I am in the understanding that Netflix have all the copyright licensing for all derivative works in all mediums of all the Bridgerton books, that’s why the word Bridgerton is a trademark of Netflix. And that’s why Julia Quinn is not suing but is very supportive of Netflix in this case.
It's possible that Netflix has exclusive rights for some derivative works of the Bridgerton books, but we have no evidence of that, and Netflix itself has never said that. The Complaint only asserts and refers to Netflix's own copyright in the TV series. Further, the only record of an assignment of rights that has been recorded with the Copyright Office is for a "short form option" in the Bridgerton series. We can't know exactly what rights were assigned there, but by its title, it seems unlikely to be all derivative works (and more likely to be an option to specifically produce the TV show). Finally, it's just highly unlikely that Julia Quinn would allow Netflix exclusive rights in all derivative works. For one, Quinn at least would want to retain derivative work rights in literary works (including audiobooks and e-books). The trademark issue is entirely separate from copyright. Unlike copyright, you actually have to register a trademark for it to be effective. Quinn has never registered for a trademark in Bridgerton. Netflix did (though, to be clear, it registered that trademark in specific categories relating to the TV show, merch, etc.).
@@jayteeish_ yes I understand that but Is standard practice in the entertainment business: I this type of mega projects they bought all the licensing to avoid the problems that Warner have with JK Rowling and the Harry Potter IP. I work on the publishing business, and she is legendary for the kind of deal she made with WB: she have the last word in everything is made in the HP brand, WB only have the movie and merchandising rights, I think Universal have the TV rights, she have a better cut of the profits, she keep the ebook and audiobook rights so now she sell it independently via Pottermore. After the huge success of the HP brand, the publishers and studios change the way they made deals, the book, ebook and audiobooks are licensed to the same publisher and the tv, movies, musics rights to the Studio/Producer, and more important the studio have the last word. That’s why very often the studios change and destroy books in the adaptation and the author can’t say nothing.
@@KikeNavarrete68 That's just not true, in particular with book adaptations. There are a number of standard sample film option agreements publicly available online, none of which grant such broad rights. A production company can get a license to make all derivative works (i.e., Netflix can make any Bridgerton-related content it wants without Quinn's approval), but that's different from having an exclusive right to make derivative works (which is required for them to be able to sue). For one, Julia Quinn's publishing house already owns some exclusive rights, so Quinn cannot contract those away to Netflix, even if she wanted to. (Again, Netflix may have the appropriate rights here, I don't know without looking at their contract. But they didn't assert them, which is very weird if they do have the rights.)
@@jayteeish_ they say in the lawsuit we are the only company that has the legal right to create Bridgerton songs musicals and merchandise no one else has that right except for our company, they own the series. its the same as Harry Potter Warner brothers owns the Harry Potter series and jk has kept her ownership as part of her contract with them. Warner brothers owns the right to the film the wizard of oz and half of the writes to the RSC stage musical but the books themselves are public domain they can be used and created to be anything and Warner can't do shit about it. these women still from Netflix.
have you listened to the album, nd then watched the songs that the scenes and parts are based off of, the entire opening number of the musical is verbatim the opening to the tv show down to the inflsction of the characters and their voices.
Julia Quinn owns the rights of the books only but a lawsuit wouldn't just be Julia Quinn it would also include her publishing company so that is still an option however not sure if Julia has to initiate a lawsuit or the publishing, the publishing company would be the original publisher of the books
With the disclaimer that I don't know Julia Quinn's exact contract, the standard for modern book publishing contracts is for the copyright to remain in the author's name. The publishing house would only have a limited set of explicitly identified rights (physical book publication, ebook, audiobook, maybe foreign language translations). These rights would not include audiovisual adaptations - movie/TV rights are negotiated entirely separately from the publishing house. So only Julia Quinn would need to be involved here, if anyone, to assert the original copyright rights at issue.
The fact, that I didnt even recognise Netflix Bridgerton since the actresses are White. I guess, I forgot, that Bridgerton is also a popular mainstream regency romance book series. Thank you for this breakdown, it was all educative and entertaining.
Very interesting video, thank you! I've studied some copyright and trademark law with my journalism degree but obviously the parts we studied didn't exactly involve a lot of musicals or theatre. So, I was just curious if you have any insight at all into the venue/actors/production part of it all? Like, the venues for these shows are very prestigious and the BBC orchestra was gonna be involved in the UK and they have tony-award winning people performing, which means there are lots of people involved who have experience in the industry and presumably know how important the legal side of it is. So: a) Do you think those people were under the impression that this was authorized? Or did they maybe just assume that it was because of the previous charity event? If feels odd to me that a lot of these people would wanna get involved if they knew that Netflix wasn't happy with it and the potential consequences of that? b) Would they in any way become involved legally during all of this since they also profited off of it (at least at the performance that already happened, the UK one was just cancelled by B&B)? Or could there be potential legal action between them and the parties involved afterwards? Just curious because I feel like no one has talked about it in their videos but it's one of the things that really stuck out to me during all of this!
