EXPLAINED: Netflix sues Bridgerton The Musical
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- My last video: • watching the kardashia...
LETS BE FRIENDS:
Twitter: / amylovattt
Instagram: / amylovattt
TikTok: @AmyLovattt
For buisness inquiries: amy_lovatt@yahoo.com
FAQs:
Where are you from?
I'm from the North of England and now live just outside of London.
What is your job?
I'm currently furloughed from my usual job, so I'm youtubeing 24/7 now which is fun!
What equipment do you use?
Canon EOS*: amzn.to/2GkrRtG
Where do you buy your theatre tickets?
Mainly from TodayTix*: todaytix.app.l...
Watch movie musicals on Prime with 30 day free trial!*: amzn.to/3gWHT9R
* = Affiliate links
The person who I feel the worst for is Julia Quinn. It’s her hard work from writing these books as a hobby, it’s her characters, story and literal words (!) being adapted without her permission, it’s her success in a crowded market that they are piggy-backing off of. I really can’t believe that these two didn’t consider that, it’s so disrespectful of other creators. I’m glad most people are on Netflix’s side and arent blinded by the bops.
It sucks that they just didn't work WITH Netflix when they were offered .. I feel that Netflix is in the right and they are going to shut it all down... Which means we won't get to see them develop this into something more.. And they are wicked talented so it just sucks all around
I was reading up about it and apparently Netflix offered them a deal but they rejected it
It sucks too because this has the potential to ruin it for everyone else. I wonder if companies may get more strict after this fiasco.
I don't know about wickedly talented, I listened to the score and thought Cinderella should have won the Grammy, they weren't creative, they stole lines and concept from other peoples work, and just cause they are tick tock creators they shouldn't have been allowed to even be eligible to be part of the Grammys unless its a professional concept album for an original work and they Grammys should have contacted Netflix and done their homework on these two women. I have never heard of any of these women till Bridgerton, and I work in musical theatre since I was 12 yers old, and film and again never heard of them, yet was told countless times these girls are professional composers and have done musicals before. well I've been in this buissnes and such and have never heard of them at all. and don't listen to pop at all or rock or heavy metal just musicals and movie soundtracks. but it also doesn't mean they can just take what they want. and there will be no consequences for it. Netflix has all the right in the world to shut them down, hell id take their grammy win away from them for pulling this crap.
@@wwozanewmusical Cinderella IS way better than this bridgerton trash
These ladies were given the chance to be legit with this and they actively chose not to. You make your bed, you lie in it
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?
BINGO. This would set a crazy precedent. For instance, if B&B wins, there are countless novels out there that people could just take and turn into a different medium like a musical or a play or a tv show, they could take whole lines of dialogue, and then at the end they could say that it was done without the permission of the original author and make a profit off of it. It would be the wild. And if they win, I imagine sites that run on fanfiction would be shut down. It would be in the best interests of these big companies to shutdown fan made material early in order to protect their IPs. There would be no leeway at all. If Netflix wins, I assume it would uphold the status quo but it may also make it a little more uncomfortable to fan-made stuff in this world.
B&B just seem selfish to try and push the issue. They should have taken the win that Netflix gave them and springboard into something else with their career/lives.
In my humble opinion, these ladies are used to getting away with things and are testing their boundaries as far as they can. Hopefully, Netflix teaches them a big, expensive lesson about adulthood.
Out of pure interest, why do you say that?
@@lizziex7117 because they seem to e spoiled little rich girls who don't seem to be told no you can't do this, and yet they go and do it anyway, they were told no no no and still sad they had Netflix permission, they are still selling their album for 30 bucks on line, and selling Bridgerton t shirts and vocal books of their songs from it.
You are the third UA-camr that I’ve seen talk about this. And after watching all three videos, I’m still on Netflix’s side
I'm assuming Kat and Mickey are the other 2
@@grace5033 Mickey is, but the other one was Swell Entertainment
It is logical as all only copy&paste - promote Netflix claims - although no one knows what is true - but you are correct - Ratatouille was made by amateurs - Barlow & Bear are world class professionals - so it seems a bit envy by some fan fic creators step up - you cannot make a show at Kennedy Center for zero - it is extremly expensive - all the musicians, singer, staff
@@tillm2481 they are not worked class profetionalzs, they are unknowns in the world of musical theatre and a lot of people have never heard of them till this Bridgerton ticket musical stuff started happening. this made them famous they were not famouse or well known composers till now, well known means I can walk down the street and hear their name Sid over and over again or see them on magazines or on bus stiops in NYC. they are not well known till this hole thing happened.
