The Rise & Fall of the Unofficial Bridgerton Musical
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 06. 2024
- You've probably heard about the lawsuit...now let's talk about Barlow & Bear's story.
For 16 free meals with HelloFresh across 7 boxes AND 3 free gifts, use code
WAITINTHEWINGS16 at bit.ly/3tXSZEZ
Credits:
Written, Narrated and Video Edited by Brendon Henderson
Script Editor Julianna Whalen
Special thanks to the standing room patrons:
Heidi Cooper
JadenIsHere
Michaela Tussey
Orange
Tom Norris
Hugh O'Neill
Christopher Leavy (Cosmik)
Alex Jasen
Erin
Angela Mazzeo
Joe Dunn
Michal Peer
JeffMovieMan
Bryant Gipull Garcia
Jamie Needham
Megan McCasland
Jordan Smith
stephen seale
Carolyn Nasuti
Alex Pescador
Alessandra Telles Bellomo de Farias
Noel Dietrich
Alice
Cesario Tirado-Ortiz
Alison Trude
Timothy Murray
Danniella
Lawren Kinsey
Alyssa Salter
Lucy Saura
Daniel Q Callahan
Margot Verleg
Anna Midkiff
Ann Marie Wilson
Joseph Lim
Frances McGinn
Kelseigh Ingram
Miriam
Ayinde
Ellie Davis
Margaret Hall
Lyana Morton
Darvec
Sarah Henderson
Harry Thornton
Ann
Rose S.
Brent Black
Max Rohtbart
Anon
Ethan
Chapters
0:00 What's gonna happen next?
1:53 Beloved Listeners!
3:01 Meet Barlow
5:10 Meet Bear
6:09 Independence
7:42 Ode to Remy
9:03 What if Bridgerton was a Musical?
12:57 Netflix's Blessing
14:34 The Bridgerton Girls
17:07 Used with Permission
19:44 Tightrope
21:57 Independence p2 - Zábava
Barlow and Bear did not respond to Wait in the Wings when asked for comment
Also quick clarification: Barlow & Bear are the youngest to ever be nominated in the musical theatre album category for the Grammy Awards
🤣🤣🤣
Ooof, their loss!
I imagine they can't talk about the lawsuit right now legally.
@@genesis631 *Shouldn't. Some people will talk even when they shouldn't
I'm not going to deny that the songs are indeed catchy since i found it on CZcams. But the thing is the album that they did create is technically fanfiction in musical form yes (I'll say that is rather a neat idea), but how is it possible that a fanfiction album got nominated for a Grammy at all? That is like saying/seeing a fanfiction novel being nominated for a Pulitzer Prize or some sort and winning it. Netflix has every right to sue them and for the show runner and the author herself to express their disappointment about creativity issues about it. You'll figure that the two girls will understand that, but I guess not though. Sigh.
I kind of get the feeling Barlow and Bear expected the internet to be on their side. I wouldn't be surprised if they saw themselves as "the little guys" versus the big bad Netflix. Which probably would have happened... if Netflix hadn't been the surprisingly reasonable party.
plus actual creators of fanworks (from what ive seen) are geniunely concerned as to how this could affect their own works and how ip holders could punish them for work that isnt going to the same level as the bridgerton musical
Right? I was super shocked at how chill Netflix was.
@@NapsAreBetterThanSex tbf i think netflix was trying to avoid a pr shitstorm by going after them even when they pushed the limits of fair use and basically just broke copyright infringement laws, which is understandable, but even then they were super nice ab this
@@iwakeupandboomimarat yes, they were quite lenient when it was just a tiktok and charity thing, probably since it was boosting the series. but monetizing it is a step too far. fair use has 4 prongs and B&B have clearly failed on 2 (commercial vs nonprofit; harms profit potential for rights owner), and seems to also fail on the other as well by just translating it to another medium which is not transformative enough
@@AllTheArtsy oh yeah absolutely, i think netflix is gonna beat them easily or theyll just settle out of court and we'll 'mysteriously' never seen the bridgerton musical again lol
I love their unofficial musical as everyone but they were stupid not accepting Netflix's license to perform the live concert, now they have to face the consequences, the license would've given them permission to do all the stuff they wanted to do without legal actions and they just refused it? I mean, can't blame Netflix for this lol
The license isn’t just a “go-ahead” thing, it may have included smth money related that the girls probably didn’t like. If I were them, even though if it was a win-win situation for Netflix, I would’ve accepted that license still, given that it would open a lot of doors for me. So yeah, the girls do not just get to refuse the deal and then still profit off of someone else’s IP. Shtty move.
@@damsapollo I've seen discussion that maybe the licensing deal was poor financially, which, fair. But also Ariana Grande pays 90% of royalties to R&H for the license to use the tune of My Favorite Things in her song.
Licensing can be really expensive. Theres a chance Netflix was charging a completely unobtainable amount to get the musical officially licensed. What I don't understand is why they continued after they refused, that should've been the sign that they couldn't persue it anymore.
@@ClioThayerIsACat oh true and yeah after this info I agree with you on that last part, I think they were more than capable to make something new and cool
@@ClioThayerIsACat and probably they felt like, why i have to give so much money to a big corporation when they didnt help to build their success, thats why most independent artists fail
I was on the girl's side, I mean who the hell wouldn't be when it's about two independent artists up against a huge megastructure like Netflix?
But then it came out that Netflix offered them basically everything they wanted, permission, a golden ticket to make the unofficial musical part of the whole shebang, no questions asked. And they turned it down and started to charge for profit ticket sales at their shows.
You don't get to ride the coattails of someone else's story, especially when they TRIED to work with you.
Even if the licencing deal Netflix offered was terrible, the moment B&B charged money for an IP that they didn't create or own, they crossed the line.
Honestly, i was never on their side. Can you imagine if they win? Next this happens it will be a corporation ripping off an indie creator, but since now there is a precedent to profit out of someone's intellectual right the indie creator will have no chance of winning.
I was never on their side. Even though Netflix is a huge company, we can’t forget that many creatives work for them. They spent time and energy writing the show and designing the set that gave B&B ideas and inspiration. Additionally, this is all based off of the words of Julia Quinn and they disregarded that.
Netflix is right to protect the works of the artist who create for them.
I was never on their side, spoild privilege arrogant girls, remember me of the dropout show
You can’t believe everything you read on the Internet. Fact check yourself or mind your own business.
This whole situation has me thinking that Netflix was trying to be the cool divorced dad and gave permission for his daughter to spend the night at her friends house on a school night, and the daughter took that as going with said friend to a rave to do drugs and go wild, even when he said not to go. Like, Dad didn’t give permission to do that and has the right to discipline them for doing something dangerous and frankly self destructive
I love this analogy
This is why I love theatre people
This is genuinely a perfect analogy
Netflix as a “Cool Divorced Dad” makes so much sense, wtf?! 🤣🤣🤣
This is such an apt analogy!
