1
00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloombird Law with June Brasso from Bloomberg Radio,

2
00:00:09,880 --> 00:00:18,640
Speaker 1: All is fair in love and war ms Staphnip Bridgeton

3
00:00:20,200 --> 00:00:24,200
Speaker 1: the time has come for the social season, which young

4
00:00:24,320 --> 00:00:28,160
Speaker 1: ladies might succeed at securing a match before was amuse Me,

5
00:00:28,200 --> 00:00:32,520
Speaker 1: Miss Bridgeton. The bridget In series shattered records for Netflix

6
00:00:32,640 --> 00:00:36,720
Speaker 1: and inspired fans to create and post Bridgertain inspired works.

7
00:00:36,960 --> 00:00:40,000
Speaker 1: Abigail Barlow and Emily Bear started out as two of

8
00:00:40,040 --> 00:00:44,159
Speaker 1: those fans, posting bridget In themed TikTok's, which got millions

9
00:00:44,159 --> 00:00:47,440
Speaker 1: of views, leading the pair to create the fifteen song

10
00:00:47,760 --> 00:00:57,440
Speaker 1: unofficial bridget In musical, This is Honeymoon from our Elaborate

11
00:00:57,640 --> 00:01:03,560
Speaker 1: Rooms when Please Forgive Me Your Grace, and at this

12
00:01:03,640 --> 00:01:07,360
Speaker 1: year's Grammys it won the Best Musical Theater Album. But

13
00:01:07,440 --> 00:01:10,600
Speaker 1: when Barlow and Bear staged a sold out performance of

14
00:01:10,600 --> 00:01:14,520
Speaker 1: the musical at the Kennedy Center, Netflix discided that enough

15
00:01:14,640 --> 00:01:19,240
Speaker 1: was enough, and, after repeated objections, sued them for copyright

16
00:01:19,280 --> 00:01:24,119
Speaker 1: and trademark infringement. My guest is intellectual property litigator Terence Ross,

17
00:01:24,200 --> 00:01:27,440
Speaker 1: a partner at Captain Uten Rosenman. So, Terry, is this

18
00:01:27,520 --> 00:01:30,760
Speaker 1: considered a parody? I don't think so not. Even in

19
00:01:30,800 --> 00:01:35,440
Speaker 1: the broadest definition of parody. It is clear that actual

20
00:01:35,880 --> 00:01:39,880
Speaker 1: dialogue from the bridgt In television show is used as lyrics.

21
00:01:39,959 --> 00:01:44,280
Speaker 1: The characters on the stage were apparently dressed in costumes

22
00:01:44,360 --> 00:01:46,880
Speaker 1: that were similar to the ones used intelligence show, the

23
00:01:46,920 --> 00:01:50,600
Speaker 1: settings were similar to the television show, and the parent

24
00:01:50,680 --> 00:01:54,000
Speaker 1: intent and effect upon the audience was to recreate the

25
00:01:54,200 --> 00:01:57,720
Speaker 1: brit In television experience in a live performance with music.

26
00:01:58,280 --> 00:02:00,920
Speaker 1: So I've been learning a lot about on fiction with

27
00:02:00,960 --> 00:02:04,520
Speaker 1: this lawsuit. So this would be a form of fan fiction.

28
00:02:05,080 --> 00:02:10,080
Speaker 1: So yes, this is clearly a fan fiction work. Fan

29
00:02:10,200 --> 00:02:14,320
Speaker 1: Fiction has been with us for decades now, and the

30
00:02:14,400 --> 00:02:19,040
Speaker 1: legal standards relating to it are both crystal clear and

31
00:02:19,480 --> 00:02:24,000
Speaker 1: sort of opaque. There's this complete agreement and clarity with

32
00:02:24,080 --> 00:02:27,720
Speaker 1: respect to the fact that fan fiction is a derivative work,

33
00:02:28,040 --> 00:02:31,480
Speaker 1: and the Copyright Act of nineteen seventy six, amongst the

34
00:02:31,560 --> 00:02:35,440
Speaker 1: exclusive rights that conveys the copyright owners is the exclusive

35
00:02:35,560 --> 00:02:39,080
Speaker 1: right to produce derivative works. And there is no doubt

36
00:02:39,160 --> 00:02:42,960
Speaker 1: whatsoever that this fan fiction is typically a derivative work

37
00:02:43,240 --> 00:02:47,880
Speaker 1: and therefore constitutes copyright infringement absent one of two things happening.

38
00:02:47,919 --> 00:02:49,919
Speaker 1: And again the law is clear on this. Either there

39
00:02:49,919 --> 00:02:52,799
Speaker 1: has to be permission from the copyright owner to engage

40
00:02:52,919 --> 00:02:55,240
Speaker 1: in producing the derivative work, or there has to be

41
00:02:55,560 --> 00:02:58,160
Speaker 1: colorable claim of fair use under Section one on seven

42
00:02:58,160 --> 00:03:01,399
Speaker 1: of the Copyright Act. Now that's the clarity we have here.

43
00:03:01,480 --> 00:03:04,080
Speaker 1: Where things get a little bit opaque is with respect

44
00:03:04,160 --> 00:03:10,000
Speaker 1: to how producers of original content engage with producers of

45
00:03:10,040 --> 00:03:12,400
Speaker 1: fan fiction. And you see that here in this bridget

46
00:03:12,480 --> 00:03:16,240
Speaker 1: In lawsuit in its most dramatic form. Over the years,

47
00:03:16,240 --> 00:03:19,600
Speaker 1: producers of content have to a certain extent welcome fan

48
00:03:19,760 --> 00:03:22,600
Speaker 1: fiction in the sense that it creates a buzz about

49
00:03:22,600 --> 00:03:25,880
Speaker 1: a work. There's no more powerful advertising marketing than word

50
00:03:25,880 --> 00:03:29,800
Speaker 1: of mouth, and this is all free advertising for the

51
00:03:29,840 --> 00:03:34,360
Speaker 1: original work fan fiction. The problem arises when the creators

52
00:03:34,360 --> 00:03:38,839
Speaker 1: of the fan fiction either engage in disparagement of the

53
00:03:38,920 --> 00:03:43,640
Speaker 1: original work or they attempt to profit off the original work.

