IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—D.N.J.: Copyright suit against Netflix over Boy Scouts abuse documentary dismissed, (Jun 4, 2026)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D.

Like its initial copyright infringement claim, the plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint failed to state a plausible infringement claim.

The U.S. District Court in New Jersey dismissed B. Negel Films’ First Amended Complaint alleging that Netflix infringed its copyrighted documentary about sexual abuse in the Boy Scouts. Finding that the plaintiff had not alleged enough facts to state an infringement claim that was plausible on its face, the court dismissed the claims for direct copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious copyright infringement (B. Nagel Films, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-09693-JKS-MAH (D.N.J. Jun. 2, 2026)).

Plaintiff B. Nagel Films alleged that the Netflix documentary Scout’s Honor: The Secret Files of the Boy Scouts of America violated the plaintiff’s copyrighted work Boy Scout’s Honor. In its initial complaint filed in October, 2024, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant, without authorization copied the plaintiff film’s use of (1) the theme of exploring child sex abuse in the Boy Scouts of America’s (BSA’s) over many decades; (2) expert and victim interviews; (3) graphic details of abuse; (4) the positive elements of scouting; (5) BSA’s attempts to conceal the abuse; (6) historical documents; (7) musical accompaniment; (8) stock footage of camping and scouting activities; (9) lighting techniques; (10) emphasis on an individual victim; and (11) the portrayal of serial abusers.

The district court dismissed the initial complaint, holding that as a matter of copyright law the plaintiff could not prove that the defendant’s work was “substantially similar to warrant copyright protection.”

On October 31, 2025, the plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint. In addition to repeating the allegation made in the initial Complaint, the First Amended Complaint alleged that the defendant’s work impermissibly used (1) abusers’ threats to survivors’ families; (2) survivors’ struggles with hiding their abuse, questioning their sexuality, mental health and suicide, and not being believed by their communities; (3) journalist and attorney interviews; (4) discussion of BSA’s Youth Protection Program, legal defenses, and bankruptcy; (5) dialogue commenting on the Boy Scouts’ brand; (6) photographs of survivors as young boys in scouting uniforms to portray continued suffering; (7) patriotic imagery to explore connections between scouting and patriotism; (8) imagery of churches to explore connections between scouting and religion; and (9) imagery of newspaper coverage of the abuse scandal to tell the victims’ stories.

The plaintiff also alleged that both documentaries share a “sequence of events and pacing” and a “total concept and feel.”

The district court analyzed what it found to be the failings of the plaintiff’s allegations in the First Amended Complaint.

Alleged similarities as uncopyrightable facts. The court characterized the amended complaint as pertaining to facts about the survivors’ experiences, mental health and identity struggles, the BSA’s Youth Protection Program, legal defenses, bankruptcy, and interviews. As such, the court concluded that these were uncopyrightable facts.

Alleged similarities as unprotected Scènes à Faire. The court noted that scènes à faire, that is, situations and incidents that naturally flow from a basic plot premise, are not afforded copyright protection. Thus, the court rejected the plaintiff’s contention that the defendant copied its copyrighted film’s use of photographs of survivors as young boys to portray continued suffering, dialogue commenting on the Boy Scouts’ brand, patriotic imagery to explore connections between scouting and patriotism, imagery of churches to explore connections between scouting and religion, and imagery of newspaper coverage of the abuse scandal to tell victims’ stories.

Substantially similar “sequence of events and pacing.” The court cited precedent holding that sequences of events necessarily following from a common theme, or scenes a faire, do not establish substantial similarity. Accordingly, that both films use interviews to establish a sequence of events does not establish substantial similarity.

“Total concept and feel.” The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s film copied the plaintiff’s “selection of facts, arrangement, mood and theme choices, stylistic techniques, carefully selected dialogue, music selection, and other copyrightable elements.” The court rejected this claim because facts are not copyrightable, and that depictions of continued suffering through photographs, connections between scouting and patriotism, connections between scouting and religion, and imagery of newspaper coverage are unprotected scènes à faire.

Court action. The district court dismissed the plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, without prejudice.

The Case is No. 2:24-cv-09693-JKS-MAH.

Judge: Semper, J.

Attorneys: Robert H. Solomon (Nagel Rice, LLP) for the B. Nagel Films, LLC. Jeffrey S. Jacobson (Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP) for Netflix, Inc.

Companies: B. Nagel Films, LLC; Netflix, Inc.

Cases: Copyright NewJerseyNews