When I first heard about the lawsuit I was ready to throw hands with big baddy Netflix. Then I actually read about it and was like "girls, this is just consequences to your actions. You made a mistake and things like this happen."
Oh, her parents were paying for her to live in LA and aspire to a music career. And the other girl was a child prodigy.
Their attitudes make a lot more sense now.
Excuse me but Emily bear has not been EVER rejected by the music industry. The girl has been in the spotlight since she was a toddler
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?
the statute of limitations for copyright infringement is 3 years. This lawsuit was filed less than a year after the album was released. The argument "why didn't they stop us sooner" is nonsense.
I agree, the fact that they let it go on for as long as they did is a GOOD thing. There are many small creators and businesses that survive on that small amount of leeway they get.
@@disgruntledcashier503 that honestly might be what they argue tho, essentially that they were doing this for months and netflix didnt do anything before. idk how well it would stand up in court but they might just throw it out to see if it works
@@iwakeupandboomimarat Netflix will immediately retort by framing it as them being overly generous with latitude towards Barlow and Bear, and Barlow and Bear taking advantage of that generosity
@@disgruntledcashier503 oh yeah absolutely, its a weak ass argument if b&b use it
I think the big red flag for what their intentions were was when they shut out and ignored all other tiktok creators trying to participate. They didnt want it to be a wholesome community grown hobby project like Tiktok!Ratatouille, they wanted to monopolise the concept to get fame for themselves, and that morphed into a delusional entitlement to monetary gains from it.
That’s what annoyed me the most. They took something that was the community event and try to profit off of it. That’s disgusting and I hope they get sued for as much as possible.
ex-fucking-xactly!!!
Exactly felt very “capitalistic” and weird from the beginning.
Agreed. Immediately felt like a gross self-promo version of Ratatouille to me.
So were there other Bridgerton the Musical creators out there? How did B&B shut them out? I'm more interested in legal things, so don't know about this story, but all the recappers say B&B were the only contributors.
I don't get what these two women thought would happen.
Imagine if B&B created their own musical based on their own IP and Netflix decided to make a TV show based on it and refuse to license it.
I feel like this entire lawsuit and drama could have been avoided if Barlow and Bear had gotten some form of legal permission/monetary deal from Netflix when they first gained popularity and before they released their album.
They could avoid it if they didn't pretend to make for profit performances.
Yeah, I don't get why they'd turn down the licence. Unless Netflix attached ridiculous financial or creative demands.
@@Natilra perhaps they did...;)
I can get behind the idea that Netflix probably made some requests they didn't like. Probably in the money area. But, even if Netflix demanded their first born, they don't just get to say no...and then keep using the property to make money for themselves. Copyright sucks when it means giant corporations gobbling up IP and restricting creative freedoms, but like we can't just say "f- copyright!" without f-ing over thousands, of smaller creators in the process.
@@tillm2481 Netflix tried to negotiate a license for them and B&B said no.
what I find so egregious is the fact that they were supported each step of the way. By Netflix, Shonda Rhimes and Julia Quinn. Like they REALLY fumbled that bag. They could have leveraged this into full fledged broadway careers- and not the overnight kind either. Ugh- like the hubris and entitlement. Absurd. As a Latina in the Theater Arts Industry- I just can't even. I'm out.
I think what bothers me the most about this is that from the start, you can tell how they never really intended for this to feel like a collaborative experience with other Bridgerton fans, but only tried to use phrases like, “we all did this” to give this false sense of community to keep the support going.
It sort of veils the fact that they had been working nonstop to make sure that they were the only ones to reap the benefits and credit for this, which would’ve been fine if it were an original creative work, but it also sort of takes away the joy of what it means to have a fandom come together for something they love like the way Ratatouille did.
I wouldn’t say this reeks of insecurity, but I could see it as them showing signs that they wanted to milk this entire experience for what it’s worth in fear that they wouldn’t have this moment again. Which is understandable, but also it doesn’t excuse any of the decisions they took. They should’ve used this experience to move forward with the confidence that they could likely write a hit original musical with the platform they’ve gotten.
Yea they’ve always given me a cocky, overly ambitious vibe ever since the beginning. It always seemed more about them than the show itself. Would love to see them try again with something original though, and see if they have the chops to stand on their own as storytellers.
Honestly I suspect they wanted to use this as a launching point and then realized they had no original ideas to launch. I can think of a lot of creatives who, if they blew up like this, would have longtime original ideas that had been percolating for years that they would be thrilled to finally have an opportunity to put out there. Barlow and Bear said they didn't want to be 'The Bridgerton Girls' but I feel like after they won the Grammy they realized they had no decent original ideas and convinced themselves they didn't need those and would just ride this wave after all.
!!!!!!! Reeking of insecurity is IT. How talented do you truly believe you are if all of what you produce is wholly based on someone else’s ideas/exact words???
Yeah, there's no way this "Bridgerton Musical" falls within fair use. In fact, as a lawyer myself, I find it hard to see any scenario where these girls will get away with this, specially from the moment they charged a single penny for anything connected to this project.
You see, when you do fan projects which would potentially violate copyrighted material, if you don't profit from it, there's usually leniency towards the offender as no actual damage was done to the copyright holder (and the fulfilment of the concept of damage is essential in Civil Law).
But the moment they actually made any financial gain (was the album released for free on iTunes?), it's the moment when Netflix could, at any point, take action against them.
And to be honest? They should be thanking all the Saints they're just getting this lawsuit now, after making the profits. 'cause if it had been, say, Disney, their project would have been killed before it even reached iTunes.
This, to me, is a tale of how independent creators can become arrogant and delusional when success strikes them.
So I do hope that the lawsuit does go through and they get taught a lesson. 'cause if we start making exceptions based on "TikTok fame", soon the entire copyright system comes crumbling down. And what most people seem to forget is: a creator doesn't put his/her work into the world out of the kindness of his/her heart. And if the creators can't monetise and protect their creations anymore, they simply won't release them. And that's how entertainment dies.
I mean, I wouldn't shed too many tears to see the current copyright system take a hit. It's too biased towards the companies with big pockets, and lasts too long.
but this is so blatant that not holding against them will mean that IP is basically worthless.
I have to disagree. What effort did Netflix put in for this? Zero. Did Barlow and Bear use ANYTHING that Netflix created other than a rough storyline? No. They didn’t use their music. They didn’t use their show. They didn’t use anything. Netflix has nothing on them! It’s just to scare them.
@@maynardewmThey used lyrics that were basically lines in the show. The used characters created by the author, sold to Netflix. They used the name, which is trademarked. It’s such a clear violation that it’s very strange they turned down Netflix’s offer and still continue with the show FOR PROFIT.
