tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post6621640831573479349..comments2024-03-26T10:41:35.852+00:00Comments on The 1709 Blog: Having the X Factor: TV formats can be protected by copyright if they have clearly identified features distinguishing them from similar types of showsMarie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-53447720624971959572017-12-05T10:57:45.862+00:002017-12-05T10:57:45.862+00:00As mentioned, this was a Case Managment Conference...As mentioned, this was a Case Managment Conference, not a trial. Uncovered evidence show that the Summary judgement in the case was obtained by fraud and there are good grounds for appealing the Summary judgement, supported in part by uncovered evidence of contracts concealed by Friday TV and the defendants, and based on errors of law in the summary judgement. <br /><br />There has been a high degree of dishonesty and bad faith on the part of the defendants'in the case, as the uncovered evidence of Friday TV and the defendants' contracts with the plaintiff on the Minute Winner format document and the disputed Minute To Win It gameshow were concealed in order not to pay royalties to the plaintiff for Friday TV's exploitation of the Minute Winner document in their development of Minute To Win It. <br /><br />With regard to the claim of breach of confidentiality, the plaintiff, BUMP, submitted an NDA to Friday TV at the meeting on 11 November 2005, thus the disclosure of Minute Winner format was made under the condition of confidentiality. <br /><br />As with regard to the passing off claim the court's opinion was wrong in stating that BUMP did not establish goodwill in Minute Winner in UK. BUMP submitted to the court evidence, such as email to ITV which shows that Goodwill in Minute Winner in UK was established through ITV since 2005. BUMP's clients in UK are not the UK general public but UK broadcasters, such as ITV, and ITV aired 8 episodes of Minute To Win It in 2011 - 2012. <br /><br />Friday TV's concealed evidence of drafted contracts with BUMP on Minute Winner and Minute To Win It support the fact that Minute To Win It is Minute Winner, and valuable and confidential information provided in the Minute Winner document allowed Friday TV to develop Minute To Win It. <br /><br />The court's summary judgement does not do justice in the case, as it has not resolved the issue of ownership of the format. BUMP, the plaintiff is still entitled to exploit its original "Minute Winner - You've got one Minute To Win It" format with other third parties, since Friday TV and the defendants are not in possession of an original document to prove they created Minute To Win It independently of BUMP's Minute Winner document. The evidence of their concealed contracts with BUMP are proof that BUMP is the original creator of Minute Winner - Minute To Win It. .https://www.blogger.com/profile/05407337936622620323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-8835346778216167522017-12-03T12:42:41.055+00:002017-12-03T12:42:41.055+00:00I would like to start by thanking Paul for his ana...I would like to start by thanking Paul for his analysis of this case and its implications for the possibility that TV formats may be protectable by copyright.<br /><br />However I think he goes too far in asserting that "[t]his case is of great significance to the media industry ...". It is important to remember that this was a case management conference, not a trial. The aim of the exercise was to examine the prospect of success at trial of the preliminary arguments of the two parties. That involved Snowden J being led to a number of authorities, as Paul outlined in the posting, and the judge summarising them. I can find no instance where he broke new ground either in defining formats as, possibly, dramatic works, or in the features which would need to be present to qualify a format as a dramatic work. To that extent the judge merely re-stated with approval what various (mainly superior) courts had already found in previous cases.<br /><br />That said, I largely agree with Paul's other conclusions. True copyright has, since the first Berne Convention of 1886, been confined to a narrow set of categories, namely literary, dramatic, musical, and artisic works, which have over the years seen many unsuitable subgenres added to them (computer programs for instance) as well as the addition of a slew of so-called neighbouring (or related) rights, which in some people's eyes are deserving of the same protection as the 'core' LDMA works. As a result, for many non-lawyers (and a few lawyers I suspect) 'copyright' has now become an umbrella term for protecting many diverse types of work, from performances to databases, or satellite broadcasts to panoramas. Indeed the EU seems to be busy creating new types of rights on an almost continuous basis, while the CJEU spends its time expanding the scope and definitions of those which already exist. Just because TV formats do not naturally amd easily fit into any existing category of copyright work, attempts should not be made to shove them in, like some <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R0FanSTyOw" rel="nofollow">poor Tokyo commuter</a> boarding a train, just because they appear, superficially, to exhibit some modicum of original creativity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com