IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—D.N.J.: Copyright suit against Netflix over competing Boy Scouts abuse documentaries is dismissed, (Oct 6, 2025)

By Steven Melendez

A federal judge found a documentarian hadn't made a case that a Netflix documentary infringed copyright on his own.

A New Jersey federal court dismissed a case against Netflix and production company Luminant Media, finding a documentarian failed to make a case that a Netflix-aired documentary about sexual abuse in the Boy Scouts infringed the copyright on his own competing film (B. Nagel Films, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-09693-JKS-MAH (D.N.J. Oct. 1, 2025)).

Filmmaker and New Jersey attorney Bruce Nagel represented three former Boy Scouts, and his production company, B. Nagel Films, in 2022 also released a documentary called Boy Scout's Honor, covering a scout's account of abuse at the hands of his scoutmaster. The documentary was released on streaming platforms such as Apple, Amazon, and Vudu, according to the ruling in the case.

In 2023, Netflix and Luminant released a Netflix-exclusive documentary called Scout’s Honor: The Secret Files of the Boy Scouts of America, which also focused on "childhood sexual abuse in the Boy Scouts of America," according to the ruling.

In October 2024, B. Nagel Films filed suit, alleging the Netflix documentary copied "several copyrightable portions and elements" of Nagel's film, including the “overarching theme and structure” and the “use of lighting, music, camera techniques, dialogue, and arrangement," according to the ruling. Claims included direct infringement, contributory infringement, and vicarious infringement, and B. Nagel Films sought a declaration that infringement took place, damages, and an injunction barring future infringement.

According to the ruling, copyright holders need to "establish ownership of a valid copyright" and "unauthorized copying of original elements of the plaintiff’s work.” But ideas and facts alone aren't protected by copyright, and neither are "scènes à faire, which are 'incidents, characters or settings which are as a practical matter indispensable in the treatment of a given topic,'" according to the ruling.

Netflix and Luminant filed a motion to dismiss in December 2024, arguing that the works weren't actually "substantially similar" and that "as a matter of law, any claimed similarities are based on uncopyrightable facts that are free for all creators to use." Elements like particular types of lighting and music, as well as the use of interviews and historical documents, aren't protected by copyright, the companies argued.

The two films don't focus on the same "characters" and "setting," and those elements aren't protectable in documentaries anyway, since they are real people and places, the companies argued. And any overlaps in dialogue are only "an incidental similarity in the use of certain words or phrases arising from the general shared subject matter of the two films," Netflix and Luminant claimed.

But in an opposition, B. Nagel Films said, "substantial similarity is usually an extremely close question of fact," with courts traditionally limiting summary judgment to cases where "no reasonable jury could find that two works are substantially similar." The film company argued it had sufficiently pleaded a case for similarity and that it should be granted leave to amend its complaint if the court found otherwise. Netflix and Luminant, on the other hand, argued allowing B. Nagel Films to amend its complaint would be pointless, since it would be impossible to fix "fundamental defects" in the claim.

Ultimately, the court found that B. Nagel Films "cannot prove that Defendants’ documentary was substantially similar as to warrant copyright protection" since facts cannot be protected by copyright, meaning "nothing relating to the facts of the events that the films describe, the people they interview, and the settings they deal with can be protected by copyright law."

Other elements, too, aren't protected, with "the use of partial shadows, unnerving music, and stock footage of camping and scouting activities to create an unsettling atmosphere" all being unprotected "scènes à faire," according to the ruling. And in terms of dialogue, B. Nagel Films filmed to identify "more than the occasional use of some of the same terms—something that is bound to happen in two documentaries dealing with the same scandal," according to the ruling.

Still, the court ruled that B. Nagel Films may file an amended complaint within 30 days of the ruling.

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

Judge: Semper, J.

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

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

Cases: Copyright NewJerseyNews