@@maynardewmThey did use the show, the name Bridgerton and the characters within the show. It isn't like they changed everything like names and stuff to make it more "inspired" by Bridgerton. Let alone that 1. Netflix'a Bridgerton came from a book series they bought the rights to adapt. So not only were they infringing on Netflix they were doing it to the book author who made this characters and stories.
im sorry but being so touched by a scene about a queer man saying how his love is basically impossible because of society prejudice and making it the basis of a song about the straight couple is just so wild to me 😭 she totally missed the point of the ocean metaphor that she liked so much
This was exactly my thought. I have never seen Bridgerton or heard this musical and that really had me taken aback.
i let out an audible “what??” when i heard that part
came here to say this. That was the moment she lost me. I don't understand how straight people think that's ok?! Being gay was literally illegal, violently so. Big difference.
@@KaelWritstraight people have been misinformed for decades about who gay people are and their experiences in this straight viewed world. It is actually no wonder how a straight person would twist a gay romance to fit their personal narrative into a straight romance. It's not to difficult to understand unfortunately but it certainly is baffling.
I haven’t watched Bridgeton, I listened to the songs first. I fell in love with it immediately because I thought it was sapphic, it made me so emotional hearing how beautiful it was but then I heard he/him pronouns, I was like WHAT??? It didn’t help that I thought there were two different women singing. I thought it was a daring story about two lovers of the same gender who couldn’t be together but we’re in love and they were both married or promised to a man and they were secretly intensely in love with one another. Especially in the oceans away song, it made no sense to me that they were straight 😭 I’m still not over it, I just imagine she/they pronouns whenever they say “he”
I'm still floored that they didn't immediately start planning their next project ASAP, so they'd have something of their own to promote while they were still riding the algorithmic high of Bridgerton's concept album release and subsequent Emmy campaign/win. They know full well that this is a fanwork - there's only so much you can do with a product that isn't entirely yours. All signs point to Netflix having been extremely reasonable in allowing the album and the charity performance - as such, I'm pretty surprised they didn't take the licensing offer seriously. Either their lawyers are giving them terrible advice or they're willfully ignoring legal council... either way, I find this whole situation pretty baffling.
Even if they just went the route of Fifty Shades/After and announced they were making a musical about a regency family called the Flyover-tons.
@@makilawhite1144 Flyover-tons. 😂
But fr, they could have even courted the same audience and adapted a public domain regency novel that already has name recognition. I get that they're proud of what they made, as they should be. But they have to know they're in the wrong.
I know this will likely get settled long before there’s a chance of getting inside a courtroom, but I’m dying to hear their side of it. As recently as a few months ago both creators acknowledged in several interviews that Netflix owns all the rights and they could only stage it if Netflix allowed. They could have continued making money from their current album; maybe even make another to cover subsequent seasons. It seems like Netflix’s line in the sand was competing live performances. No matter how unfair Netflix’s licensing terms were for the stage rights, surely it was in their best interest to comply so they could continue to capitalize on the IP. Even now, Netflix isn’t being horrible about it as they didn’t get a cease and desist against selling the album on iTunes. And I they’re still able to showcase their music on CZcams-I have heard of many YT creators shut down for far less. This level of hubris is fascinating. Or maybe they think they can get a better licensing deal through a settlement than whatever Netflix offered a few months ago. Or see sales skyrocket as people defend them against the big, bad corporation? They are not stupid and they have counsel, so there must be some sort of angle where this move makes financial and business sense.
This comment right here. I thought for sure they wouod have put together some sort of regency musical. People would have paid to watch with all the hype they'd generated
Just wanna know why they declined the offer/license. I would have liked to be in the room with them & their team discuss the license.
I saw a video from a lawyer who reviewed the claim . He guessed that Netflix probably wanted basically ownership with the license . They probably wanted to have all creative control and a large cut of the profit they got from the sells of the album. While that might sound awful , considering Barlow and Bear basically used and advanced their careers off of Netflix/Julia Quinn/Shondalands intellectual property it feels fair to me .
Hubris.
They probably thought that being TikTok-famous and knowing Adele would be enough to put them in a position where they could just say f you to a corporation the same way SOME Hollywood actors and actresses can do.
I can't imagine it being anything but them not liking the fact that they wouldn't earn as much from their venture, or if Netflix might've asked for partial ownership of the songs. In that case though, it'd still seem like a fair deal given that they're working off Netflix's source material. They could've just taken the deal to try to get as much benefits they could get from it while trying to see what their next (hopefully) original project would've looked like. It's not like they would've walked away empty-handed given they'd accrued such a huge platform and following who'd likely buy whatever else they made.
@@breannacarlisle5441 this is likely the case. If it is the case then fair plus for saying no. At that point, tho, you drop it and work on something new and original with the massive audience they now have. You don’t reject it and then keep doing the thing Netflix have pretty generously allowed you to make. It just feels so immature
@@BestBoyPatrick exactly. By saying no, but continuing anyway they've had all implied permissions revoked .
IDK that it's really much of an underdog tale when both of these women clearly came up from positions of privilege, I mean Bear literally being a child prodigy aside, just the detail that Barlow's parents were able to financially support her *at all* while she was in LA is kind of telling. Also the fact it all started with a song co-opting a gay man's dialogue for the straight leads' romance is just ??? It's a no from me, they should have either taken the licensing deal or moved on. Great video as always though, I don't have TikTok so had no clue about the backstory. That ratatouille musical sounds incredible
Indeed 👀
Yeah, hearing that Barlow was unemployed and funded by her parents the entire time completely reframed the narrative for me. She's not a poor, struggling independent artist, but a trust fund baby who thinks getting an actual job is beneath her.
the bit about her being financed by her parents the whole time she was in LA put a lot of things into perspective for me on this 😅
Thank you, these were my exact thoughts. They're both undoubtedly talented, but there are plenty of child prodigies who don't have parents that can throw them full time into music lessons before they can talk or fund their life in one of the most expensive cities in the world so they can more easily network with the entertainment industry. Barlow crying "Is this all my career is going to be?" shortly after one of her songs became an overnight success felt especially myopic.
Yeah. I did find it weird that they used a gay guy's dialogue for their straight protagonist who does not face anything like the obstacles the line was meant to reflect.
When I first read about the lawsuit I was on Barlow and Bear's side, I mean it had been MONTHS since the unofficial album had been released, it even won a grammy and apparently, to us, Netflix had said nothing about the copyright infringement so why now?? BUT knowing the whole context and how they refused to reach an agreement with netflix? Netflix is right, They have no excuse! I get they wanted to be independent but they should´ve known that they just coudn´t be with a project 100% based on other people's work
Why does it matter how long Netflix waited? Months of Copyright infringement would not suddenly be less valid than 1 day of copyright infringement. The restraint they showed in not suing sooner is a GOOD thing. Many creators and business survive on the small leeway given to them, we should not be sitting here and looking down at the fact that they allowed it to go on. Over zealous companies that use copyright as a weapon are a problem, not the companies that show restraint.