@@wwozanewmusical you are correct that Mr Normalo did not know..but Emily Bear is a veteran in music business - being working with world class musicians, productions - since her childhood - look up her wikipedia
I hate to be on Netflix's side on anything but like as a fanfic writer, I always get heart palpitations when someone tries to profit from fanworks. Like that's a battle we've fought before and not profiting is literally what keeps fan culture alive at all.
yeah, that's where my mind went right away as well. also a fic writer, this is why i constantly tell fans not to put up kofi links or commission fic or try to make any money off it. you make money, you cross the line. it's really that simple. and this might fuck things up for fanworks in general, so i'm genuinely annoyed about this whole thing. how entitled and foolish did they have to be to think they could get away with this?
I can only assume they thought people would side with them against a big company but the reality is they are stealing and if the intellectual property of the big company is no protected then it put the intellectual property of smaller creators at risk (such as Julia Quinn) and pretty much everyone is recognizing that. And as Amy says, this is not transformative by any stretch, especially when they transpose whole dialogue that they did not write word for word into the songs-- and that alone is a big red flag for me in this situation. Fan works are great wells of creativity and appreciation for things you love, but it is stuff like this that puts the ability for those things to be okay at risk.
The thing that confuses me the most is .. who is advising them to proceed this way ..? Like you’d think their lawyers would advise them better but I guess not
Theres some really dumb lawyers who like to test big companies
It's quite possible that they went against the advice of their lawyers. I wouldn't be surprised if their Grammy win went to their head and made them feel as if they could get away with anything.
@@BadLactose considering im pretty sure their lawyers were the ones talking to netflix and saying dumb shit i think they just have bad lawyers
The Ratatoille Musical was such an organic, silly, collaborative thing. I agree, the tiktok about "Let's make a Bridgerton Musical" felt very manufactured.
I'm with Netflix. The writers may have made something amazing, but they've pushed it too far with the 'for profit' performances, merch etc.
What confuses me is that Barlow and Bear have stated they WANT to make the musical a big thing, so why did they actively ignore the opportunity to MAKE it into a big thing?
I would have loved to see Barlow & Bear come together with Netflix to make the musical official as well to see it become an actual show. Netflix would have enjoyed the money as well as the publicity and Barlow & Bear would have been able to grow the project and gain even more success to help their careers. The songs are great so they’re clearly talented, but it’s all gone to their heads and went too far. Such a shame too.
As someone who watched the original AVPM (before they took it down, renamed it, and re-uploaded) and followed that potential legal drama for years...how did these girls think they could charge for shows?? They would completely have a case and support if they weren't charging, but as soon as you profit (and in big ways!! The KENNEDY CENTER!! That's not the same as an etsy store or a local theatre) that's a whole other can of worms.
I think they let it all go to their head and kept flying closer and closer to the sun; they were offered way to profit legitimately and declined, and now they're facing the consequences for their own actions. There's no way they didn't know what they were doing
When I originally heard about this I was SO ready to be on the girls’ side, but sorry no they clearly are in the wrong here. They had SO many chances to do this the right way and they chose not to. Also I FULLY agree with your conspiracy theory, it sounds like they were just waiting for some way to break through like this, which is great and exciting to see talented women doing, but I think they were a bit naive to the realities and legal stuff.
I do think B&B decided to jump on the Bridgerton hype to gain success for their own musical because they did say that they never read any of the books and they were not going to watch S2 even tho they said they were fans ??? Plus they said the whole musical was inspired by the tv series, like Eloise’s arc on the musical is the one from the series who was never a thing in the books. I think it’s very sketchy to just turn down Netflix proposal when they’re clearly in the wrong and using other people intellectual property, it would be a huge loss for Julia Quinn and so many more authors if B&B get their way.
Thought the same as they were making the rounds of talk shows. You could see one of the hosts deflate at their lack of Bridgerton fanship/excitement over s2.
