center at this point in their career if they weren’t attached to Bridgerton. The musical became famous because of the popularity of the show not the other way around. I’m sure the terms of the deal Netflix offered them weren’t great, but they could have used the opportunity to build their brand and audience before launching an original project.

Thank you for actually going through the detail of this. Initial reaction is to hate the big corporation and route for the little guys but when you read the details, netflix has been incredibly restrained in not kicking off until the point where Barlow and Bear really stepped over the line and performed this and yes turned a profit, because the reality is money makes the world go round and its what is going to upset people. Barlow and Bear are either being very badly advised, naive or just plain greedy to think this is OK. If someone else took their songs and played them in a big concert with out their permission they wouldn't like it, so they can't take netflix IP and use it to make a profit even if netflix is a big corporation. I hope netflix is just suing to make a point and not for any major financial sum. Just to try and deter anyone else from doing this. End conclusion: Fanfiction is fine, just don't profit from it

I am a big believer in "girl, get that coin", esp when it comes to fanfiction turned original fiction. And I also spent mannny years as a StarKid fan, who are most known for their parody musicals. As someone who creates fan content, I truly love the creativity of fan communities and support people making money. However, this whole situation concerns and disappoints me. I think they are putting fanworks broadly in jeopardy if it doesn't go their way (and I don't think it will). Which really sucks, because fanworks are the backbone of so many fan communities. Barlow and Bear took it too far with their for-profit performances, especially as they were actively saying f you more or less to Netflix in their private interactions with them. It seems like this could have continued and been resolved with little issue, but they (or their legal counsel) weren't super interested in that. It seems to me that Barlow and Bear wanted to be the next combo of Starkid and Marlow and Moss. They wanted the fame/fandom that came with a fanwork on the poppy/viral scale of SIX. But they should have, as you suggested, used their Bridgerton work as a platform to launch their original work. Yet, because of this, I think they will be as stuck as they once feared to be, broadly known as the Bridgerton girls.

“It is Netflix or Barlow and bear.” That got me chuckling 😂😂 thank you for commenting on all the drama ❤️

Assuming there isn't some glaring misinformation in the Netflix legal filing (which seems unlikely), they were so much more reasonable about all of this than they had to be. There have always been unofficial lines in the sand when it comes to fanworks and Barlow and Bear seem to have flagrantly just decided they didn't apply to them. Also did no one at the Kennedy Center ever actually talk to Netflix? If they didn't, I'm a bit surprised they aren't named in the suit too.

As a writer/creator, I honed my writing skills as a youngster by writing (dull and tame) fanfiction for various novels and films - but it would never have occurred to me to try to sell it, especially without permission. Frankly, I'm pretty appalled at the chutzpah. I honestly don't know how the album even made it to the Grammies, much less won. What Barlow and Bear don't grasp is that copyright law exists in large part to prevent small-time creators - i.e., most of us - from being exploited.

I keep misreading/mishearing ‘Barlow and Bear’ as ‘Barnum and Bailey’ so I keep having circus imagery in my mind when this lawsuit is being discussed

Someone should write a musical about Barlow and Bear’s rise using bits of the unofficial soundtracks and their words from their tiktoks ect and sell it as a for profit show and see if they see it all in a different light 😂

Fast becoming the theatre drama channel 48 MINUTES!!!!!!!

i find it really silly that Barlow and Bear refused the license? It would have saved them from all of this hassle, again the terms aren’t known as you said, but they could’ve simply renegotiated until it got to a point where both parties where satisfied? They need to remember they don’t own this it’s someone else’s and they’ve taken it

This is kinda why I hate that transformative works (fanfic, fanart, etc.) have gone mainstream. Like yes we should have the power to create these things but we shouldn’t think that it gives us the right to them. Just because I write Ted Lasso fanfic doesn’t mean that I own it, and should make money on it. Do I want fan works to be considered good art, yes. Just because you riff off the original doesn’t make what you do bad, it just has it’s time and place. Bridgerton the Musical had its time and it’s place, and unless Netflix and Shondaland are going to partner with them, then Barlow & Bear should create new content. Or have retooled the idea of a regency era musical to make it their own, with it’s own book and some new songs.

So glad you decided to talk about this! I saw a news article yesterday and wanted to know more about it. Also I am on Netflix's side on this😶 I think Barlow & Bear should work on an original musical, now that they have a good following and people like their music.

