215 posts
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Aug 12, 2022 23:48:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Aug 12, 2022 23:51:27 GMT
If this were indeed astroturfing, it would be some of the clumsiest and worst I’ve ever seen. Viral marketing is about promoting a brand in a positive light.
That said, they aren’t being paid for this nonsense, they are just a superfan. Their profile, with the same username, on the Emily Bear forum shows them to be a very “devoted” fan since 2020.
I can accept this, it’s an Oliver situation when it comes to ALW. They’re defending their hero regardless of facts or the tide of popular opinion “. Good for them.
It’s still absolutely biased, ignorant of the facts rubbish of course.
|
|
|
Post by Seriously on Aug 13, 2022 0:08:18 GMT
I'm amazed that the various producers they have working for B&B didn't ask if they had the rights. It's always the first question I ask when approached about a project based on someone else's work.
|
|
215 posts
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Aug 13, 2022 0:46:45 GMT
I am not ignoring facts..music by Barlow & Bear http://instagr.am/p/CSZflUGH2sz So in a way Shonda Rimes is isolated in her own... Bte. I just had to google astroturfing...and laughed...no really not... but seeing all the Netflix/Shonda Rimes bots suddenly appear... If Barlow & Bear made a mistake...they have to pay...no doubt... Seriously this is the reason why I have doubts about the lawsuit...it does not add up...Barlow&Bear, their experienced lawyers, their experienced agents, the Kennedy Center, the Royal Albert Hall, the BBC Concert Orchestra,,, etc. etc. literally no one shall have checked anything in all the time. And knowing that at least Emily Bear...always followed the rules, extra careful...that she should suddenly, her lawyers should suddenly act like total fools...with a big company like Netflix... makes absolutely no sense, It is not about being a fan.,,I am a strictly logical thinking person The lawsuit just does not make sense. I may be wrong...if...I will be the first to acknowledge,
|
|
|
Post by fiyerorocher on Aug 13, 2022 1:13:52 GMT
I don't think Netflix file lawsuits that don't make sense. Besides, it seems to make sense to everyone else. They stole an IP and used it illegally for financial gain. They ignored cease and desists. Thus: lawsuit.
As for the agents, the producers, the venues, the writers themselves all making mistakes? People become blind to a lot when they see dollar signs straight ahead. Even those who should know better. That seems to be what's happened with the two girls. The RAH is in millions of pounds of debt right now - I doubt it would have been easy to turn down a sell-out show.
|
|
|
Post by austink on Aug 13, 2022 6:57:45 GMT
Indeed I think you will find a lot of people just assumed they have rights as most venues and agents would not have been in the detail of understand they didn’t have performance rights. The concerts were produced by Bear’s agent so there is the line where anyone would have stopped in questioning legals. Btw whether you like the underlying source material, think Bridgerton is trash or not, it isn’t relevant to the lawsuit. They could have written the best work ever based on Tommy Wiseasu’s The Room, and if you lift material parts of the work without permission, its copyright infringement regardless of quality of the work relative to the underlying work. The question often as noted my others is “does the rights holder care”. Often no but when you book major venues, people tend to notice. And we he lawsuit could be entirely out of spite and jealousy (likely not), still not relevant to the substance of the suit. Btw bringing Amber Heard and Trump into this is an interesting pivot. 😬 I don't think Netflix file lawsuits that don't make sense. Besides, it seems to make sense to everyone else. They stole an IP and used it illegally for financial gain. They ignored cease and desists. Thus: lawsuit. As for the agents, the producers, the venues, the writers themselves all making mistakes? People become blind to a lot when they see dollar signs straight ahead. Even those who should know better. That seems to be what's happened with the two girls. The RAH is in millions of pounds of debt right now - I doubt it would have been easy to turn down a sell-out show.
|
|
793 posts
|
Post by stuartmcd on Aug 13, 2022 7:18:13 GMT
This unofficial musical would not even exist if it wasn’t for Shonda Rhimes, Julia Quinn and Netflix. They created Bridgerton and Barlow and Bear have stolen that for their own financial gain. To put it down to them being annoyed about some awards is ridiculous. So don’t come trying to belittle Shonda Rhimes as someone just throwing a hissy fit when this whole thing wouldn’t even exist if it wasn’t for the massively successful tv show that she created.
|
|
6,331 posts
|
Post by danb on Aug 13, 2022 7:58:09 GMT
Quite why they didn’t present the whole endeavour to Shondaland in the first place, before they started leaking bits and pieces to the internet is beyond me. SR might have found it quirky and a positive addition to the ‘franchise’? Of course conversely she could have slapped them down at that early stage and saved everyone a whole load of negative press.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 13, 2022 8:47:39 GMT
Shanda Rhymes is one of the most successful producers around.