54
00:03:44,040 --> 00:03:47,720
Speaker 1: And so there's this tension between the original producers of

55
00:03:47,720 --> 00:03:50,760
Speaker 1: the content and the persons producing the fan fiction. And

56
00:03:50,800 --> 00:03:54,080
Speaker 1: you see different producers original content coming down different places

57
00:03:54,080 --> 00:03:57,800
Speaker 1: on this. Paramount Pictures has always been a supporter of

58
00:03:58,200 --> 00:04:01,240
Speaker 1: fan fiction with respected Star Trek series. You look at

59
00:04:01,240 --> 00:04:04,240
Speaker 1: the other side and there are many producers of original content.

60
00:04:04,560 --> 00:04:08,160
Speaker 1: J K rolling with the Harry Potter series in particular,

61
00:04:08,280 --> 00:04:10,920
Speaker 1: has been fairly aggressive and attempt to stop it. Now,

62
00:04:11,120 --> 00:04:15,240
Speaker 1: in that instance, there has been this adult or sexually

63
00:04:15,240 --> 00:04:19,560
Speaker 1: explicit form of derivative works coming out of Harry Potter

64
00:04:19,680 --> 00:04:23,279
Speaker 1: series that, as they said, disparaging, and original content owners

65
00:04:23,360 --> 00:04:25,800
Speaker 1: tend to be pretty harsh on that. But you see

66
00:04:26,000 --> 00:04:29,279
Speaker 1: the original producers content on both sides of this fan fiction,

67
00:04:29,440 --> 00:04:32,520
Speaker 1: and that is where the opaqueness comes. We're pretty clear

68
00:04:32,560 --> 00:04:34,440
Speaker 1: what the law should be, but then we get into

69
00:04:34,480 --> 00:04:39,920
Speaker 1: this range of quasi supporting it, quase I not supporting it,

70
00:04:40,040 --> 00:04:42,480
Speaker 1: and it's hard to draw lines there. So then does

71
00:04:42,480 --> 00:04:46,160
Speaker 1: it appear that Barlow and there are using the intellectual

72
00:04:46,200 --> 00:04:51,200
Speaker 1: property of Netflix without permission, constituting copyright infringement. So there's

73
00:04:51,240 --> 00:04:54,360
Speaker 1: no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the plainist here

74
00:04:54,760 --> 00:04:58,160
Speaker 1: Netflix have established on the face of the complaint of Prime,

75
00:04:58,160 --> 00:05:01,560
Speaker 1: a fashion case of copyright infringement as well as trademark infringement.

76
00:05:01,680 --> 00:05:04,080
Speaker 1: The question we should be asking, well, what's the defense

77
00:05:04,160 --> 00:05:06,880
Speaker 1: that we're going to see from miss Barlow and miss

78
00:05:06,880 --> 00:05:11,520
Speaker 1: bear and based on path cases in which fan fiction

79
00:05:11,600 --> 00:05:15,120
Speaker 1: has been charged with copyright infringement. We typically see two defenses,

80
00:05:15,240 --> 00:05:18,920
Speaker 1: one that we had the implied authorization to do this,

81
00:05:19,360 --> 00:05:21,920
Speaker 1: or to that our use of the original work was

82
00:05:21,960 --> 00:05:24,920
Speaker 1: a fair use and therefore protected from copyright infringement. Go

83
00:05:25,040 --> 00:05:27,920
Speaker 1: through what a fair use analysis might look like here.

84
00:05:28,440 --> 00:05:31,920
Speaker 1: So the fair use analysis and the context of fan

85
00:05:32,040 --> 00:05:35,960
Speaker 1: fiction probably traces itself back to an old case involving

86
00:05:36,080 --> 00:05:39,360
Speaker 1: Gone with the Wind, the epic book and motion picture,

87
00:05:39,680 --> 00:05:44,159
Speaker 1: a true parody was done called The Wind Done Gone

88
00:05:44,600 --> 00:05:47,679
Speaker 1: and The Wind Done Gone, took the story of Gone

89
00:05:47,680 --> 00:05:49,960
Speaker 1: with the Wind and looked at it from the point

90
00:05:49,960 --> 00:05:54,160
Speaker 1: of view of the slaves who were involved in that novel,

91
00:05:54,440 --> 00:05:58,000
Speaker 1: and in a very real sense it was a social commentary.

92
00:05:58,240 --> 00:06:02,440
Speaker 1: And therefore the eleven circuit, when faced with a copyright

93
00:06:02,480 --> 00:06:05,600
Speaker 1: infringement action against The Wind, Dungan held that it was

94
00:06:05,640 --> 00:06:07,960
Speaker 1: a fair use, that it was a transformative work, which

95
00:06:07,960 --> 00:06:10,400
Speaker 1: is the key for fair use analysis. It transformed the

96
00:06:10,400 --> 00:06:14,080
Speaker 1: original work in such way that it contributed to societal good,

97
00:06:14,480 --> 00:06:19,160
Speaker 1: essentially a commentary on the treatment of enslaved peoples during

98
00:06:19,160 --> 00:06:22,560
Speaker 1: the Civil War, and therefore it was allowed. So that

99
00:06:22,760 --> 00:06:25,359
Speaker 1: is essentially the approach that has to be taken in

100
00:06:25,400 --> 00:06:28,200
Speaker 1: these fan fiction cases with respect the fair used defense

101
00:06:28,520 --> 00:06:33,080
Speaker 1: is the work sufficiently transformative that it accomplishes some sort

102
00:06:33,120 --> 00:06:36,039
Speaker 1: of societal good is recognized in the Copyright Act, and

103
00:06:36,080 --> 00:06:37,960
Speaker 1: I think you could be hard pressed to see that here.