That's all we fans ever wanted was for Barlow and Bear to work with Netflix in hopes for the Bridgerton musical to come to stage one day. Hearing that they refused any deals with Netflix is highly disappointing 😞

Fanworks for media are so much more commonly accepted or supported these days. Thirty years ago it wasn't unheard of for fanfic authors *who were making no profit* to receive cease and desists. I love that these fan creations can spark out of online spaces and it's a delight to get to share love for a media in a personal and creative way, but their existence is dependent on their not-for-profit nature. Barlow and Bear may be setting a precedent that really concerns IP holders in the future, especially by doing this after their representatives apparently assured Netflix that they were not intending to use it for profit right up until they did. I really hope this doesn't impact fan creators in the future.

The problem is this is far bigger than just big cooperation goes after small creators. They dont have the rights to the work they are trying to profit from. And this doesnt just affect fan works. Say the courts decide that Bear and Barlow are well within their rights, what's to stop Netflix or Disney or some other big company from just adapting a popular book into a film or tv series without the author's permission or compensation for using their IP. Big corporations would now legally be able screw smaller creators by just taking their IPs to adapt instead of having to purchase rights

I grew up with Abigail Barlow and knew her family in Alabama and they’re all HORRIBLE entitled people. Anna grace her sister especially who is also an actress, but they’re all bad apples. It does not shock me at all that Abigail is acting so entitled. I hope they get the book thrown at them.

I think it’s been easy for their fans and people to make Netflix the baddie in this but Barlow and Bear did copy and paste the IP of several writers, the producers and Julia Quinn. The fact they were offered a licensing deal and didn’t take it while also using the logo and design etc without permission, they’ll lose if they can’t settle. Great breakdown Mickeyjo and I agree with everything you’ve said. I’m new to your channel and have been binge watching for the past few days

I'm glad you covered this story. I haven't followed it all, but it seems clear that Abigail Barlow and Emily Bear are completely in the wrong. If I staged a musical called OHMYGOD HEY! based on your site and life, including direct quotes from your videos and reviews, with Aeron James and other people from your life as characters, I hope a team of lawyer would descend on me like harpies. In the US (I can't speak for the UK), copyright goes into effect the moment a work is created, whether it's registered with the copyright office or not. The fact that Netflix was "nice enough" to let Barlow and Bear pursue their work (until it became too profitable) shouldn't keep them from going after them now. I suggest that Barlow and Bear sue their legal representatives for malpractice (or the legal equivalent) once this suit is resolved. I'm curious about the guidelines that govern the Grammy organization. Nominating and awarding a prize to work that is clearly not original seems completely irresponsible. I understand wanting to ride the coattails of a successful project -- which is exactly what Barlow and Bear did as well -- but surely someone on their board should have asked some hard questions somewhere along the line.

IF all things in the lawsuit is true it raises at least three questions: 1. Are Barlow & Bear's legal advisers stupid? 2. Are Barlow & Bear stupid? 3. Have Barlow & Bear's legal advisers just lied to Barlow & Bear? (or do we in Europe just not at all understand the Amerícan lawsuit culture and is this just a part of the negotiation??)

Not sure why people are saying netflix not sueing earlier was a bad thing. How many small businesses out there profit from making unlicensed stranger things, bridgerton, tatbilb, etc merch? If they wanted, netflix could’ve already sued all of them for using their copyrighted ip as well. Barlow and bear just got greedy. Netflix clearly is only sueing because b&b got out of hand.

One of the legal standards that a successful copyright case in the US has to cross is proving that the infringing work is causing a negative monetary impact to the rights holders. Most fan made songs, fanfictions, fanarts, etc. will never meet this legal standard. A musical that wins a grammy, performs at prestigious venues, AND outright implies that it's an actual authorized work on the other hand? That does.

Hi intellectual property paralegal here, I think the thing that stands out the most of me is the bold use of TM images in both the Netflix logo and the Bridgeton mark, that’s indefensible. Essentially to use the Mark they’d have to have seen the TM or CO marking meaning they took it and used it anyway. I’d imagine they’d go for damages no greater than the revenue incurred by the concert and possibly the Grammy win simply because it would be a bad look for a successful company to go further but they seem to have ever right to.

I'm on Netflix's side as it seems they did try to work with them and probably explains why they took a while to shut it down

Without knowing anything about them, these ladies strike me as privileged women who have been raised to ask for forgiveness instead of permission, cry a few tears when it serves them, and to let the lawyers handle the rest. It's clearly working for them. 😂

I tend to distrust corporations like Netflix on principle, but I am willing to side with them in this instance given the compelling case their lawyers have presented.

