Top 10 TV Reality Series / Gameshow Lawsuits for Rip-Offs, Knock-Offs & Take-Offs
Mike Vicic - June 25, 2012
 |
 |
So THE GLASS HOUSE is just a "boilerplate" reality series -- at least according to U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess, who last Friday denied CBS' request for a temporary restraining order and further suggested that "while [the court] cannot say that CBS will not prevail at trial, it has concluded that success on the merits is unlikely."
No surprise, since history tends to agree. Dating back to at least 1986, production companies and broadcast networks have sued to protect the intellectual property of their reality series and gameshows -- and in similar cases, a court has never ruled that a program infringed on another party's copyright. The best result so far has been an out-of-court settlement of undisclosed terms. Maybe that just means there's no network intellect to protect?
In honor of Judge Feess' recent decision, TV Tango has assembled the ten most famous lawsuits involving two TV reality series or gameshows that seemed like rip-offs, knock-offs or take-offs of each other.
|
|
|
|
|
BIG BROTHER v. THE GLASS HOUSE (aka CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies Inc. et al) |
|||||
|
|
|||||
| Plaintiff | Case Information | Defendant | |||
|
|
|||||
|
(CBS, 2000) |
Filing Date: May 10, 2012 (with countersuit on June 11, 2012) Cause of Action: Copyright infringement & so much more. Series Similarities: While being continuously filmed and isolated from the outside world, a group of people live in a house and participate in challenges. Viewers vote to determine who goes home. Plus, THE GH employs more than 19 former BB staff and producers. Series Differences: THE GH uses a robot voice as host, while BB has The Chenbot. THE GH cast can each ask viewers one weekly question. Judge's Decision: A judge denied CBS' request for a temporary restraining order on June 22, four days after THE GH to premiered. Reality Check: Only 4.2 million viewed the first open house for THE GH, and unless it can sustain interest, ABC might delist it. Plus, rather than force THE GH into foreclosure, CBS just taunts its owner. |
(ABC, 2012) |
|||
|
|
|
THE CONTENDER v. THE NEXT GREAT CHAMP (aka Contender Partners LLC v. Fox Broadcasting Co.) |
|||||
|
|
|||||
| Plaintiff | Case Information | Defendant | |||
|
|
|||||
|
(NBC, 2005) |
Filing Date: August 27, 2004 Cause of Action: Unlawful, fraudulent and unfair business practices. Series Similarities: A group of up-and-coming boxers train and fight in a series of bouts, competing for a large cash prize. Series Differences: One host is a fictional boxing legend; the other host is a real one. Competitors must have 10 amateur bouts (CHAMP) or just box (CONTENDER). CHAMP winner also earns pro contract. Judge's Decision: CHAMP won by unanimous decision, as a California state judge rejected the motion for a preliminary injunction. Reality Check: Staggering through four seasons, THE CONTENDER TKO'd the CHAMP, which threw in the towel after one season. |
(FOX, 2004) |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
SURVIVOR v. I'M A CELEBRITY...GET ME OUT OF HERE (aka CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies Inc. et al) |
|||||
|
|
|||||
| Plaintiff | Case Information | Defendant | |||
|
|
|||||
|
(CBS, 2000) |
Filing Date: November 6, 2002 Cause of Action: Copyright infringement. Series Similarities: Living with limited supplies, a group of people vie for cash by competing in challenges and trying to avoid elimination. Series Differences: On the comedic-toned CELEBRITY, 10 celebrities try to win money for charity and are voted off by viewers, while the serious-toned SURVIVOR includes 16 everyday people trying to win for themselves and voting each other off the island. Judge's Decision: On January 13, 2003, a judge denied CBS' request for an injunction, keeping CELEBRITY's torch lit for its first season. Reality Check: The audience has spoken, allowing SURVIVOR to outwit, outplay & outlast all of its copycat competitors -- for 24 seasons. |
I'M A CELEBRITY, GET ME OUT OF HERE (ABC, 2003) |
|||
|
|
|
(aka RDF Media Limited v. Fox Broadcasting Company et al) |
