Courtrooms can be just as dramatic as the silver screen and this was the setting last week where Netflix and Goldin Auctions, together with its founder Ken Goldin, received positive news. Gavel in hand, a federal judge ruled in their favour, dismissing a copyright infringement case that had been dangling like a sword of Damocles over these entities. The instigator of the legal action was Gervase Peterson, an alumnus of the notoriously challenging reality show “Survivor”. Peterson made claims to the effect that he pitched a concept similar to that of “King of Collectibles,” which was developed into a show and later snapped up by Netflix, without his participation.
Deploying broad-strokes in his argument, Peterson drew attention to perceived similarities between his pitch dubbed “The Goldin Boys,” and the show “King of Collectibles.” Despite a period of initial dialogue, communication reportedly hit an impasse in mid-2020. Following this phase of radio silence, a production concept bearing a resemblance to Peterson’s pitch mysteriously went into development.
The team rallying behind the defence barrister, armed with a steely gaze and impressive legal acumen, contested that the reality show under scrutiny primarily revolved around the wheelings and dealings of Goldin Auctions, and dispatches from Goldin’s personal life. According to this narrative, these elements were positioned as generic and unclaimable under the Copyright Act.
Judge Christine O’Hearn, donning the ceremonial black robes representative of the New Jersey federal district court, threw her weight behind this perspective. She elucidated that factors claimed as protectable by Peterson were, in the eyes of the law, scènes à faire or standard scenes typical to a genre, thus rendering them outside the purview of copyright protection. In her view, many a reality television show is filled to the brim with such elements, including the daily operational grind depicted in “King of Collectibles.”
Furthermore, the astute Judge O’Hearn accentuated that real-life subjects and staple elements found in reality shows often fall short of copyright protection. She cited legal precedents where similar judgements were handed down, further solidifying the case for the dismissal. This ruling goes on to underscore the monumental challenge involved in staking a copyright claim on sweeping concepts and themes frequently employed in reality television.
Having dodged this legal bullet, “King of Collectibles” not only remains on the air but has also chalked up industry recognition, as evidenced by its recent Emmy award nomination. The tale of this lawsuit serves as a reminder of the battlefield of intellectual property and the intricate dance between innovation, creativity, and the letter of the law.