It’s absolutely idiocy to suggest that this suit is to do with insecurity on her part.
Comparing a copyright infringement case in any way to Trump (5 people DIED on Jan 6th! DIED!) or Heard/Depp (a U.K. court found that Depp did, on the balance of probabilities, physically abuse her - and the Depp fans who crowdfunded to unseal documents that were not submitted in the US court are now finding out why - there was a lot of evidence in the U.K. case that was not presented to the US jury!) is just offensive.
Get some perspective. Barlow and Bear have gotten away with far more than most, they just pushed it that bit too far, and are finding out they should have stopped while they were ahead.
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Aug 13, 2022 8:53:07 GMT
Even a simple statement that proclaims they did nothing wrong and asking everyone to reserve judgment until all the facts have been revealed would have done wonders They can't make that kind of statement when it isn't true! You can wear your rose-tinted glasses all you like, but facts are facts and no amount of verging on defamatory comments about Shonda Rhimes from you will change the fact that Barlow and Bear do not have the rights to any Bridgerton IP. That is the beginning, middle and end of the story. And as for why the venues didn't query it, that isn't up to them. They just provide the infrastructure, it will be for the people actually putting on the show to ensure they have the rights in place.
|
|
2,752 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Aug 17, 2022 17:53:36 GMT
I've heard that Paddington Bear is also looking into copyright infringement.
|
|
215 posts
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Aug 19, 2022 16:57:44 GMT
I've heard that Paddington Bear is also looking into copyright infringement. Hahaha...no...lame joke.... if you had written ...the Muppet Show is looking into copyright...as Fozzy Bear‘s mother‘s name is Emily Bear ...it would have been funny and would have made sense Nothing changed in the last three weeks... amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/08/18/media/bridgerton-legal-battle-netflix-tiktok/index.htmlNow both sides don‘t comment...and still only speculation by media outlets and pseudo experts generating clicks.
|
|
2,752 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Aug 19, 2022 19:20:45 GMT
I've heard that Paddington Bear is also looking into copyright infringement. Hahaha...no...lame joke.... if you had written ...the Muppet Show is looking into copyright...as Fozzy Bear‘s mother‘s name is Emily Bear ...it would have been funny and would have made sense Nothing changed in the last three weeks... amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/08/18/media/bridgerton-legal-battle-netflix-tiktok/index.htmlNow both sides don‘t comment...and still only speculation by media outlets and pseudo experts generating clicks. But then if had written that, I'd be overthinking it and it still wouldn't have been funny. However, there is clearly no truth in Ken Barlow being asked to do a paternity test, despite the tenuous rumours that abound online. Given the clicks you generate, do you consider yourself a pseudo expert or are you one of the elite "those in the know" type of person?
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Aug 19, 2022 22:12:03 GMT
I've heard that Paddington Bear is also looking into copyright infringement. Hahaha...no...lame joke.... if you had written ...the Muppet Show is looking into copyright...as Fozzy Bear‘s mother‘s name is Emily Bear ...it would have been funny and would have made sense Nothing changed in the last three weeks... amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/08/18/media/bridgerton-legal-battle-netflix-tiktok/index.htmlNow both sides don‘t comment...and still only speculation by media outlets and pseudo experts generating clicks. Look, I have no problem with Emily Barlowe or Abigail Bare - I’m sure they are terrifically talented singer/songwriters. I just wish for their sake they hadn’t gone down this path. They remind me a lot of the band “Milli Vanilli” who were hugely popular for a spell in the late 80’s. Barlowe and Bare are the new Rob and Fab - and that’s okay. Nothing wrong with a bit of Milli Vanilli or any other cover artist/manufactured star/plagiarist act. The lawyers disagree, but what do they know about copyright law?!