@@hillaryandmichaelcrymes3702 yeah you're right, I guess when I fisrt heard about the lawsuit it seemed to me like Netflix was waiting for Barlow and Bear to be bigger so they could get bigger retribution but now knowing more about the situation I am kind of on Netflix's side, they were very pacient, maybe to avoid backlash from Barlow and Bear fans but they were still very reasonable since the begining
@@NanSwiftie13 getting too ban hammery on fan projects is bad PR for companies, so i think Netflix gave them the benefit of the doubt for as long as they could before it was clear they had greedy intentions. Same reason IP holders dont hunt down every single fan artist who ever sells work of their characters, and Disney no longer goes after child care centers for painting their characters on walls. Sometimes companies choose not to enforce "technically" valid copyright coz it looks petty and evil, but theres always a limit.
Yeah you don’t get to be “independent” when your entire catalog is based off of unlicensed use of other people’s IP
It was like a drug, you nailed it. They took someone else’s creative property and used it like it was theirs to profit from/take credit for. There are plenty of musicals based on tv and movies and books who didn’t have to steal to make them. Hell, the Evil Dead Musical was a BLUEPRINT on how to do this right. I don’t even think the UBM is all that good. It feels so unfinished and childlike. It’s just quotes from the show and overplayed rhyme schemes and themes we’ve all heard before. People were making videos where they played music to popular movie/television scenes long before this, and they weren’t acting like they had written the next big musical. The way the girls preform it you’d think they thought it was on level with Sondheim lyrically. People were even saying that ALW was going to help them write and it was going to be on broadway (eh, not like he’s got the best track record with being kind to peoples dreams right now) it all just feels delusional. If I wrote a broadway musical, sure, I’d want to put in references; it’s good to have call backs to the original work organically, it’s fun to spot them and it encourages listening more than once/makes fans feel seen. I wouldn’t just take direct lines and put a few cliches in after them and call it a day. It’s like if Game of Thrones was a musical and Jon sang “Winter is coming, the North Remembers and it’s For The Watch and I will not stop till I know who I am!” Or how about a duet with Cersei and Daenerys “I’m not a man, but I have a plan! No penis between my legs but I’m taking a stand! They say I can’t but I say I can!” which is all the Louise song amounts to. Just a simple, repetitive, childlike song that acts like it has something to say we haven’t all heard a million times.
It doesn’t matter how I feel about it anyways. I just think it’s ridiculous for them to act this haughty and unashamedly entitled over something so basic. The Ratitouille musical was collaboration at its finest. It helped a lot of people both involved and witnessing feel alive and inspired in an unprecedented time of solitude and pain. I’m not saying any of it was any less basic than the UBM, but you could tell it was coming from a place of fun and good intentions. The UBM has rubbed me the wrong way for awhile;It was fine back when it was just a fun thing and I think it’s cool that a fan work could win a Grammy, there are so many great fan works that deserve recognition! It’s just turned sour. I think it just boils down to them acting like they laid the golden egg when they were Jack the whole time. They took someone else’s work (I won’t defend the Bridgerton novels as high art but she wrote them and they are hers), took direct lines from the show that the show writers( who already don’t get enough credit and attention) wrote and created, and said “yup, look how clever we are!”. Then, when offered a legal way to keep going, they said “nah, we want all the credit and money” and spat on the people they were blatantly ripping off’s olive branch while jeopardizing future fan work. Fans are the reason this got big, and no matter how this lawsuit goes, it will set a precedent for all future fan works. How dare they act this selfish. How dare they act this stupid and entitled. They are ACTUALLY GOING THEOUGH WITH THE LAWSUIT LIKE THEY HAVE SOME RIGHT TO THE MATERIAL. Fuck. It’s so fucking infuriating. I hope they are put through the wringer, but then I have to accept that by doing that, the precident will be to harm fan works. If they win then people can just take your work and do whatever they want and you won’t be able to sue them because lawyers will say “well the UBM won so you will probably lose”. If (when) they lose it means that more companies will be quick to squash and fan works to keep this from happening again. It’s bullshit either way and they are selfish, pathetic cowards for what they are doing. Screw the both of them.
You are so right in this. If someone took “their” work and created the UBM Adult Coloring Book (for example), how quickly would they shut that down claiming copyright infringement? They never would have shot to stardom with their own writing. I’m sure many people supported the effort because it was the creation of someone they perceived as a fellow lover of the work and saw in them a reflection of themselves. It’s already so hard for creators not to get screwed by spurious copyright claims and now this will make it so much worse. Win or lose corporations are going to learn a lesson from this. They’ve made millions and can use their success to fuel other projects. If they had played nicely and gone the licensing route, they could have pursued other lucrative partnerships. So even if they didn’t want to do the right thing from a sense of ethics, they’re stupid not to make the right choice for their own preservation. Do they really think Netflix can’t outspend them in a long, protracted case? These things can take years. For their selfishness, I hope Netflix ruins them.
Why are you the only person I’ve seen admit that the UBM is not that good, I think there are 4 songs that are fun to sing but almost all the words are directly stolen from the show and it sounds like robots are singing it? It’s actually kind of hard to listen to, the fact that they won the Grammy is kind of bull puckey
@@goatpie882 haha I was worried I’d come across as an ass, and maybe I am. I have written fan fiction, o write a lot actually, and I don’t think I’m good at all either. I just find it so pretentious how they song these songs like they are poet laureate of the musical world, then turn around and pretend Bridgerton is cheesy and beneath then and to make sure they aren’t labeled “the Bridgerton girls”. It’s so laughable.
Also, taking the Ocean Away line and putting it to the heterosexual couple? I thought it was a nice way to say”hey, atleast you could marry check your privilege” but nope, let’s make it about the leads. Rubs me the wrong way.
reading your comment somehow kinda reminds me of stephenie meyer/e.l james. meyer made the world and characters of twilight and was apparently, not just chill about it, but also thrilled when people make fanfics of it. james made a twilight fanfic, took its serial numbers off, and acted like it was always hers and apparently isn't too thrilled when people make 50 shades fanfics??? which, lol. lmao. rofl, even.
there's that theme of entitlement and perhaps to some extent insecurity with both b&b and james: their own works were based off other people's works but they don't act like it.
Excuse me but when was Bear ever been an industry reject!? she's a literal child prodigy (I remember her Ellen days) and was mentored by Quincy Jones. Just because she wasn't where she wanted to be at 19 (!!!!) doesn't mean the end of her career. She got an advantage literally no one gets
I feel bad for Barlow thinking she'd never get her dream, but knowing that she was entirely supported by her parents while she was unemployed in LA completely changed my perspective. I wish i had parents who were rich enough to fund my life in major city while did nothing but feel sad because I didn't get signed by a record company.