|||||
|
|
|||||
| Plaintiff | Case Information | Defendant | |||
|
|
|||||
|
(ABC, 2004) |
Filing Date: December 15, 2004 Cause of Action: Copyright & trade dress infringement. Series Similarities: Two very different families exchange mothers, putting them in new situations. WIFE SWAP was called TRADING MOMS before TRADING SPOUSES was announced. Series Differences: WIFE SWAP focuses on what families learn, while TRADING SPOUSES highlights confrontation. TRADING SPOUSES gives $50,000 to each family; WIFE SWAP provides no prize money. Judge's Decision: On May 11, 2005, a judge dismissed the trademark claim. The copyright claim was later settled out of court. Reality Check: Viewers adopted both series but WIFE SWAP was their favorite child, garnering higher ratings, lasting three more seasons and enjoying a longer syndicated run than TRADING SPOUSES. |
(FOX, 2004) |
|||
|
|
|
AMERICAN IDOL / POP IDOL v. THE X FACTOR (UK) (aka 19 TV v. Simon Cowell, Simco, Syco & FremantleMedia) |
|||||
|
|
|||||
| Plaintiff | Case Information | Defendant | |||
|
|
|||||
|
AMERICAN IDOL (FOX, 2002) / POP IDOL (ITV1, 2002) |
Filing Date: September 10, 2004 Cause of Action: Copyright infringement & breach of contract. Series Similarities: Singers compete for a recording contract by impressing a panel of judges and the home viewing audience, who can vote. Originally, both shows had three judges -- Simon Cowell, a male entertainment manager, and a female music expert. THE X FACTOR employed multiple IDOL staffers. Series Differences: Singers compete in one category (IDOL) or one of four categories (THE X FACTOR): Boys; Girls; Over 25; and Groups. Judge's Decision: None. Parties settled out of court, but IDOL creator Simon Fuller filed a 2011 complaint for breach of that settlement. Reality Check: In the UK, THE X FACTOR is a clear winner since POP IDOL no longer tours the airwaves. Based on ratings in the US, THE X FACTOR is FOX's opening act for AMERICAN IDOL. |
(ITV1, 2004) |
|||
|
|
|
TAKESHI'S CASTLE / MXC v. WIPEOUT (aka Tokyo Broadcasting System Inc v. American Broadcasting Companies Inc et al) |
|||||
|
|
|||||
| Plaintiff | Case Information | Defendant | |||
|
|
|||||
|
TAKESHI'S CASTLE (TBS) / |
Filing Date: October 6, 2008 Cause of Action: Copyright infringement. Series Similarities: Wisecracking hosts comment about players who struggle to complete physical challenges. Many obstacles are similar, like the pictured high rollers (MXC) and rolling logs (WIPEOUT). Series Differences: MXC has the tone of a typical wacky Japanese gameshow, while WIPEOUT has an understated look-and-feel. Plus, contestants must finish the WIPEOUT course. Judge's Decision: None. After three years and facing another trial delay, the parties settled on November 30, 2011. Reality Check: WIPEOUT leaped over MXC, which no longer airs, and is still on the course competing against Tokyo Broadcasting System's NINJA WARRIOR, now airing on G4. |
(ABC, 2008) |
|||
|
|
|
(aka Survivor Productions LLC vs. Fox Broadcasting Co.) |
|||||
|
|
|||||
| Plaintiff | Case Information | Defendant | |||
|
|
|||||
|
(CBS, 2000) |
Filing Date: April 9, 2001 Cause of Action: Copyright infringement. Series Similarities: A group of people vie for a large cash prize by competing in challenges to gain rewards or immunity, and then they vote to eliminate a peer at the end of each episode. Series Differences: BOOT CAMP has military-themed challenges, with the eliminated competitor selecting a second person to send home. Eliminated contestants have their torches extinguished (SURVIVOR) or give back their dog tags (BOOT CAMP). Judge's Decision: None. Parties settled. Reality Check: Twice as many couch soldiers marched to the beat of SURVIVOR, giving BOOT CAMP a one-season tour of duty. |
(FOX, 2001) |
|||
|
|
|
RACE AROUND THE WORLD v. THE AMAZING RACE (aka Fox Family Prop. Inc. v. CBS Inc.) |
|||||
|
|
|||||
| Plaintiff | Case Information | Defendant | |||
|
|
|||||
|
RACE AROUND THE WORLD (Fox Family, never aired) |