|
|
|
Post by FairyGodmother on Aug 19, 2022 23:15:21 GMT
However, there is clearly no truth in Ken Barlow being asked to do a paternity test, despite the tenuous rumours that abound online. Not least because he'd have been about 70 when she was born. Not everybody can be Mick Jagger thankfully!
|
|
215 posts
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Aug 25, 2022 10:20:08 GMT
Hahaha...no...lame joke.... if you had written ...the Muppet Show is looking into copyright...as Fozzy Bear‘s mother‘s name is Emily Bear ...it would have been funny and would have made sense Nothing changed in the last three weeks... amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/08/18/media/bridgerton-legal-battle-netflix-tiktok/index.htmlNow both sides don‘t comment...and still only speculation by media outlets and pseudo experts generating clicks. Look, I have no problem with Emily Barlowe or Abigail Bare - I’m sure they are terrifically talented singer/songwriters. I just wish for their sake they hadn’t gone down this path. They remind me a lot of the band “Milli Vanilli” who were hugely popular for a spell in the late 80’s. Barlowe and Bare are the new Rob and Fab - and that’s okay. Nothing wrong with a bit of Milli Vanilli or any other cover artist/manufactured star/plagiarist act. The lawyers disagree, but what do they know about copyright law?! so you are comparing them to two men...who were not even musicians, who did not even sing one note ...they were just acting to Frank Farian songs... kind of topping his Boney M project. and to explain it again for you... the real strange thing about the lawsuit is...that their lawyers are one of the most experienced lawyers in the entertainment industry...very certainly quite experienced in copyright law cases....and they are clients of CAA ...worlds leading talent agency en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Artists_AgencySo it would be the same as if Jürgen Klopp suddenly had no clue about football...I am not defending anyone..but it‘s really really strange. Nothing new btw. Barlow and Bear have now time till September 22nd www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/45435844/NETFLIX_WORLDWIDE_ENTERTAINMENT,_LLC_et_al_v_BARLOW_et_al „MINUTE ORDER construing the14 Joint Stipulation Regarding Defendants' Deadline to Respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint as a consent motion for extension of time and granting it. Defendants currently have until August 23, 2022, to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' complaint. See ECF No. 14 at 1. The parties have filed a14 Joint Stipulation Regarding Defendants' Deadline to Respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint, in which they "STIPULATE, and respectfully request that the Court enter an Order providing, that [Defendants'] deadline [to] answer or otherwise respond to [Plaintiffs'] Complaint" is extended to September 22, 2022. Extensions of time will "be granted only upon motion and not upon stipulation of the parties." See ECF No. 7 ¶ 10. But because the parties request a Court Order granting the requested extension, the Court construes the14 Joint Stipulation as a consent motion for extension of time. So construed, it is hereby ORDERED, for good cause shown, that the14 consent motion for extension of time is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' complaint by September 22, 2022. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 08/12/2022. (lctjk2)“ Judge: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_J._Kelly
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Aug 25, 2022 10:31:55 GMT
Look, the truth is I don’t care. I don’t care about the judge’s Wikipedia page. I don’t care about Bridgerton. I only replied because whenever someone is being incredibly partisan in their views, instinct kicks in.