Why does this remind me of Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos?
This just sounds like sour grapes, like "why should burger flippers make $15 an hour when I only get paid $12 an hour at my job".
And it's pretty disingenuous to claim she did nothing but "feel sad", she spent that time writing, performing, courting a record deal - you know, all the work that's required to be successful in the music industry. She didn't just sit on the couch with a box of tissues and wait for the phone to ring like you're implying.
@@sfdntk also, living in a big city can be expensive but was she living in an mansion?people can live frugally, and how is that different from parents who help their kid go to college?
I'm really curious about B&B's careers after this. The arrogance and lack of tack feels like its gonna close alot of doors for them. I've seen comments on other videos that they've pretty much blacklisted themselves. I'm interested in what this will cost them.
This just feels like the epitome of entitlement. And it's hard for me to feel sympathy for two people who claimed to be "struggling in the industry" when they weren't even 25 yet.
Especially when ones a nepotism baby whos worked with Quincy Jones and Disney
@@jazzycat8917 That’s another thing. Since they’ve both been in the industry for years and worked with industry professionals, you can’t make the argument “Oh well they just didn’t know.” Even when I was 10 years old I knew what copyright meant.
@@karrihart1 thats what confuses me. i could tell things were gonna go down hill cause i got a bad vibe from the purple hair lady (which sounds really bad and silly) and they didn't let anyone else participate in the creation of the musical even though it was on a public app and the show has a whole fandom. also they really should have known better if they were in the industry they ruined their own careers by choosing to ignore everything and everyone...
No but fr. What do you mean they were tired of getting doors closed on their face? One was working with Michael Jackson's producer at the age of 8 and worked with Disney, and the other was living rent free at the expense of her parents, which allowed her to make music whenever she wanted without having to find a "real job"... these girls are clearly very priviledged and they're so used to getting whatever they want that they thought they could bend and break the rules to their favour and there would be no consequences. I would have been totally on their side if they had cooperated with Netflix, I also like Bridgerton and it is fun to see fans express their love through content creation. Their musical idea started out like harmless fun, but they got greedy.
Right? Like it’s totally fine to have that privilege (why would you say no to the opportunities granted to you) but acknowledge it. No need to pretend you’re the underdog
So a woman who didn't become a "star" after doing a handful of local shows in one year and then had delays in her notable opportunities due to (0V1D (and whose parents were paying all her expenses) and another who has been achieving high-profile success since she was 6 want people to feel sorry for them after snubbing the actual creators of the material and owners of the copyright that they were infringing upon, even when offered a fair offer from said parties? How entitled, greedy and hubristic can two people be? And lazy! They are complaining about "hardship" after one year of light effort?! They seem the type to want to be singers for the fame and money, rather than the actual creative aspects (not that arts people shouldn't make a fair living-they should, absolutely) but that that is the main reason they were trying to achieve their dreams-money, and to make themselves more "important" than others and their reactions and handling to this seem to align with this. The world doesn't need more selfish, fame-hungry "talent" that will do anything, legal and not, so long as it's the easy way, to get money and be known.
So many people have the kneejerk reaction of being against Netflix. And with reason- it's a giant company seemingly coming for creative independents. But that's the reason intellectual property rights exists- so that rights holders can monopolize the ability to profit on their IP. Imagine if this was the other way around. Intellectual property is intellectual property and they dun fucked up. They didn't use uncopyrighteable concepts and situations- they straight lifted dialogue. Screenplays are copyrightable. I don't know what they can have on their side to sway this. Maybw the fact that Netflix weirdly allowed some performances instead of filing for an injunction right away, but that seems thiiiiin.
You don’t need to imagine it. The Bridgerton TV series is based on a series of books, written by an author. I don’t know which rights Netflix bought in order to make their TV series, but by creating a Bridgerton musical, B&B have infringed on the rights of the original author.
@@bebel9 Netflix seems to have bought exclusive rights to make derivative works of the Bridgeton book series.
I'm a paralegal for intellectual property and I've seen so many companies sueing each other for less, but still with good reason. The laws exist for a reason. And I agree, Netflix is definitely in the right. This is blatent infringement of intellectual property.
@@bebel9 I clearly meant imagine if two women created a story... and then Netflix made a tv series based on it without licensing. I know Bridgerton is based on a series of books, but in this case Netflix is the rights holder and therefore the aggrieved party here.
If they were smart they shouldve left the bridgerton musical where it was after the Grammy, maybe sell it to Netflix, and use the fame and momentum to create their own original musical. It's really a shame cause it seems like we almost had a new musical writing duo but they got too caught up in the hoopla
I never watched Bridgerton or heard about these ladies and the unofficial musical. But the fact that Barlow took a line by a gay man about not being his love not being accepted and rewrote it for a straight woman does not sit right with me.
Much as I loathe Netflix and Bridgerton, B & B are in the wrong now. Maybe it's me, but lately there's an attitude around IPs and Fair Use: play the "little guy" card and steal as much as you can until lawyers break in the door.
honestly i think barlow and bear WERE expecting support by being the 'little guy' in this situation, and have now basically gone silent bc they dont have that support lmao
I think it’s crazy how that album won a Grammy, but what’s crazier was that B&B refused Netflix’s offer of a license.
I just don’t understand why they went ahead with the performance. At this point it feels like they just expected Netflix to step aside and say “no you CAN make thousands of dollars from this property you don’t own, the songs are just too good” especially after they were offered a lisence it just seems absurd
It feels like they were naive enough to think that copyright was like a movie. That being a creator was some sort of ordained position. It’s like the people in rent. The self entitlement that goes into thinking that being a creator means you’re above the law is so weird
As much as I am totally on Netflix', Quinn's and Shondaland's side on this... SOMEONE those girls had on their team fucked up big time. I really can't see, when it's clear as day that Netflix wasn't authorising anything and wasn't giving official permission at ANY time in the proceedings that Barlow and Bear would continue doing what they were doing so naively. Someone has given those girls bad advice - someone with either a vested financial interest or someone who wanted to take them down.
Take this with a massive grain of salt, but someone commented on MickeyJoes video on this claiming to know Abigail and her family, and described her and her sisters as extremely entitled. If thats true, it might not be that theyre getting duped by bad advice, it genuinely might be wild levels of spoiled arrogance from one or both of them
I understand that Netflix's contract might not be the best behind the curtains but there's absolutely no way they would get away with profiting off Bridgerton's name from multiple concerts in huge stadiums, especially when Netflix also has Bridgerton live shows 😩 either the lawyers messed up or they got way too cocky
Netflix is right. They were hella lenient most companies would’ve sued much earlier.
Two well connected rich girls got too cocky and didn't think there'd ever be consequences (consequences only happen to gross poors, duh)
It's been interesting to watch the reactions of people online slowly change as the lawsuit was released and more videos similar to this one were published that broke it all down.
