784 F. Supp. 2d 107
E.D.N.Y2011Background
- Plaintiffs Castorina and Morse allege copyright infringement of their treatment for a sports reality show 'Two Left Feet' by Spike Cable Networks' series 'Pros v. Joes.'
- Plaintiffs registered a 2004 treatment with elements including premise, tryout process, episode framework, host dynamics, future episode ideas, prizes, and a final season plan.
- Defendants premiered 'Pros v. Joes' in 2006, asserting no infringement and disputing substantial similarity of protectable elements.
- The court analyzes ownership, copying, and substantial similarity under Rule 12(b)(6) and the Second Circuit framework for reality TV programs.
- The court finds the two works share only unprotectable ideas and stock elements, and that the plaintiff’s protectable expression is not substantially similar to the defendant’s work.
- As a result, the complaint fails to state a cognizable claim and the motion to dismiss is granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint alleges plausible copyright infringement. | Castorina argues substantial similarity exists in expression of ideas. | Spike contends protectable expression is limited and not substantially similar. | Plaintiff's claim is not plausible; dismissal granted. |
| Whether Two Left Feet contains protectable expression. | Two Left Feet's unique assembly of stock ideas is protectable expression. | Stock elements and scènes à faire are not protectable; arrangement is largely functional. | Treatment lacks protectable expression; no infringement found. |
| Whether the works are substantially similar in total concept and overall feel. | Similarities in format and host dynamics show infringement. | Differences in hosts, format, and execution negate substantial similarity. | No substantial similarity; no infringement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010) (ownership and copying must be shown for infringement; protectable elements required)
- Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Development Corp., 602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2010) (test for substantial similarity; focus on protectable expression and total concept)
- Lapine v. Seinfeld, 375 Fed.Appx. 81 (2d Cir. 2010) (scènes à faire are unprotectable; expression may be protectable when arranged uniquely)
- Lewison v. Henry Holt and Co., LLC, 659 F. Supp. 2d 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (words and slogans are not copyrightable; protectable expression lies in selection/arrangement)