Emily already had a decent career in music, idk why she would tarnish her reputation like this when she was doing fine. She has everything to lose here. And as for Abigail, shes killing her career before its really even begun.
How arrogant and delusional to they have to be to think violating copyright law so blatantly and continuing to UP said violation is going to work out for them?
I really don't get it because if the supposed offer Netflix provided to purchase royalties was too expensive, I truly think that they could've raised at least a bit of the money if they'd just asked. Like hey guys, we won a grammy and now we need your help, yada yada. The combined efforts of their fanbase, fellow creators' fanbases, and Bridgerton fans probably would have been willing to help raise funds. And even if it's not enough to make a dent, clearly going the illegal route was not the better option. I keep wondering if something is missing because it just makes absolutely no sense that they would so blatantly disregard copyright law.
Yesss this! I'm so confused by their decision!
I think one of the biggest differences with AVPM is that it is very clearly parody
The show at the Royal Albert Hall was officially cancelled (idk if by them or RAH), so....the consequences are real now. I don't think they're malicious either....but I do think the success went to their heads.
I thought that the creators of Ratatouille the musical got permission from Disney before doing that performance.They were probably given specific rights to do a one off online charity event rather than a big for-profit event, but Disney did give them an official license for that.
Honestly I don't know who their lawyers are but they need to be fired
On the flip side you have artists like Weird Al who is totally covered by fair use because he makes parodies yet he always asks permission as a common courtesy. B&B need to learn from this.
Interestingly, his fair use is actually in question because he doesn’t parody the songs themselves: take his Star Wars parody of American Pie. That’s fair use from the Star Wars side of things because he’s making jokes and commenting on Star Wars. He didn’t get permission from the owners of Star Wars to do that. But he’s not making any jokes or commenting on American Pie, he’s using all the copyrightable elements except the lyrics. Could a talented lawyer make an argument that it is a parody? Maybe, but it’s not worth going to court over to find out. The Bridgerton musical’s big hurdle on fair use is that they don’t make comments or jokes about Bridgerton, they just adapt the story, characters and lines of Bridgerton into a straight musical.
There’s a very good Lindsay Ellis video on fair use that is worth a watch. Also her Phantom of the Opera videos are brilliant if you like stagey stuff and haven’t seen them.
@@quadling3521 her love never dies and cats videos are perfect
"Is turning it into a musical enough for it to be considered transformative"? No. No it isn't. In the same way that Shondaland needed to license the books to make the TV show, Barlow and Bear needed a license to make the musical.
This whole situation is a nightmare for fandom as a whole - people have been actively avoiding this sort of legal challenge for decades. If it gets to trial, any precedent it sets is likely to be a serious bother.
They for sure knew what they were doing.....
Also, it's not just Netflix who they'd have to deal with. The show is based off a series of books and Julie Quinn could absolutely get into the mix
I believe she did make a statement
And honestly, I’m not sure how much she could legally do. Because she’s sold the adaptation rights to Netflix, so she no longer owns them. Which is why this is truly Netflix’s gig.
@@TheRonnieaj she definitely can’t do much since she sold the rights but she made the statement to stand with Netflix 🤷🏽♀️
The Kennedy Center in Washington,DC is a famous venue where at lot of shows headed to Broadway perform to work out any issues with the production before it transfers to New York. And those Broadway actors weren’t just in DC looking for something to do. It’s clear that this was a out-of-town tryout and those actors were planning on going to Broadway with this show. Same with the planned show in London, except with the West End as the ultimate goal. These girls were planning on making a LOT of money, and weren’t quiet about it.
On the Tiktok Abigail put up announcing the DC performance someone commented saying they wished it was happening in New York so they could come. Abigail commented that they would be starting rehearsals in New York the following week. So yeah, there were definitely bigger plans . They had announced the Kennedy Center and the UK show but I feel like they were ramping up for more tour dates before getting shut down .Abigail deleted that tiktok when the lawsuit happened.
Netflix offered them a royalty deal and THEY SAID NO?!?!? *W H Y W O U L D T H E Y D O T H A T ? ? ?*
I’m glad you mentioned AVPM because I first heard of this musical from their performance at Darren Criss’ Elsie Fest last year. Proceeds from Elsie ticket sales do go to Broadway charities but I’m betting merch sales and Meet & Greet $$$ don’t.