Wait, so she reconstructed a line that was originally about a gay guy lamenting about not being with his male love interest and turned it about a straight girl wishing she was with her heterosexual partner? *Deep sigh* That’s not okay.
Also, calling a concept album a fanfic isn’t the same thing. X(
I had no idea about this show but hearing that that's how it started, by taking a moment from a gay character (which is rare to see in mainstream films and series about the Regency Era) to tell a story about another white straight woman, is just so wrong and made me take the side of Netflix right away lol
Yeah that put a bad taste in my mouth too lol
That's was I thinking too... That is just not right
i had no idea since i’m not a fan of the original show and never followed the creation of the album. this INFURIATES me as a lgbtq+ person. we barely get any representation, let alone POSITIVE, and then a (presumably) straight woman twists it to fit her own little fantasy, and stripping it of basically all of its original meaning??? come on.
not related, but i just realized how odd the album cover is. i understand they are proud of their original composing and the lyrics that are original, but it’s very weird that they are the face of their narrative-driven album. makes me feel really weird.
which line are you talking about? I’ve never actually watched Bridgerton, so I don’t have this context
I feel like if they wanted to be independent from netflix's wishes and still perform it, why didn't they just file the serial numbers off? Like how Fifty Shades of Gray was originally Twilight Fanfiction or how Love Hypothesis was Reylo fanfiction. Make it legally distinct enough, but still have that Bridgerton vibe, I think they could've still been successful
If this goes to trial, nobody wins, and that's what pisses me off about the entire situation. If B&B win (which is unlikely, but if they did) then that opens the floodgates for ANYONE to take someone else's story/art/content/etc. and simply use it and make money off of it without you, the original creator, seeing anything. If Netflix wins, then it opens a different floodgate, one where anyone who writes fanfiction or creates fanart or does anything that is entirely "fan-made" simply for the sake of sharing love over a fandom, can potentially be held liable for theft of copyright infringement if the entity that holds the copyright so chooses to pursue. And I feel that B&B, in their effort to find validation and stardom, took a massive sh*t on all the other people who were like them prior to becoming famous, not caring how their actions may effect the outcome of fellow creators. And when the author of the book series (who created said characters 20-some years ago) says "back off", then you are in the wrong, end of discussion
I don’t think Netflix winning would necessarily put fanwork in danger. Speaking as someone who has been writing fanfic since 2005, fanwork is much more mainstream now than it’s ever been before and studios know it helps maintaining hype during hiatus of their movies, shows, or the next book in a series. They know that going after people posting free work out of the love for the original IP is a bad look that can cause backlash. The key is to not monetize it. The moment you start making money from it you’re infringing on their copyright, and that’s when they are within their right to get involved. One of the reasons why AO3 doesn’t have ads is so they can’t monetize the fanwork they host. That has always been the line.
If B&B win, though, then things can get very dangerous, especially for small creators. If B&B wins, then there’s nothing to stop big companies from adapting the work of small creators without so much as paying them for using their story, or even crediting them.
The fact they thought they could get away with this speaks of pure entitlement.
Honestly? I don’t think Netflix winning would do that at all. Companies like Disney already do that. Otherwise, the issues only really arise when you start making profit and actively flipping Netflix off.
"anyone who writes fanfiction or creates fanart or does anything that is entirely "fan-made" simply for the sake of sharing love over a fandom, can potentially be held liable for theft of copyright infringement if the entity that holds the copyright so chooses to pursue" this is the situation now. most fan works are copyright infringement, they're just let off the hook because most of them don't have enough money to be worth suing for, even the ones making money from selling fanart/zines, etc.
yeah this was my first thought as well, this feels like a case of "you ruined it for everyone" bc they wanted to make money off someone elses IP.
Not every legal case changes precedent. Everybody seems to think that just because a case is high profile the law has suddenly changed. No, it’ll be interpreted and applied
I think this modern internet world where people can easily make and share content using or based on preexisting IPs can make it very easy to forget about copyright laws. Legally, making and monetizing fan art or animatics or songs based on existing content is on pretty shaky ground, but so many people do it that you kind of forget. I think Barlow and Bear got so wrapped up in tiktok's enviornment and the hype of their work that they just forgot that copyright laws could actually effect them. But considering they had a whole legal team, they prooobably should've figured it out sooner.
These girls made me side with a billion dollar corporation, and I detest them for that.
Honestly, I'm feeling anxious just thinking about their audacity and what might have been running through their heads. Oh, and thank you for starting the story from the beginning! I'm not on TikTok and am not a Bridgerton fan, so I had no clue this was going on until articles about them getting sued started popping up
Wow.
The sheer hubris of these people. Netflix was throwing them bones left and right, actually willing to help them out, and they just said "Fuck you Netflix" to their face.
It was a foolish move to decline the license. I’m sure Netflix would’ve taken a big chunk of the proceeds, but that’s how it goes. Now they will have a much tougher time getting their next piece off the ground.
Absolutely love that one of your patrons was able to give you legal advice for this video
From the looks of it, this all could have been easily avoided. Barlow and Bear *could've* taken the deal with Netflix, and fans might have gotten even more content with the musical. Barlow and Bear *could've* started writing their own original musical, considering they have the fame and following. However, they didn't, and now they have to face the consequences in a case against a big corporation that I don't see them winning.
This is a simple case. Netflix gave them a chance and the opportunity to buy a license that would include the rights to produce their shows and songs. Both girls did not want it. Therefore, they are stealing. Just as clearly as if they had gone up to a waitress and taking the tips off the table. The fact that it’s a large corporation makes no difference. Some of the things they are stealing such as direct dialogue from Julia Quinn, were made by independent creators just like them. It’s not OK. They made a poor choice and now they’re suffering the consequences of it.
I mean, aside from the obvious comments on how dumb they were to do this with a property they didnt own....
Um... they co-opted the feelings and lines from a gay man for the main female character? And somehow didnt get blown up for that? How did they avoid all the landmines of their missteps before getting to the point they were charging for tickets to performances?
They are white woman who put themself behind the cover of being little independent creators and being female producers against mean male ones
Women eat that shit up
This!!! So much this!
@@JBabyLeather I know everyone is saying they were only wrong for profiting, but yeah... that tidbit makes me feel like they were kinda wrong in the start. You dont take a secondary gay character's one great scene where he bares his heart about being a gay man in 1800's high society and give it to the main female lead who has most of the lines and screentime. At the very least make it a duet to show how in spite of being different sexualities they can relate in how they feel. Definitely dont call it Daphine's Song. Dont peel back the inclusivity that made Bridgerton stand out from other period dramas.
Glad to see someone bring this up, I did a double take when I reached that part of the video.