Currently remembering how Starkid Productions got hit with a cease and desist almost immediately for calling their parody show "Harry Potter: The Musical" and it got nowhere near as popular as this. I'm really surprised Barlow and Bear got as far as they did.

The issue with Broadway performers performing shows is that it shows that there was an attempt to present the show as a professional event. Netflix has apparently reached out repeatedly about copyright concerns thus retaining their copyright. It sounds like Netflix tried to work with the Bridgerton group, again retaining their copyright. Abby and Emily have no strong defense against this lawsuit.

This is a wonderful breakdown! As a theatre nerd, a legal nerd, and someone who’s been in fandom for over thirty years, this lawsuit sits perfectly in the Venn diagram of my interests. I have not read/seen/listened to Bridgerton in any form, but Netflix has shown an admirable amount of leeway to Barlow and Bear up to this point. Fanworks are awesome, but I could have seen them initiate legal action at the point where it became a commercially available album. Obviously legal filings are allegations and shade, and we have yet to see B&B’s response, but if Netflix’s account of the timeline of events and communications is substantially true, they are absolutely correct in suing at this point and need to do so in order to protect their IP. If you’re interested in a lawyer’s take on this situation, Hoeg Law on KZfaq covered it this morning.

Take the name Netflix out of this... An author who before that Netflix deal may have made enough to quit their day job but probably isn't living in a mansion had their work stolen from them. Whether you like the books or not is not the issue. You are profiting off an authors work and that I take issue with.

Meh...B&B are morons for stealing someone else's story. In fact, it seems like they did it as free marketing for their songs. If they had named it "Essex the musical" it probably wouldn't have gone viral.

You summarize this very well and eloquently. Anyone who thinks what Barlow and Bear are doing is okay have never produced intellectual property. The end. How about if I come over and steal your car? Why not? People don't really own things, right? I need a car, and you have two, and I like it a lot. I'm a fan of it. Gimme it. Yes, it is the same thing. The writer and creators of Bridgerton OWN THE RIGHTS TO IT. You're not allowed to steal it just because you like it and you want part of it. Write your OWN characters and storyline, and then you can make a musical of it. And again, anyone who thinks it's okay has never created characters or a storyline. It may look easy, but it isn't.

Oof, what a mess. Without all the information it's easy to root for the smaller party, but this...seems pretty clear cut in Netflix's favor.

Hello! I am investigator on finance law so I know a little bit about IP infringement. I think Netflix’s filing was very sound and needed. Sounds like Barlow + Bear got greedy and Netflix has great legal grounds to win this case especially after offering a licensing deal. As far as the compensation goes, that will be very tricky to determine: firstly Netflix needs to provide some sort of evidence that compensation was lost in DC because of the Kennedy center show (yes it is easy to infer but you gotta have evidence); secondly some accountants will figure out the math for the supposed lost revenue. But, based off of some basic Googleing the Kennedy Center holds 1,164 people so if everyone paid for a top tier ticket (~$150) that is $174,600 from filled seats so $150,000 for Netflix’s lost revenue sounds reasonable to me. But of course there could come the punitive damages for the IP infringement and the lost revenue, which Washington DC does not have a cap (example there is a cap in VA of $350,000 which we saw in the Heard/ Depp case) so the jury (if it gets to that point) can come up with what they think is a reasonable amount, which could be millions because Bridgerton is so popular. I think it would be in Barlow +Bear’s best interest to settle because I don’t think a jury will side with them. Also, I don’t think Netflix’s filing was that “messy”, it seems sound, well researched, and reasonable. *This is not legal advice, I am not a lawyer but a subject matter expert on financial fraud investigations*

Mickey Jo, you ask why Broadway performers add insult to injury? Because Broadway performers further legitimize the work. It pulls it even further from the realm of innocuous fan fiction, to something far more professional and worthy of high ticket sales.

Perhaps someone along the way thought the word "Unofficial" would save them from a lot of things. I'm interested to hear what Barlow and Bear's response/their side of their story and if they don't respond, well, isn't that a response.

Very weird. I don't understand how they seem to have no understanding of intellectual property laws. The BBC Concert Orchestra are involved in this escapade at the Albert Hall. Strange that they have not pulled their participation on this.

It never entered my head, not for a single second, that they hadn’t sought and got the correct permissions to do it. I’m flabbergasted and think Netflix are absolutely right.

