CK • Washington.   Die Klägerin entwickelte ein Konzept für einen Gewichtsabnahmewettbewerb als TV-Programm, doch der Sender kam mit einem anderen Konzept für denselben Wettbewerb heraus. Die Klägerin sah das Programm als Kopie an, klagte und verlor.

In New York City erklärte das Bundesberufungsgericht des zweiten Bezirks der USA am 23. Mai 2012 im Fall Latimore v. NBC Universal Inc., welche Rechtsgrundsätze gelten.

Entweder weist die Klägerin nach, dass die Gegenseite ihr Konzept kannte und es kopierte. Oder das Gericht prüft, ob die beiden Konzepte wie behauptet vergleichbar sind. Beides traf hier nicht zu. Das Gericht erörtert den zweiten Grundsatz wie folgt:

In the absence of direct evidence of copying, a plaintiff can circumstantially prove that a defendant copied her work by showing both the defendant’s “access to the copyrighted work” and the “substantial similarity of protectible material in the two works.” Williams v. Chrichton, … “The standard test for substantial similarity between two items is whether an ordinary observer, unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard the aesthetic appeal as the same.” … In a case such as this, where the copyrighted work necessarily has both protected and unprotected elements, a court applies a more discerning analysis, in which it “must attempt to extract the unprotectible elements from [] consideration and ask whether the protectible elements, standing alone, are substantially similar.” … After undertaking “a detailed examination of the works themselves,” …, the district court properly found that The Biggest Loser is not substantially similar to Latimore’s idea. Although both ideas take advantage of staples of reality television such as team-based competition, elimination, and communal living, the way in which The Biggest Loser combines and supplements these common elements results in a concept and overall feel that is entirely different than Latimore’s proposal.