They cranked out the first couple of songs in rapid succession . I feel like the song that really launched their popularity was, " Burn for you" so the issues with " oceans away" gets overlooked. Also Abigail has come out as being bi, so maybe that insulated her from that particular criticism. The way she expresses the fact that she her bisexual feels a bit performative but maybe that's an empty criticism.
They even offered them a license and they declined? That is just stupid. How did they think they could get away with that when money was entering the game? As if Netflix or ANYONE ELSE who would have held that copyright and trademark would have allowed them to continue without at least getting a share out of it.
I feel Netflix is in the right here. Barlow and Bear stopped acting in good faith, and Netflix is well within its rights to take them to the mat for it.
One way to avoid problems is to parody something that has long since lapsed from copyright. I made a parody musical of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar where Caesar and his fellow Romans are modern day high school kids.
public domain ftw lol
Once it's in public domain, it doesn't even have to be parody. Look at Jorge Rivera-Herrans writing a pop musical about the Odyssey.
SO HYPED for that concept album to drop.
@@margaret_adelle As a defense to copyright, you're absolutely correct. I merely mentioned parody as an example with my Caesar musical. I've heard a bit about the Odyssey musical...I'll have to check it out more in depth! Thanks for the recommendation.
@@iwakeupandboomimarat It certainly avoids a lot of problems, that's for sure. 😂
Proceeds from Elsie Fest do go to Broadway charities, so they weren't breaking any deals there. And B&B were (there's no other word) stupid for not using/ignoring their friend, Darren Criss, for advice. Starkid still performs those songs and were given the rights to sell AVPM merch by WB.
I dont think it matters in this case where the money went. It was advertised under the Bridgerton name and directly competed with Netflixs Bridgerton experience. Especially since Netflix already told them No to ANY live performances, yet they did it anyway. Regardless if the money went to charity or to them they were told not to and offered a license so they could but refused it to remain "independent". You dont mess with the money of big companies. Thats why Ratatusical got express permission for an agreed upon stream for a set amount of days and all proceeds to charity. It didnt mess with Disneys money and in fact helped improve their relations with that charity and the public. Honestly I hope Netflix goes through with all of this, IP needs to be protected at every level of the industry. I wouldnt be surprised if they got the Grammy taken back once this all settles.
I think the issue is more with the sold out Kennedy Center performance that was definitely not for charity. Also, they were profiting on merchandise.
The fanfiction community has only recently found protection from original authors sending direct email threats in the last decade or so; that protection only exists on the foundation of it being completely free. The moment you put up your PayPal or Kofi or GoFundMe in association with your fanfic, the author has legal right to come after you.
So if someone is going to call their unofficial musical “technically fanfiction”, my hope is they would already know the do’s and don’t’s of what that entails.
I can’t wait for someone to make an Unofficial Unofficial Bridgerton Musical the Story of Fame and Friendship which tells the story of Barlow and Bear
They weren’t thinking long term at all. Were the performances really worth a massive lawsuit, being shamed by the producer of the show and the author in which their ideas were taken, having their names associated with legal battles, losing respect, and being on bad terms with Netflix? Did no one on their team think that short term monetary value was not worth it.
Your content always delivers - I've been seeing snippets of this on TikTok for the past couple of weeks but have been waiting for you to really give us all the tea! Well done!!
i'm so excited for this i've been binging your content the past few days and now i'm finally here for a new upload!
I'm sure this video is great as always but I just want to point out that the Bridgerton book series, which the Netflix show and the musical are based on, predates both Gossip Girl AND 50 Shades 🤣
The musical is not based on the book series, it's based on the Netflix show based on the books. They didn't even license the books separately, and couldn't as Netflix has the rights to create stage content from the books too.
@@plkrtn way to miss the point lol
i mean, that's a regular elevator pitch. "imagine X combined with Y, that's the Z project." was it really necessary to point this out?
this was so, so good. very detailed and honest. well done!
This whole thing is wild. What the hell were they thinking? It’s a copyrighted work. If you don’t get permission, you’re going to get sued. If you don’t follow their demands, you’re going to get sued. This wasn’t a parody at all, this wasn’t free, this wasn’t for charity. It was just as it said, an UNOFFICIAL musical. I do not understand why you would cut off communication. I do not understand why would wouldn’t accept the licensing THAT NETFLIX OFFERED YOU! If it’s about creative control then fair enough, back out and make something new and original. If it’s about the “independent spirit” then that’s just arrogant. Especially when you continue to push on as if you won’t get repercussions. Regardless of why you can’t just keep going. As I said, you make something new that your now huge audience can support. You have the fans, you have the idea, just change it to not SPECIFICALLY BE ABOUT BRIDGETON and go again. You can only go your own way for so long. If you do it in that situation, you’re just naive and stupid. It started nicely, but then became kind of arrogant and kinda greedy (charging $150 for pedicures). They had their cake and tried to eat it too. It just stinks of naivety, inexperience, and immaturity. If this is how they and their team are, then they desperately NEED some industry heads that have experience to come in and guide them.
B&B are so entitled they must have thought they could use their small creator card, play the victim, and get away with it. However, they got so much press they are not small creators anymore. Now not only they ruined themselves, but they could ruin the party for the rest as well.
i was waiting for your video on this topic! wonderful job as always
i admire their spirit, but these two women were in the complete wrong to go this far with the concept. nobody in their right mind would do this and not expect the copyright holder to sue them for this.
Your content is always incredible!
I hope that Barlow and Bear learned from the experience.
super uncomfortable with the fact that she took a line from a CANONICALLY QUEER CHARACTER and rewrote it for the straight lead
I haven't watched the show, but what line was is?
@@liyah7168 He explains at 10:30
These girls are just beyond prideful, entitled, and ignorant. I’m surprised Netflix, Shondaland, and Julia Quinn have been like the parent that wanted to support their deluded child. But said child, even with all the warnings and several callouts, still decided to commit the crime! What they did was clearly not fanfic, because they used lines and scenes from the show by Shondaland, used the names of Julia Quinn’s characters, and used capitalized on the fame/name/concept of Netflix’s show. I have no sympathy for them when they raked in money ignoring the actual rights of Julia Quinn, Netflix, and the team behind Bridgerton.
Fr and fanfiction writers don’t profit at all they have.
Great narration and editing.
I don't think I'd ever have been put in a position where I'd have to defend Netflix, but this is clear cut. Netflix was completely right here and even gave them multiple chances.
I never had a clue about any of this, but I always love your detailed docs.
I can't believe they didn't take the license when Netflix offered. Very silly decision.
the fact that they and their legal team tried to "Lol no" Netflix is INSANE
Why the hell wouldn't they accept the deal of a lifetime from Netflix to make their work official with production and distribution rights? Were they hoping to get more out of Netflx?
I haven't watched the video yet, but I can't help wondering, is Bridgerton really such an epitome of originality that the composers couldn't alter it slightly and sell it as an original story? It has worked for a couple of authors before.