They cannot do a for-profit performance of AVMP. They have preformed the songs in concerts, but i’m guessing that is more okay since the songs are theirs???? Or Warner brothers just doesn’t really care about a few songs in concert. And the merch they sell is all original quotes and designs from the musical- none that use the HP logo or even name. It’s the same with their Batman musical.
@@bex1107 I think it's also been stated/agreed upon that AVPM is a satirical retelling like yes it has the names, the locations and some dialogue but the songs indicate it clearly being a parody of HP, so I think Warner Bros. And JKR were more forgiving of AVPM but also I'm pretty sure it was agreed upon that they still couldn't profit off the show itself. But they were more forgiving because of it's parody status. The Unofficial Bridgerton musical is clearly not a parody
there is also a different law for parodies (i don't know the legality of it, but i know it's its own thing).
Same, i'm not on Tiktok so Darren's video singing with them and their appearance at Elsiefest were what made me aware of B&B. The songs are good (ngl tho, Coolest Girl is better than Burn for You) but i think the Grammy made them cocky.
They will settle as they went too far and stole from a lot of people. Not just Netflix but Shonda Rimes and Julia Quinn who is the author. When it was for charity I get why Netflix was fine with it. But now you’re co-opting things that maybe they would’ve wanted to do and doing so without permission from the owners. They messed up and it will cost them. You can’t just steal peoples work. It’s honestly not a good look
Even though they may not have expected it to get as huge as it now is, they should have thought this through even if their lawyer hadn’t cause they said in the marketing that Netflix was involved (they weren’t) even after Netflix wanted to create a meeting point for them to make the Musical maybe to get even bigger. It boggles me why they didn’t think about Copyright.
Like Icarus they flew too close to the sun
I have a theory that there may be some shady producer behind this who steered them to belive that netflix couldn't touch them, and has now taken the money and run. These shows were too big for noone in the venues or production companies to querie it. It does feel like there is someone who really understands the industry pulling the strings behind the scenes.
I just hate how this started as a community event and they took charge and profited from it. Instead of Ratatouille where there was a collaborative work across different writers and artists… They were selfish and tried to capitalize for themselves. The privilege of it all.
Barlow and Bear should settle with Netflix, hope they can muster up some good will with them again, and cut all contact with whoever gave them the advice to not take Netflix’s deal
Amy!! Please tell me you have a video coming out on the Hamilton Texas Church Play thing!
Watched you and Kat Steele talk about this and absolutely agree with you. They should have taken the licensing deal...I don't know if they have lawyers but if that was their advice? Oof.
Talented? Yes… smart? Not so much…
Talented ? 🤣 These girls are a joke they could never be succesful like ALW ( i'm Still mad About the grammy win over ALW and i think they''re a small part of why Cinderella closed so early )
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on Barlow and Bears side regarding this. Everything thing I’ve seen so far, most people seem to be on Netflix’s side and agree that the girls should’ve worked with Netflix to create the musical, plus think of the money and support they would’ve have gotten with Netflix on side!
Because they sucks and stole ALW grammy for Cinderella i hate them
Can I say I giggled at the Darren Chris not telling them about not selling tickets and the part about “bet they took that deal” hilarious
I’ve seen Starkid brought up in regards to this lawsuit several times, and I’m surprised they had to get a deal with Warner bros to keep performing. I feel like the potter musicals and most of their earlier musicals were clearly parody and would be safe under fair use?
They had to deal with them because they used a lot of copyrightable and trademarked elements that weren’t parodied and each element is determined on its own. Like the uniforms and the characters. They could only sell the songs that made no mention of any characters or Harry Potter elements (so not Going Back to Hogwarts or Harry Freakin’ Potter, but they could and did sell To Have A Home and Coolest Girl). Notice when they did Twisted the songs don’t reference any Disney copyrighted elements and they stayed faaarrrr away from even saying the name Princess Jasmine because of the huge value of Disney’s Princess brand. Fair use isn’t as clear cut as just parody, and legal parody (or even parody for the purposes of media studies) isn’t as clear cut as the colloquial meaning of the term. Puffs the Play is a much better example of something that was clearly a parody because they didn’t use anything that was copyrighted or trademarked, not even the name Hufflepuff. Basically, copyright and trademark law is a minefield.
