A singer is suing the BBC for £10 million, claiming executives ripped off her idea for the hit reality show Glow Up: Britain’s Next Make-Up Star.
Gladness Jukic, 32, said the BBC3 programme, in which aspiring make-up artists compete to win a coveted contract to work with some of the industry’s biggest names, was ‘stolen’ from an idea she pitched by email in 2018.
Jukic, who performs under the stage name Bossiie, claims her idea was sent to BBC commissioning editors as a nine-page PowerPoint document in May 2018, around the time the show was commissioned.
Wall to Wall Media Ltd, a subsidiary of the US entertainment company Warner Bros, made a successful pitch for the show to be produced under the working name ‘Face off etc’.
But Jukic believes her idea – Bossiie: 10-Minute Makeover, which envisaged self-taught YouTube make-up artists competing and commercial hook ups with make-up brands – was so similar to the final show that she should be compensated to the tune of £10 million.
While lawyers for the BBC have disputed the claim at the high court and are attempting to have it thrown out, Jukic is seeking to establish ownership of copyright in the show.
Jukic, who didn’t attend the hearing and was not represented, is seeking summary judgment in her claim.
The court heard that Jukic has already lost one case, having had a bid to trademark the name Glow Up: Britain’s Next Make-up Star defeated after a challenge by Warner Bros, a setback that left her with a £2,500 bill for court costs.
Gladness Jukic is suing the BBC for £10 million after claiming executives ripped off her idea for the hit reality show Glow Up: Britain’s Next Make-Up Star
Jukic has already lost one case, having had a bid to trademark the name Glow Up: Britain’s Next Make-up Star defeated after a challenge by Warner Bros
The BBC have countered that Jukic’s idea did not reach them because her email bounced on account of its size
The BBC insists Jukic’s idea did not reach them because her email bounced back. They have also asserted that the pitch was made after they had already commissioned their show, and deny that the shows are similar except in ‘commonplace’ ways that cannot be protected by copyright.
Glow Up contestants take part in weekly challenges to progress through the competition, with their efforts judged by industry professionals Dominic Skinner and Val Garland, as well as weekly guest stars.
Originally hosted by Stacey Dooley, the first series premiered in March 2019, with Maya Jama replacing Dooley as presenter for the third series and Leomie Anderson fronting from the fifth series onwards.
Jukic, from Romford, Essex, says she came up with her idea for a make-up reality show in November 2017 and emailed a pitch to the BBC on 16 May 2018.
However, the BBC say Glow Up was commissioned from Wall to Wall and went into production around the same time, having initially been submitted in February.
Jukic now claims ‘her show had been stolen’ and is bidding to prove it ‘aired without her consent’ as the rightful copyright holder of the programme’s concept.
She says she has suffered ‘injury to feeling and financial loss’.
At a high court hearing in London this week, Ashton Chantrielle, for the BBC and Wall to Wall Media Ltd, told Mr Justice Thompsell: ‘She says her show has been used and her trademark has been used and that she sent her treatment to the BBC by email.
Leomie Anderson, seen here earlier this month at The Fashion Awards 2024 at the Royal Albert Hall, currently presents Glow Up
‘The treatment in issue is a nine-page PowerPoint presentation called Bossiie: 10-Minute Makeover.
‘The claimant’s case is that she created the treatment in November 2017.
‘The claimant has pleaded that she originally called her treatment Glow Up: Britain’s Next Make-up Star. There is no evidence of this.
‘The claimant claims to have sent the treatment to the BBC on 16 May 2018 by email.
‘It is the BBC’s position that it never had access to the treatment.’
She said evidence shows Ms Jukic’s email ‘bounced back’ and was never successfully received because the PowerPoint attachment was too large for the BBC email system to accept.
‘The Glow Up show is an original format of television show, created in-house and produced by W2W on commission from the BBC independently and without reference to the claimant or her treatment,’ said Chantrielle.
‘The idea for the Glow Up show was first conceived by W2W…before the alleged date of the creation of Ms Jukic’s treatment.
‘On or around 15 February 2018, the redeveloped concept of the make-up competition show was proposed by W2W to the BBC.
‘A formal pitch for the Glow Up show under the name Glow Up: Britain’s Next Make-up Star was created and submitted to the BBC on 16 February 2018 before being commissioned in May 2018.
‘It appears as though the claimant at one point may have truly believed that the treatment she created which was sent to the BBC has been copied by the defendants.
‘The reality is that it was not; they have no record of having received it, the concept for the Glow Up show was created by W2W before the date of the creation of the treatment and it was developed without reference to the treatment.
‘The Glow Up show is not in fact an infringement of the treatment. The alleged similarities are simply not of the right kind to infer copying.
‘We have a professional make-up artist as judge, but having a professional judge is commonplace.
‘The reality format and the fact that there is a competition are… not something copyright would protect.
‘Teaming up with brands was in Ms Jukic’s treatment, but is not a focus for the BBC show.
‘It is not a show for YouTubers who are self-taught make-up artists.
‘Only commonplace features are similar.’
To achieve her aim Ms Jukic would need to convince the judge that the BBC have no realistic prospect of defending her claim against them and that the argument on the broadcaster’s side is so weak that the evidence does not even need to be examined at a trial.
The BBC however are essentially putting forward the same argument in relation to her claim.
And their barrister told the judge that even if they fail to get her claim struck out, their defence is strong enough that it would need to be looked at in detail by a judge at a full trial.
Following a day-long hearing, the judge reserved his decision until a later date.
