In a recent judgment, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) refused dramatic work copyright protection to the format of a TV show - an improvised comedy sitcom - called "Shambles". Even if the format of Shambles had been protected, the court held that it would not have been infringed by the defendant's comedy mockumentary, "Live at the Moth Club" (LATMC).

Putting it simply, the judge found the Shambles format to be just that - a shambles format. Putting it legally, the judge held that the format as pleaded did not constitute a dramatic work. The claimant's pleaded features only involved high-level ideas and lacked a coherent framework so as to enable the show to be reproduced in a recognisable form. Other written documentation including the “Shambles Philosophy” (which set out basic plotlines) did not describe the plot, storylines, filmic style or characters in sufficient detail to allow for a consistent narrative framework. 

In relation to the infringement analysis (and to add to the drama), the claimant had known the Head of Development at the defendant company for years as fellow comedians. They'd even had a falling out, followed by a rapprochement, followed by another falling out (i.e. this legal dispute) - a classic sitcom plot.  However, the claimant had only maintained its claim of indirect/unconscious copying after dropping its direct/conscious copying claim at trial. Therefore the fact that the other writers of LATMC had no knowledge of Shambles led the judge to hold there was no inference of copying. 

Another key factor in concluding that copying could not be inferred was that the shows' similarities were at an "extremely high level of generality". For instance, the fact that both shows had incompetent characters was seen merely as a stock comedic device - as the judge commented, “competence is rarely funny”. 

The judgment illustrates the ongoing difficulties in the protection of TV show formats in the UK – the assessment requires specificity, coherency and repeatability, as well as a laser focus on the format specifically claimed. 

For a more detailed summary of the judgment, read the full article here.