They made a whole song about Warner brothers trying to sue them, so one of the big things they did was change the name. It was originally Harry Potter the musical, but “Harry Potter” is copyrighted.
@@quadling3521 I don’t think they actually ever said Princess Jasmine?? I think she is just “the princess”??
I LOVE the album and would love to see it go to the stage but they really seem like they messed up with not taking the royalties deal. I hope they work something out because otherwise it sounds like the project is dead.
I hope the project is dead
If only they'd thought to call it Holy Musical Br@gerton
I have never seen Bridgerton, but I would still rather try the show and in-person event before the cash grab musical. While it is clear Barlow and co. worked on the musical, I feel like they really should have taken the deal Netflix offered them. By not taking the deal, it is going to make them look less genuine since people will see they aren't willing to compromise. I watched some of the Ratatouille musical and really enjoyed it. I hope we get more nonprofit productions since they offer new creative outlets that benefit good causes.
I have been waiting for your take on this! I am fascinated and can’t wait to see what happens, I think Netflix is probably in the right here, I’d love the expose inside the B&B camp about their thinking behind turning down a licensing gig and going ahead anyway… what an interesting choice!
They canceled the London show today
the crazy thing is is that emily bear has been in the industry since she was 4, her mentor is Quincy jones, i dont doubt that she didn't know what they were doing but instead just thought against it and hoped that netflix would've been chill about it.
Netflix was being stupid here, they should have just forced Barlow and Bear to tell the rights to the Music to the company before allowing them to do public performances. It would have solved everything. instead they chose to keep tangling a strawberry and hoped they wouldn't eat it.
Netflix and Shonda Rhimes bought the rights from Julia Quinn, meaning she got paid for her work in creating these characters and books. Then sunk money into transforming and adapting it, making substantial changes to better suit a new medium and newer audience. In doing so they hired multiple writers, crew and cast members. They let this fanmade musical go on until the point of making a profit with not only shows but also merchandise. Even said if it was a charity performance there wouldn't be an issue. And offered for the women to buy the right to continued performance, like they did from Julia. Which is even more substantial considering that the musical, at least from what I've heard, does not change any element of the plot or characters. It's an exact replica. Yes, these women wrote music but the story, sometimes word for word, is from the show. A lot of the development work from taking the story from book to show has already been done (whether or not you like the changes or agree with them or think they went far enough is personal opinion). Both Netflix and Julia Quinn deserve royalties for the work they've done in creating the Bridgerton story. These women did not write this narrative. And they do not own it. I don't agree with the current copyright laws, and think they should change, but both Julia Quinn and Shonda Rhimes are still alive and should profit off the hard work and creative labour they've put in as much as Barlow and Bear should get paid. We all build off things already existing and put before us but in this capitalist society creatives should benefit from their work for as long as they are alive. It's about sustainable living for artists of any kind.
I’m glad you brought up the Starkid comparison!
Something that has bugged me is the way this has been painted as a David and Goliath type story of a giant industry name going after two tiktok stars. This is simply NOT TRUE! Julia Quinn is the creator, her work is being plagiarized. This is creator vs creator! If B&B win this lawsuit it will have major implications for all fair use laws.
I’m a fanfic writer, I know how to walk the line of appreciation vs plagiarism, this will make it so much more difficult for every creative person.
I don’t understand why they didn’t take any of the options to work together or work in terms. They also pick places that are huge. Like everyone has heard of the Kennedy Center. These girls thought they would do what they want. My biggest thing is Julie and Shonda have really worked for this and why didn’t they just figure how to work. They came at another set of creators. I don’t feel bad for these girls at all
I just wanna say Barlow was getting popular WAY before the musical. I'd been following her for like a year. So of course she was making something for the popularity - she's a great songwriter, and she had enough followers at that point for it to get bigger than just her channel.
They should take Netflix's deal.
Emily Bear was also popular before the musical -- She was basically a child prodigy who performed at Carnegie Hall aged 9. Plus her family members are musicians and have connections.
@@kristenkim oh wow! Okay thanks for the info!