|
|
|
Post by austink on Aug 25, 2022 11:00:57 GMT
1. A lawyer taking a case has little to do with merits. It isn’t pro bono. 2. CAA is irrelevant to copyright matters. 3. Any judge will give extra time to respond. Its standard My issue is people thinking this is a case they can win on the merits and they they are someone the victim here. It’s incredibly disingenuous when there are loads of writers that go though proper mechanisms to get rights to work and very often don’t and you hear nothing of that work as they know you need a license. If you let them away with it, where is the line? Look, I have no problem with Emily Barlowe or Abigail Bare - I’m sure they are terrifically talented singer/songwriters. I just wish for their sake they hadn’t gone down this path. They remind me a lot of the band “Milli Vanilli” who were hugely popular for a spell in the late 80’s. Barlowe and Bare are the new Rob and Fab - and that’s okay. Nothing wrong with a bit of Milli Vanilli or any other cover artist/manufactured star/plagiarist act. The lawyers disagree, but what do they know about copyright law?! so you are comparing them to two men...who were not even musicians, who did not even sing one note ...they were just acting to Frank Farian songs... kind of topping his Boney M project. and to explain it again for you... the real strange thing about the lawsuit is...that their lawyers are one of the most experienced lawyers in the entertainment industry...very certainly quite experienced in copyright law cases....and they are clients of CAA ...worlds leading talent agency en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Artists_AgencySo it would be the same as if Jürgen Klopp suddenly had no clue about football...I am not defending anyone..but it‘s really really strange. Nothing new btw. Barlow and Bear have now time till September 22nd www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/45435844/NETFLIX_WORLDWIDE_ENTERTAINMENT,_LLC_et_al_v_BARLOW_et_al „MINUTE ORDER construing the14 Joint Stipulation Regarding Defendants' Deadline to Respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint as a consent motion for extension of time and granting it. Defendants currently have until August 23, 2022, to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' complaint. See ECF No. 14 at 1. The parties have filed a14 Joint Stipulation Regarding Defendants' Deadline to Respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint, in which they "STIPULATE, and respectfully request that the Court enter an Order providing, that [Defendants'] deadline [to] answer or otherwise respond to [Plaintiffs'] Complaint" is extended to September 22, 2022. Extensions of time will "be granted only upon motion and not upon stipulation of the parties." See ECF No. 7 ¶ 10. But because the parties request a Court Order granting the requested extension, the Court construes the14 Joint Stipulation as a consent motion for extension of time. So construed, it is hereby ORDERED, for good cause shown, that the14 consent motion for extension of time is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' complaint by September 22, 2022. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 08/12/2022. (lctjk2)“ Judge: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_J._Kelly
|
|
215 posts
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Aug 25, 2022 14:51:58 GMT
austink why are people not informing themselves... these lawyers are not taking the case...they were involved in the whole story from the beginning.. same with CAA... so my point is from the beginning that something does not add up ...as all reps/agents are very experienced. I nowhere said said that they should win on merit.. and I just wanted to inform with an official link. Very likely negotiations are going on. A lot of money on both sides ...CAA is a big company. So it seems in reality Netflix vs. CAA We all have still just the lawsuit...it may be bs...or not totally correct. Btw. if it is fair use... it is totally legal... My problem is...that many people still make statements knowing nothing.
|
|
18,803 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 25, 2022 18:06:07 GMT
austink why are people not informing themselves... these lawyers are not taking the case...they were involved in the whole story from the beginning.. same with CAA... so my point is from the beginning that something does not add up ...as all reps/agents are very experienced. I nowhere said said that they should win on merit.. and I just wanted to inform with an official link. Very likely negotiations are going on. A lot of money on both sides ...CAA is a big company. So it seems in reality Netflix vs. CAA We all have still just the lawsuit...it may be bs...or not totally correct. Btw. if it is fair use... it is totally legal... My problem is...that many people still make statements knowing nothing. Do you mean people on this forum?
|
|
886 posts
|
Post by max on Aug 25, 2022 18:49:16 GMT
austink why are people not informing themselves... these lawyers are not taking the case...they were involved in the whole story from the beginning.. same with CAA... so my point is from the beginning that something does not add up ...as all reps/agents are very experienced. I nowhere said said that they should win on merit.. and I just wanted to inform with an official link. Very likely negotiations are going on. A lot of money on both sides ...CAA is a big company. So it seems in reality Netflix vs. CAA We all have still just the lawsuit...it may be bs...or not totally correct. Btw. if it is fair use... it is totally legal... My problem is...that many people still make statements knowing nothing. Can't wait for it to be declared 'Fair use'. I've had a number of musicals on the stocks for a while and not been able to move forward with them. 'Friends - the musical' was the first, I wrote 15 songs for that. My next one was 'Breaking Bad - The musical' - I've only written 10 songs so far, but it's been frustrating to see them sitting in a bottom drawer. Currently I'm developing 'Game Of The Thrones - the musical'. Yes, I've sometimes thought I'm a fool for not getting the rights first, but somewhere in the back of my mind I've also been thinking 'it's not fair I can't make a musical out of these'. So really hoping a 'fair use' outcome opens up, and I'm ahead of the game with these. Yay!