104
00:06:38,000 --> 00:06:40,520
Speaker 1: This is not a parody. This is very much taking

105
00:06:40,520 --> 00:06:45,560
Speaker 1: advantage of the original Netflix television series Britain in attempting

106
00:06:45,560 --> 00:06:48,240
Speaker 1: to exploit it. It is very different from this word

107
00:06:48,279 --> 00:06:51,120
Speaker 1: transformative works that have been approved by the courts in

108
00:06:51,120 --> 00:06:53,600
Speaker 1: the past, and I think this will be a very

109
00:06:53,720 --> 00:06:56,839
Speaker 1: hard road for the defendants to pursue a fair used

110
00:06:56,920 --> 00:06:59,599
Speaker 1: defense here. I think it's far more likely that they're

111
00:06:59,600 --> 00:07:03,159
Speaker 1: going to have to pursue some sort of implied license defense.

112
00:07:03,320 --> 00:07:07,560
Speaker 1: So how would it applied license defense work? So you

113
00:07:07,600 --> 00:07:11,360
Speaker 1: see the elements of the implied license defense in this case.

114
00:07:11,560 --> 00:07:15,320
Speaker 1: In the actual complaint, the lawyers for Netflix have anticipated

115
00:07:15,400 --> 00:07:17,680
Speaker 1: that that's the way the defendants will attempt to go

116
00:07:17,960 --> 00:07:20,920
Speaker 1: In defending this quote unquote unofficial musical of bridget It.

117
00:07:21,160 --> 00:07:25,200
Speaker 1: They repeatedly point out that yes, there were discussion with

118
00:07:25,520 --> 00:07:28,440
Speaker 1: Miss Barlow and Miss Bear about the fans fiction that

119
00:07:28,480 --> 00:07:31,880
Speaker 1: they were producing, but in each instance they carefully preserve

120
00:07:31,960 --> 00:07:34,680
Speaker 1: the right and saying we're not authorizing this, we're not

121
00:07:34,720 --> 00:07:37,480
Speaker 1: going to do anything about it right now, And they

122
00:07:37,560 --> 00:07:40,120
Speaker 1: always stopped short. So they wanted a little bit of

123
00:07:40,160 --> 00:07:43,080
Speaker 1: this frans fiction without it going to the point of

124
00:07:43,360 --> 00:07:47,200
Speaker 1: displacing their potential marketplace. And that's the tension that I

125
00:07:47,200 --> 00:07:50,200
Speaker 1: talked about before, that original producers of content have with

126
00:07:50,280 --> 00:07:52,440
Speaker 1: producers of fan fiction. They want to have their cake

127
00:07:52,480 --> 00:07:55,360
Speaker 1: and eat it too. Now Here. I think Netflix made

128
00:07:55,360 --> 00:07:58,840
Speaker 1: it clear throughout the discussions with Miss Barlow and Miss

129
00:07:58,840 --> 00:08:02,200
Speaker 1: Bear that they were not authorized, and indeed, I assume

130
00:08:02,280 --> 00:08:04,480
Speaker 1: that one of the things defendants will say as part

131
00:08:04,520 --> 00:08:06,480
Speaker 1: of the defense is that, well, gosh, this has been

132
00:08:06,480 --> 00:08:09,960
Speaker 1: going on for a year now and they haven't done anything,

133
00:08:10,160 --> 00:08:14,520
Speaker 1: And that is sort of facially attractive, legally difficult to

134
00:08:14,640 --> 00:08:18,320
Speaker 1: make defense because there is no obligation on the part

135
00:08:18,400 --> 00:08:21,360
Speaker 1: of a copyright planiff to sue you at a specific time.

136
00:08:21,600 --> 00:08:24,080
Speaker 1: The mere fact that you wait six months the year

137
00:08:24,120 --> 00:08:28,880
Speaker 1: to file the lawsuit does not really matter in this context,

138
00:08:29,040 --> 00:08:31,680
Speaker 1: where you're constantly sending out signals we don't approve of this,

139
00:08:31,760 --> 00:08:36,040
Speaker 1: we don't authorize that. Which particularly problematic here is that

140
00:08:36,280 --> 00:08:39,640
Speaker 1: the unofficial bridge and musical and the merchandise associated with

141
00:08:39,800 --> 00:08:42,160
Speaker 1: came out about the same time that Netflix and the

142
00:08:42,160 --> 00:08:45,000
Speaker 1: bridget and television people were thinking of moving in that direction,

143
00:08:45,200 --> 00:08:49,080
Speaker 1: and therefore it was displacing a legitimate market opportunity for

144
00:08:49,080 --> 00:08:51,720
Speaker 1: the copyright hold I know that a lot of these cases,

145
00:08:51,800 --> 00:08:54,520
Speaker 1: or maybe even most of them, settle, but is there

146
00:08:54,559 --> 00:08:58,160
Speaker 1: any impetus for Netflix to settle here? Hard to see

147
00:08:58,240 --> 00:09:01,800
Speaker 1: unless the defendants simply cave in and say we give

148
00:09:01,880 --> 00:09:03,800
Speaker 1: up what do you want, which, by the way, is

149
00:09:03,840 --> 00:09:06,319
Speaker 1: not a scenario that I would discount. I think their

150
00:09:06,360 --> 00:09:11,240
Speaker 1: legal position is very difficult. Copyright infringement lawsuits are expensive

151
00:09:11,440 --> 00:09:14,480
Speaker 1: because they require special counsel. On the other hand, if

152
00:09:14,520 --> 00:09:18,720
Speaker 1: I'm Netflix, I'm hard pressed to see why I would

153
00:09:18,760 --> 00:09:22,319
Speaker 1: settle for anything less than a complete surrender. Their legal

154
00:09:22,360 --> 00:09:26,960
Speaker 1: position is very strong and in my view, a pretty

155
00:09:27,040 --> 00:09:30,400
Speaker 1: good case of willfulness on the part of the defense.