Mickey, I just wanted to say you did a great job taking a legal document and summarizing it in an easy way for an audience that probably has very little experience of them. Well done. I'm not too familiar with USA law so not sure how much they could be seeking. But given the show is being staged in the UK and the our courts tend to award larger amounts I don't think this is really about the money. This is Netflix warning everyone, not just Barlow & Bear, to not steal their IP. It's an investment in all the property they already have the rights to including things that haven't been released yet. They are setting themselves up in the statement as the advocate of the creatives they work with, and not as a giant money grabbing corporation. Winning the case isn't just about the legal decision it is about the court of public opinion. And they got off to a bad start in public. But the 'sassy' legal filing is part of the narrative they are trying to create. It's tone is a little bit reminiscent of Lady Whistledown. Or to quote Colin Bridgerton "what a barb". And it is well timed. Shooting for season 3 is underway, focusing on the story of Colin and Penelope. Stop now to avoid book Spoilers Penelope (aka Lady Whistledown) is protective of her IP when another character claims to be the author instead. A key part of the Romancing Mister Bridgerton story is Pen protecting the legacy she has created. Just like Julia Quinn, and Shonda Rhimes are doing now. And Pen doesn't do it for money, she does it as a matter of pride. But that's just my view. And I could have just spent too much time reading fan fiction and have their characters voices in my head!

As someone who has read quite a bit on IP rights, I'm not really suprised about this case at all and I clearly side with Netflix on this. Thanks for talking about this with such detail, by the way!

This reminds me of the lawsuit involving JK Rowling and the Harry Potter Lexicon website. The creator of the website wanted to turn the website into a book after the series was done. For obvious reasons this was a problem. Not only was it Rowling's work, but many fans world wide had contributed to this website and he was wanting to take credit for it all. The laughable thing about this is he got a no account publishing company here in Michigan to go along with this scheme because no credible publishing house would touch it with a 10 foot pole. Seriously this all happened within a 45 min radius of where I live. This dude, the publishers, and their lawyer came to the University I graduated from to explain how they were very confused why Rowling was suing them. The only reason I knew about this was my youngest sister was a writing major at the time at the same school and told us about it. My sisters and I went to this forum and I went to this forum to see and hear for ourselves what was going on. I just happened to have a digital camera that took video (this was 2007), so I took it along and recorded their lawyer trying to explain their befuddlement as to why Rowling would do this and uploaded it on KZfaq. The local media was very anti Rowling and Warner brothers in this lawsuit and I think we were the only pro Rowling people there. We met the guy who was trying to publish this lexicon and really tried to play it as though we were neutral about the whole thing. Message boards and Livejournal were very big things back then and I was a part of one of the biggest Harry Potter message boards at the time. The three of us found out that (and this is rather quite funny) in the thread about this trial people I had posted the link to my video. People were also linking to two other reviews of the same night and I was like those would be my two sisters. The other thing was it was suspected that Rowling's lawyers were actually reading this particular thread so our reviews and my video may be in a court filing somewhere. It's going to be an uphill battle for these two gals. Especially if they explained their creative process in their videos. Having lived through the circus of the lexicon lawsuit this will be even crazier because inevitably it will be played out on social media.

Thieves should not be able to profit from their theft. They should have to give all the money they raise to charity.

The Harry Potter Musical never got sued because it was covered under parody law in the US, in that it is critical of the original, transformative, and could not be mistaken with the original.

I don’t feel sorry for them, you can tell just by that Emmy picture that these girls are Spoiled… this is probably one of the first time these girls have faced any kind of repercussions

Thank you for the detail on this! I wonder how B&B being advised? As it seems a bit “childish” to think they can do what they want…

Did B&B and no one on their team think of the negative consequence of this? Aside from a massive lawsuit, being shamed by Shonda Rhimes, on the bad side of Netflix, having their names associated with legal battles, and general embarrassment. Did they not think how this would impact their careers going forward? Where is the shame? Where is the decorum?

IP is a minefield. But this feels very brazen on the part of B&B. They reached out for permission, were denied but essentially told “as long as it’s not for profit we won’t stand in your way” and they’ve rallied ahead with a profit making venture which clearly infringes upon the copyright laws. It isn’t a parody. You could argue that the addition of MT style songs is transformative but I imagine that Netflix had that covered in their IP application. This isn’t just a cease & desist demand, which implies that there is clear infringement.

"They had it comin." Shame they didn't value their talent more.

I had bad vibes from the project from the moment the album was announced. I'd never listened to any of the music, nor have I watched Bridgerton, but the way it was marketed gave me the feeling that it wasn't meant to be a parody, and straight up saying "Unofficial" while making it for profit just came across like "we don't have the rights but we don't care". I was shocked when they won the Grammy. I can't believe that it took this long for them to get hit with the lawsuit.