It’s not about originality but more on the copyright. I’m not sure about the specifics of their copyright, but most producers/networks/authors have specific rights to their characters/shows/series. You can’t earn money by using the names/scenes/events based on copyrighted materials. These girls not only capitalized on Bridgerton fame, characters, scenes uniquely written for the series that they are in essence stepping on so many lines (Julia Quinn’s, Shondaland, Netflix). An example of fanfic that was actually allowed to exist is Fifty Shades of Grey which was originally a fanfic of Twilight but the difference is the writer of FSoG changed the title, name of the chracters, and the scenes - which these girls did not.
Yeah, they could have done that - heck, E. L. James wrote 50 Shades as a Twilight fanfic and avoided getting sued for everything by just changing the character names before publishing it, and Bridgerton is a pretty formulaic regency romance, but I think B+B were specifically trying to capitalize on the popularity of Bridgerton to advance their own careers. A "Regency musical" likely wouldn't go viral as quickly as something using the Bridgerton brand name. What got them famous so quickly is now their downfall, and for a good reason - they were basically profiting not only off of the Bridgerton IP, but also Netflix's marketing from the show, because every time someone looked up something related to the show or books or online, they were likely to come across the musical, which wouldn't necessarily happen if they just changed all the recognizable names.
the whole appeal of it is the association with the existing IP, Brigerton itself is not that innovative of a story and people like it for the vibes and characters, besides taking full lines from the show the music is just not special outside of being a fandom thing, it doesnt have bones to stand by itself. Like yes, I think its jukeboxy enough that if they made a whole new different story around these songs it would not be difficult, but unless they are secretely script geniuses I dont think anyone would be interested if not for the Bridgerton association, they didnt actually "make a fanfic" (toom existing characters and made their own story) and wrote music for it, they just made the music following the canon of the show but make it even more straight i guess
I remember when Ratatouille the musical just started, it was amazing and I am glad it got bigger! I am glad I got to see the whole process of it going into Broadway. It was a good show considering how it was made all on tiktok!
Ok the way this video was set up was so amazing to watch
Barlow and Bear seem incredibly selfish to me, like they must know the consequences that will come if they win. Barlow and Bear are small artists this time, but what happens when a big corporation decides to make a film out of a book they don't have the rights to? Then there will be a precedence where "fan made" material can profit out of someone else's work. What happens when it's a corporation like Netflix doing what Barlow and Bear are doing? Profiting of someone else's intellectual property without permission. It would put small creators everywhere at risk.
Moreover, if Netflix wins, it now puts fan made content at risk. It sets a precedent that massive corporations may want to prevent a similar situation, and so they will shut down content such as the Bridgerton musical, which is a work of art, and similar things deserve to exist. Talented artist should be allowed to take inspiration from other's contents.
Either way, it's messy. I am hoping Netflix wins, but overwhelmingly, this should have never been taken to court there is no good outcome, only one that isn't as bad as the other.
Lol. It’s 100% NOT fair use. It’s a direct adaptation with lines lifted from the show. I love the energy and spirit of Barlow and Bear but if they win it will set a terrible legal precedent where giant companies will just take the work of small artists and turn them into shows. Imagine if the lady who wrote the Bridgerton book was given nothing because the actors and directors of the show were “big fans” of the book!
I truly hate that most of us are having to take the side of Netflix on this one. I truly want to root for Barlow & Bear given that they're both underdogs struggling for that shot at success-a struggle many of us are familiar with. But there are legalities here especially if you're going to use IP you don't own for profit. I am sure the terms for the licensing wasn't favorable to B&B but man this will truly cost them, and it's very possible that they can lose.
Julia Quinn gave Netflix the rights. Keep that in mind.
This video was done so well. I was like “will I even want to watch all of this video?” And yet I did watch it in its entirety. Such a well done video
I watched this video essay and learned a lot about copyright in musicals that I didn't know before, Wait In The Wings is a must see channel for aspiring creatives.
oh my god i’ve never heard of this but by the title this seems JUICYYYYY
When a company as big as Netflix can sue you and chooses not to and then pretty much goes above and beyond in giving you what you want, take it. Don't abuse the kindness.
I think it's worth noting Bridgerton the show being the brain child of Shonda Rhimes, a Black woman, and these are two white women here infringing on this copyright. But I also don't understand, getting a licensing deal would've given them longevity AND legitimacy, maybe being blackballed is a thing of the past but I can't imagine a smooth or easy up road.
“Bridgerton” is brainchild of Julia Quinn. Shonda Rhimes abs Netflix purchased the rights to her books.
@@ChienaAvtzon Well yeah, but I meant how it became a global phenomenon
I really doubt Barlow and Bear didn't realize they were... poking the bear on this one (*badumtsh*), and especially not with the team they had. But I agree with the assessment they went ahead thinking the Internet would be on their side for this one, given people have it in for Netflix for several reasons (not that I disagree with a lot of the criticism). Except it led to the Internet going into "poor little rich girls" mode, a pissed off Shonda Rhimes (that alone would not make me sleep well at night), and Julia Quinn, an author in a genre that gets too often dismissed as "housewife porn" getting dismissed of her rights as a creator. It's sad, really.
The most "young who thinks knows it all" story you'll hear.
This is the best ad read I’ve ever seen in my life
I'm still upset they beat Girl from the north country for the best musical album at the Grammys. Bridgerton had one decent song that went viral on tik tok, which is the only reason they won.
Does anyone have any updates?? Also, thank you for posting this video, I was so confused about what happened and you answered all my questions in one place!!
It sucks, because they are undoubtedly talented. But imo they've flown too close to the sun and it will affect fanworks for years to come.
I'd be pissed if I was the author. It feels like they're just taking her universe and running away with it (along with her hard work).
I hate having to side with a big company, but I genuinely can’t see a scenario where Barlow & Bear are not the ones to blame in this situation
B&B dont just think theyre the Main Characters, they think theyre the main characters in Rent
I just really hope that this doesn't tighten the leash on other creators' fan work :(
After the Grammy, they should've just used the clout to create their own original musical.
I forgot about how they took the lines from the only gay character in the show and gave them to Daphne.
Yeah, why did they have to erase a queer moment like that?
@@171QAOn one hand, I get it. It's such a powerful line that one can't help but want to give it to the most important character. But it was still bad form and idk how they thought that no one would notice and get upset about it.
they had it all... and wasted it.
This feels like I watched the “give an inch and they’ll take a mile “ proverb.
All they had to do was not charge admission. They got away with SO MUCH
You're the only person I've seen say that they recorded the album before getting Netflix's permission. Everything I've seen said Netflix gave them permission to release the album online so I thought they sought licensing for that correctly. That's wild that they recorded it first!
How did they get a Grammy without copyright!!!!