156
00:09:30,400 --> 00:09:34,600
Speaker 1: In other wise, they commit willful copyright infringement, which would entitle,

157
00:09:34,720 --> 00:09:38,760
Speaker 1: if found, the Netflix folks to recover their attorneys fees.

158
00:09:39,000 --> 00:09:41,960
Speaker 1: So the plainists aren't really even going to be out

159
00:09:42,080 --> 00:09:44,400
Speaker 1: their lawyers fees because those are gonna be paid for

160
00:09:44,480 --> 00:09:46,880
Speaker 1: by the defendants. Now, the one thing that could force

161
00:09:46,960 --> 00:09:49,960
Speaker 1: a settlement here is if Netflix comes to the conclusion

162
00:09:50,000 --> 00:09:53,760
Speaker 1: that Ms barlams Bear are for all practical purposes judgment

163
00:09:53,800 --> 00:09:57,320
Speaker 1: proof um, in which case they won't be able to

164
00:09:57,400 --> 00:10:00,480
Speaker 1: recover their attorneys fees and probably will one limit their

165
00:10:00,480 --> 00:10:03,320
Speaker 1: own attorney's fees and and just settle with them going

166
00:10:03,360 --> 00:10:06,840
Speaker 1: away and giving up on this project. The amount of

167
00:10:06,880 --> 00:10:10,880
Speaker 1: fan fiction out there is astounding and TikTok. I mean,

168
00:10:10,920 --> 00:10:13,080
Speaker 1: that's how they got started on TikTok, and I saw

169
00:10:13,160 --> 00:10:16,520
Speaker 1: that the author, the Bridgetain author Julia Quinn, in a

170
00:10:16,559 --> 00:10:20,839
Speaker 1: statement said there's a difference between a TikTok composition and

171
00:10:20,920 --> 00:10:24,360
Speaker 1: performing for commercial gain. So I guess once the money

172
00:10:24,360 --> 00:10:27,679
Speaker 1: starts rolling in, that's where the line is drawn. That's

173
00:10:27,720 --> 00:10:30,640
Speaker 1: absolutely true to But here in particular, they not just

174
00:10:30,800 --> 00:10:33,920
Speaker 1: moved from the TikTok around, but they were moving directly

175
00:10:34,080 --> 00:10:38,800
Speaker 1: into a market that was targeted by Britain and Netflix.

176
00:10:39,160 --> 00:10:42,720
Speaker 1: It is very common for movies and television shows in

177
00:10:42,760 --> 00:10:45,720
Speaker 1: the current environment to become broadway shows. I mean, we

178
00:10:45,720 --> 00:10:48,240
Speaker 1: see this all the time. Lion King is a great

179
00:10:48,280 --> 00:10:51,280
Speaker 1: example of that. There's sort of this three sixty view,

180
00:10:51,720 --> 00:10:54,360
Speaker 1: as dis thing would put it, of content, where you

181
00:10:54,760 --> 00:10:58,160
Speaker 1: repurpose it into different media. I mean Star Trek was

182
00:10:58,160 --> 00:11:02,920
Speaker 1: originally television show was repurposed into the movies and became

183
00:11:02,960 --> 00:11:05,720
Speaker 1: even bigger. And so the threat that was posed here

184
00:11:05,920 --> 00:11:09,920
Speaker 1: by the defendants to Netflix was taking away one element

185
00:11:10,000 --> 00:11:13,559
Speaker 1: of that three sixty view of entertainment content, i e.

186
00:11:13,720 --> 00:11:18,000
Speaker 1: The opportunity to do Broadway musical as well as the

187
00:11:18,000 --> 00:11:21,760
Speaker 1: merchandizing that comes from that. And that's that's why at

188
00:11:21,800 --> 00:11:24,560
Speaker 1: bottom Netflix had to act. At this point they were

189
00:11:24,640 --> 00:11:29,200
Speaker 1: losing a critical market component if they didn't act. Netflix

190
00:11:29,240 --> 00:11:33,480
Speaker 1: is also claiming trademark infringement. What is the trademark? The

191
00:11:33,520 --> 00:11:38,839
Speaker 1: trademark is Britain, and the defendants have captioned their show

192
00:11:39,120 --> 00:11:40,800
Speaker 1: that they put on at the Kennedy Center and planned

193
00:11:40,840 --> 00:11:43,120
Speaker 1: put on the Royal Albert Hall in London later this

194
00:11:43,200 --> 00:11:47,400
Speaker 1: year as the Unofficial Bridgetain Musical. So the Brilluton name,

195
00:11:47,480 --> 00:11:50,719
Speaker 1: which is trademark, has just taken. Indeed, in the advertising

196
00:11:50,960 --> 00:11:54,600
Speaker 1: they actually put after the word bridgertain the capital are

197
00:11:54,720 --> 00:11:58,680
Speaker 1: in a circle indicating it's a registered trademark. Not to them,

198
00:11:58,720 --> 00:12:02,840
Speaker 1: but netflike was kind of shocking. Thus they acknowledge that

199
00:12:02,880 --> 00:12:06,959
Speaker 1: they were taking a registered trademark. The argument that defense

200
00:12:07,000 --> 00:12:08,840
Speaker 1: that they would make is actually a little bit better