I love your comments and reviews. Your wit and throw away lines are perfectly timed and keep me chuckling well past the finished video. More importantly you are knowledgeable and put the work in. Well done!

What really gets me about this story is how Emily Bear is often referred as an unknown TikTok star. My guess is that's because most people don't know that she has been an accomplished professional musician since she was about 6 years old. She has performed with countless symphony orchestras, at the Hollywood Bowl, at jazz festivals, and had released 7 albums of original music before this musical was ever thought of. Her mentor is Quincy Jones for heaven's sake. She absolutely should have known better, which makes this story even more disappointing,

Thanks so much for clearing all of this up for us, it's very much appreciated!

Netflix should make a documentary about this lol

I was wondering when this was going to happen and I’m not surprised in the least. I don’t know what the girls were thinking here. I understand that Netflix’s deals or offers were probably lowballing B&B but at least they would be able to promote the musical correctly and without issue. It makes sense why Netflix waited, especially before B&B were profiting. Netflix clearly didn’t have an issue really until they did begin to profit, as well as creating false narratives that they were associated with Netflix’s Bridgerton. I’m just disappointed in B&B and this makes me not want to support them going forward. I’m most upset for Julia Quinn and Shonda. Edit: Lowballing wasn’t the right word for what I was trying to express; what I meant is that I’m sure the deal that Netflix laid out for B&B was probably not what the girls thought they were entitled to.

UK Law Student here, so can't speak for the American perspective but anyways, my understanding is that the girls absolutely either got greedy, or got given some of the worst legal advice ever (to the point that I wouldn't be surprised if it was a contract breach between the girls + their legal advisors, because holy shit, this is unfathomably bad). They had an entire team behind them, and got given mutually beneficial contract offers that they chose to decline - yet subsequently still chose to be staging events despite very clear terms that they were not being permitted by Netflix, after Barlowe & Bear misrepresented themselves numerous times, like when they lied about how it'd be the "last time" they perform as that and what not. I came into this video hoping to take the side of Barlowe & Bear, and while I'm hoping that this can reach a peaceful resolution, I think it's undeniable that they (or at least, their teams) are in the wrong. I can't have sympathy for them when they are breaching the intellectual property to such an insane level, and I feel like this was the last resort for Netflix because Netflix 100% knew that by doing this, they'd come off in a bad light for attacking smaller creatives - but even without Netflix, the fact that the original creator has backed up their claims and is against the profiting off the Bridgerton trademark says enough. I think the most likely reasonable option is that this will be settled. Assuming everything in this claim is true, Barlowe & Bear acted completely incorrectly with full, clear knowledge that Netflix was not backing the creation and felt their intellectual property was being breached.

Speaking as a law school graduate, the moment I saw this musical gaining hype and ESPECIALLY when I saw that they'd won a grammy and was now being courted by the 'great' ALW, I knew that it was only a matter of time before they were going to get sued. I don't think it's unfair by any means, legally speaking they don't have any rights to re-purpose someone else's creative content to make themselves rich. Yes, Netflix is a huge media conglomerate with a lot more resources and there will always be a power imbalance between them and smaller creators, but Barlow & Bear went miles ahead of most fan content with what they did. And now that we know they refused to work with Netflix that's just additional fuel to the fire. Anyways, great content as always, Mickey Jo!

Seriously so well done. Thank you for covering this topic so thoroughly and making sure we had all the details. Your channel is amazing, keep up the good work!!!

Oop-no!! They made merchandise?? No, Barlow and Bear. You can’t do that unless they don’t care 😂 But no, they got a bit too greedy near the end there. I really thought they were gonna make the Netflix deal, it would’ve been big. But I guess they just wanted the full recognition-from a OG product that was not even theirs?? 😂

Refusing the licensing deal is probably the most damning piece of evidence. Maybe they thought the grammy win would put them in a better position to negotiate a lisencing deal and it just totally backfired. The tone of the entire thing shifts after the Grammy's, going from asking Netflix if its ok to do a show, to informing them about their concert dates like they're doing them a favour. I'm so interested to hear the other side of the story and how they explain what happened. Something is up with the lisencing deal.

This reminds me so much of how Starkid was almost sued by Warner Bros. due to A Very Potter Musical. Which, at the time, was called Harry Potter the Musical.

Thank you for the length and detail of this video !! Always keeping me up to date with latest theatre things :)))

The moment you start to make money from someone else's property, it becomes a problem. Hope they have deep pockets 😑