I don't specialize in this sort of contracting, so I'm not totally sure, but I feel pretty confident that the contract between the venue and Barlow & Bear's production company would include an intellectual property clause that would insulate the production company from any liability from these types of IP claims. Just doing some quick research, it seems pretty standard for the company putting on the performance to represent that it has all the necessary IP rights and will be responsible for all third-party IP claims. Any individual actor is probably similarly protected by contract. So I imagine all the other people involved relied upon Barlow & Bear's representation that they had all the necessary IP rights. Similarly, I don't think there's any real threat that the actors/venue/etc will become involved in the suit because (a) I think they're probably contractually protected by B&B; and (2) it is not worth the litigation cost for Netflix to sue the actors/venue. Netflix mostly cares about preventing future reproductions of the Bridgerton Musical, and suing the venue/actors doesn't do anything to help that. The monetary damages they would get from the actors/venue would be less than the cost on attorneys fees to go through with a litigation.
This was fascinating for me as a writer who's been inspired by many fictional works although this is an extremely different form of inspiration. I like your channel and passion for what you talk about. Keep at it with vid essays. 🌻
I think that the contract netflix has with Julia Quinn and the rights they hold over the material might interest you. Also, you seem to have missed the fact that they staged a full, costumed, set desugn, hollywood actor employed stage production. . . ?
The production was not costumed and there was no set design. Also the actors were either Broadway actors or those who hope to be. A song proving there were no period costumes or set design. czcams.com/video/-Ew0o6THLE4/video.html
Could Netflix not citing the book in the complaint be a trap? So that if B&B answer that they lifted stuff from the books, actually, then Netflix will counter by involving the book author into the lawsuit after their opponents fully admitted to infringing upon the book copyright, and thus win easily.
I don't think so, though I can't be sure. If Barlow & Bear have even somewhat competent legal representation, they're not going to admit to taking anything until absolutely necessary. It would be pretty bad litigation strategy on Netflix's part to count on this. Netflix would have much more to gain from asserting they're strongest case right at the beginning to put settlement pressure on B&B immediately.
I am in the understanding that Netflix have all the copyright licensing for all derivative works in all mediums of all the Bridgerton books, that’s why the word Bridgerton is a trademark of Netflix. And that’s why Julia Quinn is not suing but is very supportive of Netflix in this case.
It's possible that Netflix has exclusive rights for some derivative works of the Bridgerton books, but we have no evidence of that, and Netflix itself has never said that. The Complaint only asserts and refers to Netflix's own copyright in the TV series. Further, the only record of an assignment of rights that has been recorded with the Copyright Office is for a "short form option" in the Bridgerton series. We can't know exactly what rights were assigned there, but by its title, it seems unlikely to be all derivative works (and more likely to be an option to specifically produce the TV show). Finally, it's just highly unlikely that Julia Quinn would allow Netflix exclusive rights in all derivative works. For one, Quinn at least would want to retain derivative work rights in literary works (including audiobooks and e-books).
The trademark issue is entirely separate from copyright. Unlike copyright, you actually have to register a trademark for it to be effective. Quinn has never registered for a trademark in Bridgerton. Netflix did (though, to be clear, it registered that trademark in specific categories relating to the TV show, merch, etc.).
@@jayteeish_ yes I understand that but Is standard practice in the entertainment business: I this type of mega projects they bought all the licensing to avoid the problems that Warner have with JK Rowling and the Harry Potter IP. I work on the publishing business, and she is legendary for the kind of deal she made with WB: she have the last word in everything is made in the HP brand, WB only have the movie and merchandising rights, I think Universal have the TV rights, she have a better cut of the profits, she keep the ebook and audiobook rights so now she sell it independently via Pottermore. After the huge success of the HP brand, the publishers and studios change the way they made deals, the book, ebook and audiobooks are licensed to the same publisher and the tv, movies, musics rights to the Studio/Producer, and more important the studio have the last word. That’s why very often the studios change and destroy books in the adaptation and the author can’t say nothing.
@@KikeNavarrete68 That's just not true, in particular with book adaptations. There are a number of standard sample film option agreements publicly available online, none of which grant such broad rights. A production company can get a license to make all derivative works (i.e., Netflix can make any Bridgerton-related content it wants without Quinn's approval), but that's different from having an exclusive right to make derivative works (which is required for them to be able to sue). For one, Julia Quinn's publishing house already owns some exclusive rights, so Quinn cannot contract those away to Netflix, even if she wanted to.
(Again, Netflix may have the appropriate rights here, I don't know without looking at their contract. But they didn't assert them, which is very weird if they do have the rights.)