201
00:12:08,920 --> 00:12:10,920
Speaker 1: though than the copyright defense. They will say that by

202
00:12:10,960 --> 00:12:16,120
Speaker 1: putting in front of the word Bridgeted the unofficial Bridgeted Musical,

203
00:12:16,360 --> 00:12:19,679
Speaker 1: they were indicating the people that it had no association

204
00:12:19,760 --> 00:12:23,400
Speaker 1: or relationship with the Netflix bridget In television show. This

205
00:12:23,480 --> 00:12:26,719
Speaker 1: is very common in trademark law. We see this all

206
00:12:26,760 --> 00:12:31,120
Speaker 1: the time. The actual word usually uses unauthorized, and that

207
00:12:31,160 --> 00:12:33,200
Speaker 1: may matter here. The fact that they went with the

208
00:12:33,360 --> 00:12:37,440
Speaker 1: word unofficial instead of unauthorized may come back to haunt them.

209
00:12:37,880 --> 00:12:41,640
Speaker 1: But trademark law is different than copyright law, and copyright

210
00:12:41,760 --> 00:12:44,240
Speaker 1: laws intended to protect the creator of the original work.

211
00:12:44,520 --> 00:12:48,720
Speaker 1: Trademark laws intended to protect consumers against being misled as

212
00:12:48,760 --> 00:12:51,800
Speaker 1: to what they're buying, and so there's a different standard here.

213
00:12:51,880 --> 00:12:54,800
Speaker 1: And the question is will the people who bought tickets

214
00:12:54,920 --> 00:12:58,600
Speaker 1: to the Unofficial bridge Of Musical understand that they were

215
00:12:58,679 --> 00:13:01,960
Speaker 1: not buying something that was associated with the related to

216
00:13:02,200 --> 00:13:05,000
Speaker 1: bridget and the television show. And if they can show

217
00:13:05,080 --> 00:13:08,920
Speaker 1: that use of the word unofficial meant that people knew

218
00:13:09,200 --> 00:13:11,880
Speaker 1: that it wasn't being put on by Netflix, then they

219
00:13:11,960 --> 00:13:15,560
Speaker 1: might have it out from the trademark cause of action. Interesting,

220
00:13:15,880 --> 00:13:18,240
Speaker 1: it's sort of brazen. But you know what, they got

221
00:13:18,320 --> 00:13:21,640
Speaker 1: famous with this, so that's a big step. No matter

222
00:13:21,679 --> 00:13:24,439
Speaker 1: what happens, they got the Ramians, they move ahead with

223
00:13:24,600 --> 00:13:27,400
Speaker 1: the Heck, there's no question that there's some talent here.

224
00:13:27,640 --> 00:13:34,360
Speaker 1: Marlosba demonstrated the dack producing content that people are interested in,

225
00:13:34,760 --> 00:13:38,480
Speaker 1: and perhaps they can parlay that into something in the

226
00:13:38,480 --> 00:13:42,880
Speaker 1: future that does not involve taking the hard work of

227
00:13:43,200 --> 00:13:45,680
Speaker 1: copyright owners. The problem there are a lot of people

228
00:13:45,720 --> 00:13:50,720
Speaker 1: out there who are capable of writing music and lyrics

229
00:13:51,120 --> 00:13:54,360
Speaker 1: putting it to other work. The trouble is coming up

230
00:13:54,400 --> 00:13:59,160
Speaker 1: with your own idea exactly and dilogue exactly. We'll see

231
00:13:59,160 --> 00:14:03,160
Speaker 1: what happens with them and with the lawsuit. Thanks so much, Terry.

232
00:14:03,240 --> 00:14:07,760
Speaker 1: As always, that's intellectual property litigator Terence Frost, a partner

233
00:14:07,760 --> 00:14:12,520
Speaker 1: at Captain uten Rosenman. Hair Love is an animated short

234
00:14:12,600 --> 00:14:16,320
Speaker 1: film about an African American dad who's attempting to style

235
00:14:16,440 --> 00:14:19,600
Speaker 1: his young daughter's hair for the first time. When the

236
00:14:19,600 --> 00:14:24,480
Speaker 1: film won an Academy Award in filmmaker Matthew Cherry used

237
00:14:24,520 --> 00:14:27,680
Speaker 1: his time to talk about new legislation known as the

238
00:14:27,720 --> 00:14:30,000
Speaker 1: Crown Act. Hair in Love was done because we wanted

239
00:14:30,000 --> 00:14:33,040
Speaker 1: to see more representation and animation. We wanted to normalize

240
00:14:33,040 --> 00:14:36,400
Speaker 1: black hair. There's a very important issue that's out There's

241
00:14:36,440 --> 00:14:40,200
Speaker 1: the Crown Act that stands for creating a respectful and

242
00:14:40,320 --> 00:14:44,800
Speaker 1: open world for natural hair. The law prohibiting discrimination against

243
00:14:44,800 --> 00:14:49,480
Speaker 1: hairstyles and textures historically affiliated with race passed the US

244
00:14:49,560 --> 00:14:52,280
Speaker 1: House in March, but the bill has not yet been

245
00:14:52,320 --> 00:14:56,160
Speaker 1: considered by the Senate. Still, eighteen states have passed their

246
00:14:56,200 --> 00:14:59,400
Speaker 1: own Crown Acts in the last three years, including some

247
00:14:59,480 --> 00:15:03,080
Speaker 1: red state. California and New York were the first states

248
00:15:03,120 --> 00:15:06,840
Speaker 1: to pass the measure only three years ago, and Massachusetts

249
00:15:06,920 --> 00:15:10,680
Speaker 1: became the latest state on July. Joining me is. Chris

250
00:15:10,880 --> 00:15:14,680
Speaker 1: mar senior correspondent for Bloomberg Law, tell us a little

251
00:15:14,720 --> 00:15:19,920
Speaker 1: about these black hair bias laws called Crown x sure.