|
|
2,752 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Aug 25, 2022 19:35:28 GMT
austink why are people not informing themselves... these lawyers are not taking the case...they were involved in the whole story from the beginning.. same with CAA... so my point is from the beginning that something does not add up ...as all reps/agents are very experienced. I nowhere said said that they should win on merit.. and I just wanted to inform with an official link. Very likely negotiations are going on. A lot of money on both sides ...CAA is a big company. So it seems in reality Netflix vs. CAA We all have still just the lawsuit...it may be bs...or not totally correct. Btw. if it is fair use... it is totally legal... My problem is...that many people still make statements knowing nothing. Can't wait for it to be declared 'Fair use'. I've had a number of musicals on the stocks for a while and not been able to move forward with them. 'Friends - the musical' was the first, I wrote 15 songs for that. My next one was 'Breaking Bad - The musical' - I've only written 10 songs so far, but it's been frustrating to see them sitting in a bottom drawer. Currently I'm developing 'Game Of The Thrones - the musical'. Yes, I've sometimes thought I'm a fool for not getting the rights first, but somewhere in the back of my mind I've also been thinking 'it's not fair I can't make a musical out of these'. So really hoping a 'fair use' outcome opens up, and I'm ahead of the game with these. Yay! Like my own attempt at a musical: 'Downtown Abby', the story of Abby, a young girl who went on the run after helping her Uncle steal a loaf of bread, earning a modest living working on the land before setting up a bar called Dreamland and re-emerging as a sixties pop singer who went on to achieve greatness feeding the birds. And everybody who didn't die lived happily ever after. I still think these original themes have never been done before and would shake the industry up a bit.
|
|
6,312 posts
|
Post by Jon on Aug 25, 2022 21:24:09 GMT
I do think this thread should be closed once the case is settled.
|
|
215 posts
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Sept 2, 2022 15:25:10 GMT
Just a question what is the name of this Welsh TV Show, which had no problem to let someone perform .., Why should the composer be restricted - when others perform the songs even on TV?
|
|
4,960 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Sept 2, 2022 15:42:25 GMT
That's the Eisteddfod, as can be seen in the bottom left, broadcast on S4C, as seen in the top left.
Good luck suing the druids. Not only do they have special powers, but the whole matter would have to be conducted, at considerable expense, in Welsh.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Sept 2, 2022 17:11:27 GMT
Eisteddfod yr Urdd (as opposed to the international festival in Llangollen) is an arts competition festival. The performance is from that competition. The song is taken out of context from the source material and the performance has not been marketed using any existing IP including trademarks or copyrights. The competitor, Nansi Rhys Adams, will have been required to clear all applicable performance rights of the material with the publisher - as detailed here: www.urdd.cymru/en/eisteddfod/2022/competing/copyright-guidelines/The broadcast of the material will have been cleared by Avanti - the Production company - and covered under blanket ppl and broadcast rights. The big difference here is Eisteddfod yr Urdd has made no attempt to profit off of the 'Bridgerton' brand through "unjust enrichment and trademark infringement" -which is the issue Netflix are seeking to resolve with B&B. All of this information is freely and easily available online, information I found in less than 5 minutes.
|
|
793 posts
|
Post by stuartmcd on Sept 2, 2022 17:13:10 GMT
Just a question what is the name of this Welsh TV Show, which had no problem to let someone perform .., Why should the composer be restricted - when others perform the songs even on TV? The music exists. There’s no way to stop anybody from singing those songs ever again.
|
|
2,752 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Sept 2, 2022 20:39:23 GMT
Just a question what is the name of this Welsh TV Show, which had no problem to let someone perform .., Why should the composer be restricted - when others perform the songs even on TV? Look out for the animated musical cartoon featuring Shaun the Sheep.
|
|
|
Post by FairyGodmother on Sept 2, 2022 23:25:40 GMT
Seems an inefficient way of doing it. I thought most festivals worked with federations so they could negotiate a group license. I can't imagine the publishers want to get dozens of letters every year. Edited to add: I've just read further — it's if you're performing a translation. If it's as published then you don't need to. That makes more sense!
|
|
215 posts
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Sept 18, 2022 16:27:34 GMT
|
|