In the recent case of Joshua Rinkoff v Baby Cow Productions Ltd, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court had the opportunity of highlighting the complexities of copyright protection for television formats in relation to a TV comedy show called 'Shambles'. Some may have thought that, following recent cases such as Shazam and Banner, there was perhaps more of an opportunity to assert copyright protection in a TV format as a dramatic work under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, despite there having been no UK cases in which a claim that a format is protected as a dramatic work has succeeded.
In Shazam, whilst the Court had found that the fictional character of Del Boy in Only Fools and Horses was protected as a literary work, and that scripts for individual episodes were dramatic works, it had concluded that the body of scripts for the show did not collectively establish as an independent work the characters, stories and 'imaginary world' of those characters. Meanwhile, in Banner, the Court rejected the claim that the format for a TV game show called 'Minute Winner' was protected as a dramatic work, as a result of its 'distinctive features'. However, whilst the Court rejected the claim in Banner, the judge noted that it was 'at least arguable' conceptually that the format of a TV game show could be protected as a dramatic work, namely where (1) there are a number of clearly identified features which, taken together, distinguish the show in question from other similar shows and (2) those distinguishing features are connected with each other in a coherent framework that can be repeatedly applied.
The decision by Recorder Amanda Michaels's that the format of Shambles was not protected suggests that the bar remains a high one.
Facts
Joshua Rinkoff, a writer and comedian performing under the name Harry Deansway, claimed to own copyright in the format of two series of a comedy show called "Shambles." The show was set in a failing comedy club and combined live stand-up performances with a sitcom around the running of the club. Rinkoff alleged that Baby Cow Productions Ltd infringed his copyright with its series 'Live at the Moth Club' (LATMC) which had the same premise.
Rinkoff claimed the format of Shambles was protected as a dramatic work, specifically the combination of eight features that, when taken together, distinguished it from other shows of a similar type. These features included:
- A setting in a comedy club struggling to make ends meet, based in a real-world venue that is not a full-time purpose-built comedy club.
- The blending of fictional scenes involving situation comedy with actual stand-up performances by comedians, creating a unique hybrid of sitcom and comedy entertainment.
- Interactions between fictional characters and stand-up comedians or real audience members, creating a blend of the fictional and the documentary.
- The use of cinema verité techniques, such as handheld camera footage and natural lighting, to create a sense of realism and authenticity.
- A promoter character, Harry, who is the protagonist facing challenges in organising a successful comedy night.
- A hapless club owner character, Greg, who tries to help but often makes things worse.
- An intern character who also complicates matters for the protagonist.
- The presence of industry characters working behind the scenes, such as agents and producers, who propose bad or surreal ideas for the comedy night.
Rinkoff argued that these features formed a coherent framework that could be repeatedly applied to reproduce the show in a recognisable form.
The Court's findings
Ultimately, the Court held that copyright did not subsist in the format of Shambles for the following reasons:
Fixation and detail: for a TV format to be protected by copyright as a dramatic work, it must be fixed in a material form with sufficient detail. This means that the format should be clearly defined and detailed enough to allow someone to perform or reproduce the work. However, the features of Shambles were too loosely described and lacked the necessary specificity.
Coherent framework: the Court emphasised that a protectable format must have a coherent framework that distinguishes it from other shows of a similar type. The features should be connected in a way that allows the show to be reproduced in a recognisable form. Shambles did not meet this criterion because its framework was not detailed enough to render it capable of performance.
Expression vs. idea: the Court reiterated the well-established principle that copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. While Shambles had a unique concept of blending live comedy with a sitcom, the Court found that the expression of this idea was not sufficiently detailed to warrant copyright protection.
Even if copyright had subsisted, the Court found there would have been no copying by Baby Cow Productions, having considered its evidence regarding the creative process. In addition, the main complaint was that LATMC was set in an almost identical setting of a rundown comedy club, with the same central underlying idea of combining scenes of real comedians on stage, with backstage scenes with fictional characters. However, that did not, by itself, lead to an inference that the pleaded format of Shambles had been copied.
Key takeaways
This case is a reminder of the high bar set for obtaining copyright protection in TV formats as dramatic works. Creators seeking such protection must ensure that their formats are fixed in a truly detailed and coherent manner, allowing for clear performance or reproduction in each episode. Writers and producers should document everything as they navigate the creative process and express their ideas clearly; meticulous documentation and clarity are a necessity to securing copyright protection.