“The Unofficial Bridgerton Musical” – A Step Too Far
Photo by Hannah Smith
Bridgerton is one of the most popular shows on Netflix today—with some reports clocking in 625.49 million hours of the show viewed in its first 28 days on Netflix. Such popularity often begets “inspired” opportunists who try to capitalize on a show’s fame by translating the show to another medium. This is exactly what GRAMMY Award-winning songwriting duo Abigail Barlow and Emily Bear did—creating their own unofficial for-profit musical adaption of Bridgerton, and naming it “The Unofficial Bridgerton Musical.”
Netflix brought suit against Barlow and Bear for violating Sections 106 and 501 of the Copyright Act. For reference, Section 106 states that “the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following . . . to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work” and Section 501 states that “[a]nyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by section[] 106 . . . is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be.” Thus, by creating the unauthorized and “unofficial” derivative work (a musical adaption of the Netflix show), Barlow and Bear faced claims that they had infringed the Bridgerton copyrights.
Netflix initially praised the duo’s songs when they were first released on the social media platform TikTok. Its approach changed when Barlow and Bear won a GRAMMY Award in April 2022 for best musical theater album and began pursuing live performances and merchandise.
Netflix then filed its complaint, stating that the pair refused a licensing deal with Netflix, and that “the live show featured over a dozen songs that copied verbatim dialogue, character traits and expression, and other elements from Bridgerton the series. It included dramatic portrayals of Bridgerton characters by Broadway actors, emoting through the performance of the songs that comprise the ‘musical.’” Thus, Netflix alleged that Barlow and Bear essentially used each of the major creative expressions inherent in Bridgerton to create the unauthorized derivative work—even after repeated warnings that Barlow and Bear had “stretche[d] ‘fan fiction’ well past its breaking point.”
However, only two months after bringing the lawsuit, Netflix dismissed its claims against Barlow and Bear “with prejudice,” meaning the suit cannot be refiled at a future date. The terms of the settlement have not been disclosed, but it may be safe to assume that Barlow and Bear have burned a few “bridges” with Netflix through the “tons” of headaches created during this process. Word to the wise—although a fun post or two on social media using protected material may in many situations be acceptable (and even sometimes amusing) to a copyright owner, developing an entire derivative for-profit work with a business plan for merchandise and spinoffs is nearly always a no-go.
More on this lawsuit and the outcome can be found here, and you can contact Charles Wallace for further information on this topic.