I feel like these are both things that should've been mentioned in the video hahah
@@shakibzz Yeah for sure, they're definitely no amateurs and come from a privileged background.
They definitely intended for it to trend like Ratatouille and I completely agree that we could have gotten Squid Game the Musical instead if the timing was different. Haha. I don't think they intended to take it this far. They just got too carried away and now they are paying for it. Unfortunate but they brought it onto themselves. Thanks for doing a nice and simple explaination on this. I've seen some videos talk a long time about it but this was perfect!
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. B&B should've seen this coming a mile away when they started to profit from it.
This is what happens when you move from a program with no copyright (TikTok) to the real world
It would be a different discussion if Netflix sued them when they were still making just tiktoks, people would be definitely on their sides. But Netflix let them go so far, that they could make an album, perform on stage and won a Grammy. Why would you deny an offer by Netflix at this point and block your own path? Anyone would sue them at this point where they are really profiting off of content they really didn't come up with
I think your conspiracy theory is right on and is what I thought from the start as well. From the very first video it felt calculated and the subject seemed arbitrary.
Though I will admit that Bridgerton probably lends itself more easily to musicalization than Squid Games 😆
Aaron Fraser Nash made dope squid game songs
@@samuelblachon95130 I don't doubt that it's possible, just more challenging!
When B&B went on talk shows and weren't even excited for season 2 of Bridgerton (and no plans to watch it either) it just struck me how they weren't doing this as fans but just "riding a trend."
I’m not old but I’ve been in fandom long enough that names like Anne Rice and Mercedes Lackey hold weight. These girls have MAJORLY fucked up; Netflix has more than enough room to pursue legal action, and I’m betting that the rest of us are going to face the backlash. Nintendo is probably going to start cracking down on gaming content again, Warner Brothers and Disney are going to go after fan content they decide they don’t like, etc etc etc. Get ready for it.
Well, no. This isn’t really an issue in terms of copy-right law. There is only a real problem when people start profiting personally. APART FROM NINTENDO, who seem to genuinely hate its fans going as far as to copyright strike game reviews a few years ago 😂 lmao. Everybody else, only care if you profit (as per the law) and in reality, fan content bolsters their products popularity/longevity. It’s why fan-fic is free, unofficial game mods are free etc etc
@@DDoubleEDouble We have worked long and hard to get to the point where you can say this. The OTW has a team of lawyers to try to help keep this true. But every few years they do start trying to control fan content, and fan content has never been on solid legal ground in the first place (regardless of whether you think it should be). So if Netflix sues and wins because these two were making profit, why not sue fan artists with a Kofi link in their bio? Furry artists making content inspired by famous characters? I don’t want to go back to disclaimers at the top of every fanwork and archives that vanish in the night because some company decided they didn’t like the content.
If this goes to court, no one will win. If they win, it's going to be bad for creators (esp. writers), if Netflix wins, fan content creators are back in the dark days of Anne Rice but maybe even worse.
And this situation could have been avoided.
Yeah, it’s decades of all fandoms being on the same page of being careful that nothing like this goes to court and all it takes it two barely 20 year old tik tokers to potentially undo it all.
I think fan content creators will be okay if Netflix wins as it’s going to be on the specific facts of this case and if you read the lawsuit (you can find it online), it is really specifically only about the Kennedy Centre performance that they charged money for and not the musical itself, but it’s still frustrating.
@@quadling3521 Well, I do hope it's ends up not being as bad as I'm imagining. But yeah, that was dumb. What were they thinking?
Also, how dare they make me side with Netflix!
If Netflix win - the situation stays largely as it was before. You are not allowed to steal IP- and when an IP owner chooses to sue for infringement is based on their judgement. If Barlow and Bear’s defense “you can’t sue us now because you did not sue us two years ago when we were on TikTok” THAT would indicate to IP owners that they need to now sue early and sue often. That would be the Anne Rice situation.
@@mariem24601 I hope so. I'd rather be overreacting than be a Cassandra.
You are 100% right on this topic
When it comes to Barlow and Bear's refusal to accept Netflix's offer to use the Bridgerton name and pay a percentage back to Netflix, I have to think that there was some miscommunication, bad management or bad legal advice because why would you refuse the chance to continue your work and NOT get sued?
