Bit Parts

Reality TV Shows May be Substantially Similar

An article by Michael I. Rudell and Neil J. Rosini in the December 2012 issue of Entertainment Law & Finance discussed the difficulty in pursuing copyright infringement claims over reality TV shows (See, “Protecting Reality TV Formats a Tough Sell.”) But the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has found two reality TV shows about bass fishing may be substantially similar. Parker v. Outdoor Channel Holdings, 2-11-CV-00159. Ewell Parker alleged that the defendants' Ultimate Match Fishing infringed the copyrights in his multi-series Match Fishing programs. The defendants first argued that some components of Parker's shows were unprotectable scenes ' faire that would naturally be part of “sports competitions.” But denying the defendants' summary judgment motion, District Judge Mary Lou Robinson noted: “Although defining topics is not an exact science, 'sports competitions' is too broad a definition of the topic here.” Judge Robinson continued: “The original use in bass fishing competitions of elements common to other competitions might be protectable. ' Consequently, a more appropriate definition of Match Fishing's common topic is 'televised bass fishing competitions.'” The district judge went on to find that, though some of the elements of Parker's show ' such as tracking competitors' boats with a camera crew ' weren't protectable, for example: “Both shows are television programs that depict a contest (part of a larger tournament) between two bass fishermen who fish out of a single boat. A centerline in the boat, which imaginarily extends beyond the boat and across the water, delineates each fisherman's 'area.' ' Competitors alternate control of the boat, and control is determined by a pre-match coin toss.” 

Suit Can Proceed Against Sponsor of Planned Awards Show

The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada allowed the creator of the awards show Operation: Heroes to proceed with claims against the show's sponsor Procter & Gamble, following cancellation of the production, which was to be aired on CBS. Operation Heroes Ltd. v. Procter and Gamble Productions Inc., 2:12-cv-00214. Operation Heroes alleged tortious interference with contract and interference with prospective economic advantage. On the latter claim, for example, U.S. District Judge Miranda M. Du noted: “Plaintiff alleges that Defendants interfered with at least two several prospective contractual relationships ' with Greyhound for a sponsored bus tour relating to the event and with CBS for the broadcast of the event and future similar events as well as the sale of Operation: Heroes merchandise. Because of Defendants' intimate relationship with the project, it is plausible that they knew of these prospective relationships.”

Translation of Russian Agreement Allows Copyright Claim to Be Reinstated

The internationalization of the entertainment industry has increased the chances of confusion when an agreement is written in a foreign language. Songwriters Taryn Murphy and Chris Landon sued popular Russian artist Sergey Lazarev, alleging that a sublicense Lazarev received from the plaintiffs' Russian licensee for their song “Almost Sorry” wasn't valid. After earlier deciding the sublicense was valid, District Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the U.S District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has allowed the songwriters to alter or amend their copyright claim, following the submission of complete English translations of the relevant Russian-language agreements. Murphy v. Lazarev, 3:10-cv-0530. District Judge Trauger first warned “the court may not be this lenient again with respect to post-hoc translations of Russian records filed with the court. Indeed, the court strongly encourages the parties to agree on some sort of protocol for translating relevant records'.” The district judge went on to note: “The sub-licensing agreements do not actually mention the song Almost Sorry. Although Lazarev has offered a potentially reasonable explanation as to the relationship between the sub-licensing arrangement and the song Almost Sorry, the plaintiffs should at least have the opportunity to probe Lazarev's representations about those documents and their legal effect.”

Reality TV Shows May be Substantially Similar

An article by Michael I. Rudell and Neil J. Rosini in the December 2012 issue of Entertainment Law & Finance discussed the difficulty in pursuing copyright infringement claims over reality TV shows (See, “Protecting Reality TV Formats a Tough Sell.”) But the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has found two reality TV shows about bass fishing may be substantially similar. Parker v. Outdoor Channel Holdings, 2-11-CV-00159. Ewell Parker alleged that the defendants' Ultimate Match Fishing infringed the copyrights in his multi-series Match Fishing programs. The defendants first argued that some components of Parker's shows were unprotectable scenes ' faire that would naturally be part of “sports competitions.” But denying the defendants' summary judgment motion, District Judge Mary Lou Robinson noted: “Although defining topics is not an exact science, 'sports competitions' is too broad a definition of the topic here.” Judge Robinson continued: “The original use in bass fishing competitions of elements common to other competitions might be protectable. ' Consequently, a more appropriate definition of Match Fishing's common topic is 'televised bass fishing competitions.'” The district judge went on to find that, though some of the elements of Parker's show ' such as tracking competitors' boats with a camera crew ' weren't protectable, for example: “Both shows are television programs that depict a contest (part of a larger tournament) between two bass fishermen who fish out of a single boat. A centerline in the boat, which imaginarily extends beyond the boat and across the water, delineates each fisherman's 'area.' ' Competitors alternate control of the boat, and control is determined by a pre-match coin toss.” 

Suit Can Proceed Against Sponsor of Planned Awards Show

The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada allowed the creator of the awards show Operation: Heroes to proceed with claims against the show's sponsor Procter & Gamble, following cancellation of the production, which was to be aired on CBS. Operation Heroes Ltd. v. Procter and Gamble Productions Inc., 2:12-cv-00214. Operation Heroes alleged tortious interference with contract and interference with prospective economic advantage. On the latter claim, for example, U.S. District Judge Miranda M. Du noted: “Plaintiff alleges that Defendants interfered with at least two several prospective contractual relationships ' with Greyhound for a sponsored bus tour relating to the event and with CBS for the broadcast of the event and future similar events as well as the sale of Operation: Heroes merchandise. Because of Defendants' intimate relationship with the project, it is plausible that they knew of these prospective relationships.”

Translation of Russian Agreement Allows Copyright Claim to Be Reinstated

The internationalization of the entertainment industry has increased the chances of confusion when an agreement is written in a foreign language. Songwriters Taryn Murphy and Chris Landon sued popular Russian artist Sergey Lazarev, alleging that a sublicense Lazarev received from the plaintiffs' Russian licensee for their song “Almost Sorry” wasn't valid. After earlier deciding the sublicense was valid, District Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the U.S District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has allowed the songwriters to alter or amend their copyright claim, following the submission of complete English translations of the relevant Russian-language agreements. Murphy v. Lazarev, 3:10-cv-0530. District Judge Trauger first warned “the court may not be this lenient again with respect to post-hoc translations of Russian records filed with the court. Indeed, the court strongly encourages the parties to agree on some sort of protocol for translating relevant records'.” The district judge went on to note: “The sub-licensing agreements do not actually mention the song Almost Sorry. Although Lazarev has offered a potentially reasonable explanation as to the relationship between the sub-licensing arrangement and the song Almost Sorry, the plaintiffs should at least have the opportunity to probe Lazarev's representations about those documents and their legal effect.”