252
00:15:20,160 --> 00:15:25,440
Speaker 1: So these laws banned race related hair discrimination. So we're

253
00:15:25,440 --> 00:15:30,440
Speaker 1: talking about bias in the workplace or in schools most

254
00:15:30,480 --> 00:15:36,120
Speaker 1: of the time against traditionally black hairstyles or textures. And

255
00:15:36,160 --> 00:15:39,440
Speaker 1: so these are these are laws that forbid employers and

256
00:15:39,600 --> 00:15:46,240
Speaker 1: or public schools from discriminating against things like dreadlocks and

257
00:15:46,360 --> 00:15:50,680
Speaker 1: bantu knots and braids and and other hairstyles and textures

258
00:15:50,680 --> 00:15:55,080
Speaker 1: that would be commonly worn by black students or black workers.

259
00:15:55,120 --> 00:16:00,000
Speaker 1: So one of the co sponsors of the Massachusetts measure, Democrats,

260
00:16:00,120 --> 00:16:04,320
Speaker 1: the state representative Brandy Fluker Oakley, called the law game

261
00:16:04,400 --> 00:16:07,960
Speaker 1: changer for black women. Can you explain what she meant? So,

262
00:16:08,320 --> 00:16:11,760
Speaker 1: her comments and I've heard a lot of particularly black

263
00:16:11,800 --> 00:16:15,320
Speaker 1: women make similar comments about these laws being passed in

264
00:16:15,360 --> 00:16:20,920
Speaker 1: the States, point to this sort of pressure for for

265
00:16:21,440 --> 00:16:25,520
Speaker 1: black workers and women in particular to do things like

266
00:16:25,680 --> 00:16:30,320
Speaker 1: chemically straighten their hair or or otherwise alter their hair

267
00:16:30,920 --> 00:16:35,640
Speaker 1: from its natural texture to look what some employers would

268
00:16:35,640 --> 00:16:39,080
Speaker 1: consider to be more professional. But it's you know, it's

269
00:16:39,080 --> 00:16:42,320
Speaker 1: a it's a biased expectation, right that if you have

270
00:16:42,440 --> 00:16:47,800
Speaker 1: naturally black hair, are naturally black hair texture, um to

271
00:16:47,880 --> 00:16:49,960
Speaker 1: think of that as unprofessional. And so that's kind of

272
00:16:50,000 --> 00:16:53,680
Speaker 1: the underlying bias that these laws are trying to root out,

273
00:16:54,160 --> 00:16:57,880
Speaker 1: to say, you know, black workers and black students should

274
00:16:57,880 --> 00:17:01,280
Speaker 1: be able to wear their hair and natural texture or

275
00:17:01,480 --> 00:17:07,080
Speaker 1: or in these traditionally sort of protective hairstyles without facing

276
00:17:07,359 --> 00:17:11,560
Speaker 1: negative consequences at work or school. So does that mean

277
00:17:11,560 --> 00:17:17,280
Speaker 1: that employers with let's say sales staff can't require employees

278
00:17:17,560 --> 00:17:21,560
Speaker 1: to tie their hair back or you know, if they're

279
00:17:21,600 --> 00:17:25,320
Speaker 1: working in a in a restaurant wear a hairnet. So

280
00:17:25,440 --> 00:17:29,199
Speaker 1: the details of each state law vary somewhat, but in

281
00:17:29,240 --> 00:17:32,919
Speaker 1: a lot of cases they do allow for health and

282
00:17:33,000 --> 00:17:36,600
Speaker 1: safety related requirements such as tying the hair back or

283
00:17:36,640 --> 00:17:44,520
Speaker 1: wearing hairnet. Um. These protections are against really specifically race

284
00:17:44,640 --> 00:17:50,320
Speaker 1: related hair policies um, and so if it's health and

285
00:17:50,320 --> 00:17:54,639
Speaker 1: safety related or it or it's neutral and not race specific,

286
00:17:54,960 --> 00:18:00,280
Speaker 1: then generally employers could still enforced hair policy is within

287
00:18:00,280 --> 00:18:03,920
Speaker 1: their dress code. One employment lawyer I talked with gave

288
00:18:03,960 --> 00:18:06,560
Speaker 1: the example of, you know, this doesn't mean you have

289
00:18:06,600 --> 00:18:09,159
Speaker 1: to hire a person with blue hair, you know, because

290
00:18:09,200 --> 00:18:12,560
Speaker 1: that's not related to race. Right? Is it mainly blue

291
00:18:12,560 --> 00:18:15,560
Speaker 1: states that are enacting these laws. So blue states have

292
00:18:15,640 --> 00:18:19,199
Speaker 1: really led the charge. California and New York were the

293
00:18:19,320 --> 00:18:23,720
Speaker 1: first to enact a version of the Crown Act back

294
00:18:23,720 --> 00:18:27,200
Speaker 1: in twent nineteen, and so the majority of the states

295
00:18:27,280 --> 00:18:31,560
Speaker 1: are those with Democratic majority legislatures, but we have begun

296
00:18:31,680 --> 00:18:36,439
Speaker 1: to see some Republican majority legislatures get in on the

297
00:18:36,480 --> 00:18:40,840
Speaker 1: Act as well. So uh Louisiana, for example, has a

298
00:18:40,880 --> 00:18:44,600
Speaker 1: new law that that just took effect August one. Tennessee

299
00:18:45,320 --> 00:18:49,760
Speaker 1: and Alaska also have passed versions of this, although you

300
00:18:49,800 --> 00:18:52,840
Speaker 1: know sometimes in a in a narrower way of the

301
00:18:52,880 --> 00:18:56,640
Speaker 1: Alaska bill, which is awaiting the governor's signature, there would