Hi, everyone I was wondering if anyone has any ideas for audition songs for Martha Cratich in a Christmas Carol at the professional theater level? I am a teen female mezzo-soprano this is my first professional theater audition I am very nervous and I really can't find any good songs for the vibe of the show! Thank you for your help!
Speaking about copy rights and fair use, I hope you’re looking into Scamilton (church doing a parody of Hamilton in Texas)
It's not a parody they took the show and added New Line anti lgbt +
I am so here to watch Amy's "The Unofficial Bridgerton Musical's True Story The Musical" 😂
Okay so speaking of conspiracy, it might be reach (definitely it is)
But what if maybe this whole lawsuit between Netflix and Bear & Barlow is a form of publicity stunt?
I mean I think for sure that Bear & Barlow have acted on bad legal advice to proceed
and monetize their unofficial Bridgerton musical.. And that Netflix will be making sure to get their money's worth over that..
But if by change they might strike a deal to make it official with all the licenses needed, etc.
Then the publicity from this will be great for the musical! (If they ever actually agree on a new deal)
Please tell me you're also going to make a video about Illegal Hamilton aka Scamilton.
I attended both the Bridgerton Experience Ball in Washington DC and the Bridgerton musical performance! I loved both but it makes a lot of sense that Netflix isn't happy, I just assumed the musical performance had their blessing. I am a little confused on the Bridgerton merchandise allegation, as the only merchandise at the musical was Barlow and Bear themed.
I want squid game the musical now 🤣
I can’t even feel too bad for them, but I do hate how this will damage their reputation and their chances in working in the industry again. I do hope they learn from this, And I hope they can do original music.
Hi Amy I was just wondering if you could react to the starkid brother company tin can bros founded by joey richter their production of spies are forever starring curt mega as agent curt mega and joey richter as his partner Owen. I have rewatched the show atleast twice.
The unofficial Bridgerton musical is actually what got me to watch the show and read the books, but that doesn't make it okay for them to put on big for profit live performances. At the absolute minimum they should have talked to Julia Quinn's lawyers about it if Netflix wasn't giving them a good enough deal. Honestly though, they should have tried to make the deal with Netflix work.
Julia does not own the rights anymore. She sold it to Netflix,
THANK GOD IVE BEEN NEEDING AN EXPLANATION 💀
And now they did a musical for taco Bell 🤣
One correction here: the bridgerton experience is in dc but it definitely isn’t at the Kennedy center. I’m on Netflix’s side here overall but I don’t think there’s much to the argument that this event actually took business away from the bridgerton experience
Those events were held several weeks apart and I am sure there were a lot of fans who could afford to pay for only one of these events. So the unofficial musical could have had a negative impact on ticket sales to the official Bridgerton experience.
❣️
I bet the girls had already written most of the songs when she posted that first video 🙄
❤❤❤❤
Yeah the Barlow and bear definitely pushed the bounds on copyright. Tbh I'm not particularly invested in this case. I doubt a Bridgerton musical would've been developed without Barlow and Bear. Julia Quinn, the original author, didn't lose anything, in my opinion. I can see how Barlow and Bear's concerts would compete with Netflix's Bridgerton events, though. So it makes sense that it is Netflix and not the author who is suing.
We are basing everything on what Netflix claims in their lawsuit ... We don't know what specifically was the deal Netflix was trying to strike with B&B only that they offered something and was rejected. A lot of fan-made things are/have been made for financial gain on UA-cam (ad-sense), the key difference is B&B were making money moves in traditional music profit scenes (concerts & albums). It's been weird seeing everyone really hate on these women in particular. It'll be interesting to see how this will effect the future of fair-use!
Also was the orchestration and melodies also ripped exactly from the show? Or just the lyrics?
@@johnium characters and direct lines and plots from the show were put in the musical
True, but the lawsuit outlines all the times that Netflix told them they didn’t have permission and B&B pretty much had no bargaining power on the actual contract because they didn’t have prior permission, but they had a lot to gain for their future careers even if the deal wasn’t great monetarily (frankly getting the rights would be unimaginable for most people and that in itself is a pretty good deal). If it had gone to Broadway (which it might have with Netflix’s backing) they would be able to get other original musicals made, other more lucrative licensing deals. It was a bad move to turn down the deal, because the deal was always going to be better than being sued.