Filing Date: October 27, 2000 Cause of Action: Copyright infringement. Series Similarities: A 40-day race around the world, stopping in many countries. Both series originally called RACE AROUND THE WORLD. Series Differences: Two families (Fox) vs. two-person teams (CBS). Judge's Decision: In a non-elimination leg, a U.S. District Court judge overturned Fox Family's temporary injunction, allowing THE AMAZING RACE to continue its journey. Reality Check: Fox Family's version was eliminated early, while CBS' version has been the first series to arrive in the Emmy race for Outstanding Reality-Competition Program -- eight times so far. |
(CBS, 2001) |
|||
|
|
|
(aka Touchdown Television v. Fox Broadcasting Co. and Dick Clark Productions) |
|||||
|
|
|||||
| Plaintiff | Case Information | Defendant | |||
|
|
|||||
|
(ABC, 2002) |
Filing Date: January 3, 2002 (with countersuit on January 11, 2002) Cause of Action: Copyright infringement & breach of confidence. Series Similarities: Strapped to a chair and exposed to danger & distractions, contestants try to control their vital signs while answering trivia questions for cash. Lewis Black says both shows "are for idiots." Series Differences: Contestants compete for $100,000 (CHAMBER) or $250,000 (CHAIR), while having heart rate (CHAIR) or stress quotient (CHAMBER) measured. Judge's Decision: None. Within three weeks of the countersuit, lawyers had nothing meaningful to fight over after FOX pulled THE CHAMBER from its schedule and ratings collapsed for THE CHAIR. Reality Check: After competing to be first on TV, neither series could find the right answers, and they were both sent packing after torturing home viewers for three (CHAMBER) and eight (CHAIR) episodes. |
(FOX, 2002) |
|||
|
|
|
BAMBOOZLE v. TO TELL THE TRUTH (aka Barris Industries Inc. & Woody Fraser Productions Inc. v. Goodson-Todman Enterprises Ltd.) |
|||||
|
|
|||||
| Plaintiff | Case Information | Defendant | |||
|
|
|||||
|
BAMBOOZLE (ABC, 1986 pilot never aired) |
Filing Date: July 8, 1986 (with multiple motions & counterclaims) Cause of Action: Irreparable injury & copyright differentiation. Series Similarities: Three challengers -- one truth teller and two liars acting like the truth teller -- win cash if they fool a panel who asks them about the truth teller's career, hobby or accomplishment. Series Differences: Paired with two celebrities, BAMBOOZLE's non-celebrity panelist can win cash by correctly guessing which challenger is the truth teller. Each of the four TTTT celebrity panelists vote, but only the challengers can win cash. Each panelist can ask six questions (BAMBOOZLE) or has a time limit for questions (TTTT). Judge's Decision: Courts denied motion for preliminary injunction and in 1988 ruled copyright issues "should be resolved by way of a trial." Reality Check: Was ABC bamboozled by this pilot from legendary Chuck Barris? Or was Barris just bamboozled by continuing legal and financial issues? Either way, TTTT's status was never threatened. |
|
|||
|
|
|
HONORABLE MENTION |
|||
|
|
|||
| So far the list has only included lawsuits between production and/or broadcast companies, but production firms and networks are often sued by individuals who claim their own work is substantially similar to a reality series being shown on TV. I've assembled a few of those lawsuits here: |
|||
|
2003: Home video THE MYSTERY MAGICIAN v. TV specials MAGIC'S BIGGEST SECRETS REVEALED (aka Rice v. Fox Broadcasting Co.)
2004: Treatment SEX CHANGE v. HE'S A LADY (aka Phillips and Gerard v. Turner Broadcasting System (TBS) and Evolution Film & Tape, Inc.)
2005: MILLION DOLLAR IDEA v. MILLION DOLLAR IDEA (aka Golden and Walker v. American Broadcasting Companies Inc. et al)
2006: Unnamed pitch v. GHOST HUNTERS (aka Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television Inc.)
2006: Treatment TWO LEFT FEET v. PROS VS. JOES (aka Castorina v. Spike Cable Networks Inc.)
2006: Treatment FROM FAT TO PHAT v. THE BIGGEST LOSER (aka Milano v. NBC Universal Inc. et al)
2006: WGA registered dance-concept v. SO YOU THINK YOU CAN DANCE (aka Cassese et al v. Fox Broadcasting Co. et al)
2008: Website submission of logline for THE AMERICAN FAMILY CARDILLO v. GREAT AMERICAN ROAD TRIP (aka 5 Plus 7 Inc. and Cardillo v. British Broadcasting Corporation et al)
2010: DANCE YOUR ASS OFF v. DANCE YOUR ASS OFF (Jonas Larsen et al v. Lisa Ann Walter et al)
|
|||
|
|
| |
|
