122 F. Supp. 3d 157
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Williams registered a treatment titled “Married at 1st Sight” and uploaded it to TV Writers Vault in December 2011; a Lifetime-affiliated executive downloaded it in Feb. 2012.
- The Treatment proposed a reality series where contestants pair via 12-hour blind dates, audience and coach voting selects a winning couple, and the winners may marry and compete for grand prizes (dream wedding, house, $250,000) and then live together for six months.
- FYI/Lifetime aired “Married at First Sight” (Season 1) in 2014, documenting three couples matched by experts, married at first sight, and followed for six weeks to see if they would stay married. No prizes or pre-wedding blind dates as in the Treatment.
- Williams sued A&E, Lifetime, and FYI for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The Court considered the Treatment and the televised episodes and concluded (as a matter of law) that most Treatment elements are unprotectable scenes a faire and that the two works’ total concept and overall feel are not substantially similar. The complaint was dismissed; derivative liability and declaratory relief also denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protectability: Are Treatment elements protected expression or unprotectable ideas/scenes a faire? | Williams: Treatment contains original selection/arrangement of elements that is protectable. | Defendants: Treatment is dominated by stock ideas and scènes à faire inherent to arranged-marriage reality shows. | Held: Predominantly scènes à faire; Treatment lacks sufficient original expressive detail to be protected. |
| Substantial similarity: Do protectable elements of the Treatment and the program create actionable similarity? | Williams: Series copies plot, themes, mood, setting, pace, characters, sequence of events and overall feel. | Defendants: Any overlap concerns unprotectable ideas (arranged marriage, therapy sessions, filming everyday life); overall concepts differ (prize/blind-date format v. expert matching/social experiment). | Held: As a matter of law, no substantial similarity in protectable expression or total concept/overall feel; direct infringement dismissed. |
| Secondary liability: Can defendants be held contributory or vicariously liable? | Williams: Each defendant aided or had ability/interest to stop infringement. | Defendants: No direct infringement occurred, so no secondary liability. | Held: Because direct infringement not plausible, contributory and vicarious claims fail and are dismissed. |
| Pleading standard / Rule 12(b)(6): May court resolve similarity on motion to dismiss? | Williams: Facts alleged create plausible claim requiring discovery. | Defendants: Works are before the court; court can decide substantial similarity as a matter of law. | Held: Court may compare works on Rule 12(b)(6); here comparison supports dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must plead factual plausibility to survive dismissal)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (copyright protects original expression, not ideas)
- Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2010) (works themselves control; analyze total concept and overall feel for substantial similarity)
- Attia v. Soc’y of the New York Hosp., 201 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 1999) (ideas, concepts, processes are not protected)
- Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd., 71 F.3d 996 (2d Cir. 1995) (extract unprotectable elements and compare protectable elements for substantial similarity)
- Faulkner v. Nat’l Geographic Enters., Inc., 409 F.3d 26 (2d Cir. 2005) (no secondary liability without direct infringement)
- Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1996) (scènes à faire doctrine: stock elements flow from an uncopyrightable idea)
- Castorina v. Spike Cable Networks, Inc., 784 F. Supp. 2d 107 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (selection/coordination/arrangement of stock elements can be protected when uniquely expressed)