@@johnium Only lyrics, but that’s a pretty huge element. Also, the traditional routes are important because one of the elements of fair use is whether it is in competition with Netflix’s official Bridgerton outputs, and Netflix already has live Bridgerton shows. Netflix aren’t suing over the concept album, fyi, the only thing they are suing over is the live performance.
Tbh its going to loose. I've been researching fair use and copyright law for weeks now bc i want to start my own buissness that will feature fanart. Bassically the fact that its for profit, a nontransitional work, and it takes direct quotes and plot points from the show/story will be the points that have shot them in the foot. For example; South Park can make the episode Simpson's Did It and sell merch with it cause it's a parody. Its changing their characters into a simpson parody. Not stealing any full episode or full on showing marge simpson in the episode. Another issue is the fact that these girls are in the public eye-especially bc they won a grammy. The more known you become the more likely you'll be hit with a lawsuit. No matter what deal netflix gave them they either should have accepted and been happy with that, or walked away 100%. You dont go into things without a for thought plan. At least not after winning a grammy. These girls should have expected this to happen. Most likely these girls will settle bc with netflix loosing money and with how poorly thought out the musical was, this is a million dollar lawsuit in the making.
Honestly, copyright law goes too far. It should protect the original work in whole (either all at once or aggregate, so you can't just publish each chapter of a book). That's it. You want to write a Harry Potter novel and sell it? That's called competition. Don't like it, blame capitalism. You want to make a movie of my book? Great, that's free advertising. I've never heard of Bridgerton until this musical popped up on TikTok. And absolutely, you should be able to make money off of your work.
And it is your work. Inspired by others', yes. But what isn't inspired by others? You've got a naïve kid living with his aunt and uncle who finds out he's magic. He makes friends with a smart, strong woman and a roguish guy, and together they fight the evil that killed our main hero's parents. Is that Harry Potter, or Star Wars?
I'm with them on this. The music is their creation, the work is transformative. Legally they're probably in the wrong, but the law was made to protect a multibillion dollar mouse. It goes way too far.
Your law has the problem of not going far enough - what if I translate Harry Potter to German and then my friend translates it back to English? The words will be transformed a little, but the plot, pacing, characterization, etc? The idea that an author should not have ownership over that will so grossly limit their ability to make art it that it can not be in anyone's interest.
dude i loved it tho, it’s such a disservice to creativity to want to stop the inspiration. and i don’t think they knew how big it was gonna get until it gained traction
So they're entitled to steal people's stuff because....?
@@ThatsJustMyBabyDaddy absolutely not, but i think they tried to originally work something with netflix and when netflix didn’t want to waive right or partnership, they did it anyway stupidly. what i wish that they could actually partner up. but obviously that is not foreseeable anymore.
@@mollymooney6821 B&B rejected Netflix's license offer.
@@blainevanity6 abigail described when she was making the album that they had to heavily re-infer that it was an unofficial non attachment to Bridgerton franchise and strictly fan work. maybe that’s not true but I guess if this does come to trial we’ll know then. but it seemed that Netflix would only even let the album happen under that circumstance and it could never be anything more than that.
But was Netflix going to make it a musical? No. So let them do it. I mean get a cut, thats fine, but don't step on the fans.
I think it's not just Netflix. Maybe Julia Quinn doesn't want her work musicalized. It's not just Netflix who's having cold feet, but the creators of the original stories and the TV show.
@@JossSCarlisle Psh, she wasn't going to make it a musical either, and she doesn't need the money, so who cares. The show has already bastardized the stories beyond recognition anyway, what can a little music do to hurt it now?
The problem is copyright is use it or lose it. If they allow the Bridgerton musical to do what they want with direct characters and plots from the show as well as use the name then anyone can
@@dietdrpepper15 I don't think it's unreasonable to draw the line somewhere. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Julia Quinn was never going to musicalize her work and I don't think she wants anyone else to do it, otherwise she would have signed off.
So by your logic if I write a book but don’t plan to make an animated show about it, people have the right to use my stories and characters and make a profit because they can??? It’s shitty.