@@jayteeish_ they say in the lawsuit we are the only company that has the legal right to create Bridgerton songs musicals and merchandise no one else has that right except for our company, they own the series. its the same as Harry Potter Warner brothers owns the Harry Potter series and jk has kept her ownership as part of her contract with them. Warner brothers owns the right to the film the wizard of oz and half of the writes to the RSC stage musical but the books themselves are public domain they can be used and created to be anything and Warner can't do shit about it. these women still from Netflix.
I know the basis of the lawsuit is on the album but wouldn’t the fact they had performers at the Kennedy center concert work against Barlow and bear
have you listened to the album, nd then watched the songs that the scenes and parts are based off of, the entire opening number of the musical is verbatim the opening to the tv show down to the inflsction of the characters and their voices.
Julia Quinn owns the rights of the books only but a lawsuit wouldn't just be Julia Quinn it would also include her publishing company so that is still an option however not sure if Julia has to initiate a lawsuit or the publishing, the publishing company would be the original publisher of the books
With the disclaimer that I don't know Julia Quinn's exact contract, the standard for modern book publishing contracts is for the copyright to remain in the author's name. The publishing house would only have a limited set of explicitly identified rights (physical book publication, ebook, audiobook, maybe foreign language translations). These rights would not include audiovisual adaptations - movie/TV rights are negotiated entirely separately from the publishing house. So only Julia Quinn would need to be involved here, if anyone, to assert the original copyright rights at issue.
The fact, that I didnt even recognise Netflix Bridgerton since the actresses are White. I guess, I forgot, that Bridgerton is also a popular mainstream regency romance book series.
Thank you for this breakdown, it was all educative and entertaining.
Very interesting video, thank you! I've studied some copyright and trademark law with my journalism degree but obviously the parts we studied didn't exactly involve a lot of musicals or theatre. So, I was just curious if you have any insight at all into the venue/actors/production part of it all? Like, the venues for these shows are very prestigious and the BBC orchestra was gonna be involved in the UK and they have tony-award winning people performing, which means there are lots of people involved who have experience in the industry and presumably know how important the legal side of it is. So:
a) Do you think those people were under the impression that this was authorized? Or did they maybe just assume that it was because of the previous charity event? If feels odd to me that a lot of these people would wanna get involved if they knew that Netflix wasn't happy with it and the potential consequences of that?
b) Would they in any way become involved legally during all of this since they also profited off of it (at least at the performance that already happened, the UK one was just cancelled by B&B)? Or could there be potential legal action between them and the parties involved afterwards?
Just curious because I feel like no one has talked about it in their videos but it's one of the things that really stuck out to me during all of this!
I don't specialize in this sort of contracting, so I'm not totally sure, but I feel pretty confident that the contract between the venue and Barlow & Bear's production company would include an intellectual property clause that would insulate the production company from any liability from these types of IP claims. Just doing some quick research, it seems pretty standard for the company putting on the performance to represent that it has all the necessary IP rights and will be responsible for all third-party IP claims. Any individual actor is probably similarly protected by contract. So I imagine all the other people involved relied upon Barlow & Bear's representation that they had all the necessary IP rights.
Similarly, I don't think there's any real threat that the actors/venue/etc will become involved in the suit because (a) I think they're probably contractually protected by B&B; and (2) it is not worth the litigation cost for Netflix to sue the actors/venue. Netflix mostly cares about preventing future reproductions of the Bridgerton Musical, and suing the venue/actors doesn't do anything to help that. The monetary damages they would get from the actors/venue would be less than the cost on attorneys fees to go through with a litigation.
This was fascinating for me as a writer who's been inspired by many fictional works although this is an extremely different form of inspiration. I like your channel and passion for what you talk about. Keep at it with vid essays. 🌻
Thanks for the kind words!
I think that the contract netflix has with Julia Quinn and the rights they hold over the material might interest you. Also, you seem to have missed the fact that they staged a full, costumed, set desugn, hollywood actor employed stage production. . . ?
The production was not costumed and there was no set design. Also the actors were either Broadway actors or those who hope to be. A song proving there were no period costumes or set design. czcams.com/video/-Ew0o6THLE4/video.html
Could Netflix not citing the book in the complaint be a trap? So that if B&B answer that they lifted stuff from the books, actually, then Netflix will counter by involving the book author into the lawsuit after their opponents fully admitted to infringing upon the book copyright, and thus win easily.
I don't think so, though I can't be sure. If Barlow & Bear have even somewhat competent legal representation, they're not going to admit to taking anything until absolutely necessary. It would be pretty bad litigation strategy on Netflix's part to count on this. Netflix would have much more to gain from asserting they're strongest case right at the beginning to put settlement pressure on B&B immediately.