302
00:18:56,680 --> 00:19:01,720
Speaker 1: only deal with discrimination at school, not placed discrimination. And

303
00:19:01,800 --> 00:19:04,720
Speaker 1: the House passed a national version of the Crown Act

304
00:19:04,880 --> 00:19:08,119
Speaker 1: in March. So Chris tell us about the Crown Act

305
00:19:08,320 --> 00:19:11,639
Speaker 1: and how it came about. So, the Crown Act, the

306
00:19:11,960 --> 00:19:15,359
Speaker 1: Crown stands for creating a respectful and open world for

307
00:19:15,520 --> 00:19:19,440
Speaker 1: natural hair and and this is something that really a

308
00:19:19,480 --> 00:19:23,600
Speaker 1: coalition of of advocacy groups came up with and and

309
00:19:23,600 --> 00:19:27,639
Speaker 1: I've been pushing for in states and at the federal level,

310
00:19:28,440 --> 00:19:30,960
Speaker 1: UM and and have and have had, you know, pretty

311
00:19:31,119 --> 00:19:34,280
Speaker 1: pretty good success in my opinion. You know, within just

312
00:19:34,320 --> 00:19:37,440
Speaker 1: a matter of three years now we've got eighteen states

313
00:19:37,800 --> 00:19:41,280
Speaker 1: that have adopted this. Alaska will make nineteen if if

314
00:19:41,280 --> 00:19:44,359
Speaker 1: the governor signs the bill. There is there a real

315
00:19:44,520 --> 00:19:46,919
Speaker 1: push to get this through in the Senate because I

316
00:19:46,920 --> 00:19:50,399
Speaker 1: haven't heard much about it, right, And I'll confess I

317
00:19:50,400 --> 00:19:54,480
Speaker 1: don't cover Congress closely. I focus more on the states. UM.

318
00:19:54,520 --> 00:19:56,159
Speaker 1: I talked for the colleague of mine while I was

319
00:19:56,160 --> 00:19:59,000
Speaker 1: working on this, and who does cover Congress and her

320
00:19:59,080 --> 00:20:01,840
Speaker 1: sense was that it's it's just sort of on ice.

321
00:20:02,080 --> 00:20:05,119
Speaker 1: You know, there's so many other priorities in the Senate. No,

322
00:20:05,320 --> 00:20:08,840
Speaker 1: it's not easy to get anything through the Senate these days. Now,

323
00:20:08,880 --> 00:20:13,120
Speaker 1: what about the possible impact on employers? Are they expected

324
00:20:13,119 --> 00:20:16,680
Speaker 1: to see more lawsuits than based on this right? So,

325
00:20:16,960 --> 00:20:23,119
Speaker 1: so it does create another category of potential discrimination lawsuits

326
00:20:23,160 --> 00:20:28,000
Speaker 1: against employers. Um well, I should say, in state laws vary.

327
00:20:28,040 --> 00:20:32,040
Speaker 1: In some states, employees could bring a lawsuit. In other states,

328
00:20:32,040 --> 00:20:35,640
Speaker 1: they would bring a complaint through the state labor commissioner

329
00:20:35,760 --> 00:20:38,959
Speaker 1: or some other state agency, which would then, you know,

330
00:20:39,000 --> 00:20:42,560
Speaker 1: handle some sort of resolution process. But yes, it does

331
00:20:42,600 --> 00:20:46,560
Speaker 1: create the potential for more discrimination claims against employers, and

332
00:20:46,640 --> 00:20:49,720
Speaker 1: so you know, they will need to review their policies

333
00:20:49,760 --> 00:20:51,720
Speaker 1: and and think about how they want to train their

334
00:20:52,560 --> 00:20:57,160
Speaker 1: their managers who handle hiring and firing discipline. I want

335
00:20:57,160 --> 00:21:00,680
Speaker 1: to turn to another issue involving labor law, and that's

336
00:21:00,760 --> 00:21:06,200
Speaker 1: non competes. Businesses often require employees to sign non compete

337
00:21:06,200 --> 00:21:10,920
Speaker 1: agreements which prevent them from leaving and going to a competitor.

338
00:21:11,480 --> 00:21:13,960
Speaker 1: And you write about a trend in states to ban

339
00:21:14,119 --> 00:21:19,280
Speaker 1: non competes for lower and middle income employees and hourly workers.

340
00:21:19,960 --> 00:21:22,240
Speaker 1: D C has just passed a law which is going

341
00:21:22,320 --> 00:21:27,919
Speaker 1: to go into effect on October one. Tell us about that, right, So,

342
00:21:28,000 --> 00:21:30,680
Speaker 1: the District of Columbia has has passed a law now

343
00:21:31,440 --> 00:21:37,479
Speaker 1: that will ban almost all employee noncompete contracts for workers

344
00:21:37,520 --> 00:21:39,960
Speaker 1: who make less than a hundred and fifty thousand dollars

345
00:21:40,040 --> 00:21:44,119
Speaker 1: per year. UH. And there are a few narrow exceptions

346
00:21:44,119 --> 00:21:48,639
Speaker 1: in there, for example, relates to the broadcast industry, but

347
00:21:48,720 --> 00:21:51,320
Speaker 1: by and large that means employers won't be able to

348
00:21:51,840 --> 00:21:56,399
Speaker 1: have their workers sign a contract saying they can't go

349
00:21:56,520 --> 00:22:00,000
Speaker 1: to work for a competing company unless they make more

350
00:22:00,000 --> 00:22:02,119
Speaker 1: and a hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year. And

351
00:22:02,160 --> 00:22:04,440
Speaker 1: that's that's kind of the starting threshold, and it will

352
00:22:04,480 --> 00:22:08,680
Speaker 1: be increased each year based on inflation after the law

353
00:22:08,720 --> 00:22:12,440
Speaker 1: takes effect. Do you know how they reached that, because

354
00:22:12,480 --> 00:22:15,800
Speaker 1: that is pretty substantial, right, It's a it's a higher

355
00:22:15,840 --> 00:22:18,840
Speaker 1: figure than most states have gone with. It may be

356
00:22:19,000 --> 00:22:23,080
Speaker 1: the highest. I think Washington State went higher for independent

357
00:22:23,200 --> 00:22:27,080
Speaker 1: contractors who are not considered employees. But other than that,

358
00:22:27,160 --> 00:22:29,399
Speaker 1: I do believe the hundred and fifty thousand is the

359
00:22:29,480 --> 00:22:33,439
Speaker 1: highest threshold UH that any state has set I'm not

360
00:22:33,480 --> 00:22:36,000
Speaker 1: sure how they came up with that number, but I

361
00:22:36,040 --> 00:22:38,119
Speaker 1: think it was intended as a little bit of a

362
00:22:38,119 --> 00:22:42,959
Speaker 1: compromise because the Council originally passed the law back at

363
00:22:42,960 --> 00:22:46,840
Speaker 1: the end of and it never took effect. They delayed

364
00:22:46,880 --> 00:22:50,080
Speaker 1: it sort of indefinitely. But but that law would have

365
00:22:50,119 --> 00:22:55,280
Speaker 1: banned virtually all noncompete regardless of the employee's income level.

366
00:22:56,320 --> 00:23:01,320
Speaker 1: Explain the trend in these laws, why states are passing them? Sure? So,

367
00:23:02,880 --> 00:23:06,280
Speaker 1: I guess the theory with with having employees signed noncompete

368
00:23:06,440 --> 00:23:10,199
Speaker 1: is that the employer is trying to protect uh, some

369
00:23:10,280 --> 00:23:14,480
Speaker 1: sort of trade secret or or confidential company information. They

370
00:23:14,480 --> 00:23:18,000
Speaker 1: don't want an employee to leave the company and go

371
00:23:18,080 --> 00:23:21,960
Speaker 1: work for a competitor and take that sort of sensitive

372
00:23:22,440 --> 00:23:27,040
Speaker 1: competitive information to the competing company. You know. Within the

373
00:23:27,080 --> 00:23:31,160
Speaker 1: last few years, it's become sort of better understood that

374
00:23:32,320 --> 00:23:34,480
Speaker 1: a lot of the workers being asked to sign these

375
00:23:34,480 --> 00:23:38,919
Speaker 1: noncompetes really don't have access to trade secrets or or

376
00:23:39,000 --> 00:23:42,760
Speaker 1: confidential information. There were reports going around a few years ago,

377
00:23:43,320 --> 00:23:47,240
Speaker 1: for example, that, uh, you know, sandwich chains like Jimmy John's,

378
00:23:47,240 --> 00:23:50,600
Speaker 1: we're asking their you know, their restaurant workers to sign

379
00:23:50,640 --> 00:23:53,719
Speaker 1: these noncompete and you know, you kind of scratch your

380
00:23:53,720 --> 00:23:55,840
Speaker 1: head and think, well, what's what's the reason for that,

381
00:23:57,160 --> 00:24:00,919
Speaker 1: Although companies still sometimes argue, well, we we invested money

382
00:24:01,000 --> 00:24:04,160
Speaker 1: in in training the employees, and so we don't want

383
00:24:04,200 --> 00:24:06,880
Speaker 1: them to take that those sort of skills and training

384
00:24:07,440 --> 00:24:11,560
Speaker 1: that we've spent money on and take it to another company. Um.

385
00:24:11,680 --> 00:24:15,280
Speaker 1: But so so there's kind of a movement amongst states.

386
00:24:15,320 --> 00:24:18,480
Speaker 1: It's a I think eleven at least eleven states now

387
00:24:18,840 --> 00:24:23,640
Speaker 1: plus the District of Columbia have passed law that bans

388
00:24:23,800 --> 00:24:28,600
Speaker 1: noncompetes based on some income level. And those originally started

389
00:24:28,600 --> 00:24:32,480
Speaker 1: with the idea of protecting low income workers. But of course,

390
00:24:32,640 --> 00:24:35,239
Speaker 1: you know, we can see with DC that has you know,

391
00:24:35,320 --> 00:24:39,120
Speaker 1: moved up beyond just low income workers. Uh. And now

392
00:24:39,320 --> 00:24:42,280
Speaker 1: and with d C and also Colorado, which passed new

393
00:24:42,320 --> 00:24:45,400
Speaker 1: law this year, the thinking is more in line with

394
00:24:46,400 --> 00:24:51,000
Speaker 1: we're only going to allow noncompetes for highly compensated employees.

395
00:24:51,680 --> 00:24:55,080
Speaker 1: Colorado set the threshold at a hundred thousand, and now

396
00:24:55,200 --> 00:24:58,760
Speaker 1: DC has said a fifty thousand. Thanks so much, Chris.

397
00:24:59,040 --> 00:25:03,040
Speaker 1: That's Chris Mars, senior correspondent for Bloomberg Law. And that's

398
00:25:03,040 --> 00:25:05,680
Speaker 1: it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember

399
00:25:05,720 --> 00:25:07,760
Speaker 1: you can always get the latest legal news on our

400
00:25:07,800 --> 00:25:11,960
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

401
00:25:12,160 --> 00:25:17,160
Speaker 1: and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law,

402
00:25:17,600 --> 00:25:20,199
Speaker 1: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

403
00:25:20,240 --> 00:25:24,200
Speaker 1: week night at ten BM Wall Street Time. I'm June Grossow,

404
00:25:24,280 --> 00:25:25,879
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg