NY Writer’s Copyright Suit Over ‘Abbot Elementary’ Dismissed By Court
from the class-dismissed dept
Ah, the idea/expression dichotomy strikes again! It really is incredible just how many copyright lawsuits and disputes are launched due to the fundamental lack of understanding of this particular nuance of copyright law. As a very quick reminder: you cannot copyright an idea, but you can copyright specific expression. For example, you cannot copyright the idea of a wise-cracking rabbit that outwits a human being, but you can copyright the character Bugs Bunny.
You also cannot copyright the idea of a mocumentary about teachers in an under-funded elementary school, but you can copyright the show Abbott Elementary. This, however, is a concept that appears to be lost on writer Christine Davis, who sued a whole bunch of folks responsible for that show for copyright infringement.
Davis, a New York-based actor, writer and schoolteacher, sued ABC, Emmy award-winning “Abbott Elementary” creator Quinta Brunson and others in 2022, calling the show a “veritable knock-off” of “This School Year.” Davis said she pitched her show to producers with connections to ABC and “Abbott Elementary” streamer Hulu, who allegedly forwarded her work to the companies without permission.
Davis argued that “Abbott Elementary,” a workplace mockumentary about an underfunded public school in Philadelphia, copied several elements of her planned mockumentary about her experience teaching in New York City public schools.
The suit’s claims were roughly what you’d expect from a suit like this if you’ve read them before. Rather than alleging any actual direct copying of expression, the suit instead accuses those responsible for the hit show of copying a whole bunch of independently unprotectable “elements” from a pitch document she submitted to ABC in the hopes that all of them strung together result in something protectable. Opening scenes of a teacher in a classroom giving a speech to students. Teachers operating in an underfunded school where hilarity ensues. You get the picture.
Fortunately, the defendants moved to dismiss the suit, first for lack of personal jurisdiction, and second due to the claims being for unprotectable ideas. The court denied the first, but granted the motion to dismiss on the second.
“While both works depict the lives of idealistic teachers working in an inner-city public school,” Failla said, “differences in plot and structure far outweigh this general likeness.”
Failla also noted distinctions in each show’s tone, characters and “total concept and feel” in finding that Davis could not sustain her copyright case.
“The two works use qualitatively different plots, themes, and characters to cast different perspectives on the experiences of teachers in under-resourced, inner-city public-school settings,” Failla said.
The ruling itself, embedded below, goes into excruciating detailed analysis on each of the claims, excoriating each of them. For example, on the claim that the opening scenes were identical, the court says:
Far from “copy[ing] the identical message and tone for the opening speech[] of [its] protagonist,” as Plaintiff would have it, Abbott Elementary introduces its protagonist and supporting characters in a markedly more happy-go-lucky way. (Pl. Abbott Opp. 12). Teagues’s monologue is decidedly more optimistic and hopeful than Davis’s, and is delivered in a different format, intercut with lighthearted vignettes depicting the relative chaos of her classroom and those of her colleagues, unlike the pointed dialogue in This School Year. (AE 1-3). Even the references to Teagues’s frustrations are depicted in a comedic, upbeat light. (Id. at 3 (suggesting Teagues “sub[bed] out therapy for axe-throwing,” and interposing a cutscene depicting the activity)). Ultimately, the “entirely different contexts” of the opening monologues and Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 92 Filed 03/19/24 Page 33 of 49 34 their differences in tone, Shull v. TBTF Prods., Inc., No. 20-3529, 2021 WL 3027181, at *2 (2d Cir. July 19, 2021) (summary order), defeat Plaintiff’s attempt, by ipse dixit alone, to declare the two speeches “nearly identical” (SAC, Ex. E ¶ 2).
You get the point.
And so the suit, of course, goes nowhere, but the groups behind the show had to waste time, money, and effort defending what is a clear money-grab. But, hey, at least the court got this one right!
Filed Under: abbott elementary, christine davis, copyright, idea expression dichotomy, quinta brunson
Companies: abc, disney
Comments on “NY Writer’s Copyright Suit Over ‘Abbot Elementary’ Dismissed By Court”
'I've got this great idea-' 'And I don't want to hear it, get out.'
Davis, a New York-based actor, writer and schoolteacher,
Bad enough for them to (rightly) lose the case but good luck getting any work in those first two fields going forward as I imagine any attempt to pitch an idea will be rejected immediately going forward as the legally safer option since they’ve shown themselves to be willing to sue should anyone have similar ideas to their own.
It’s situations like these that make me cynical that the only reason why anyone is able to fight off money-grabs like this is because they’re a corporate entity armed to the teeth with full-fledged legal teams, capable of pointing out why the suit was doomed to start with. It’s one thing when it’s Ed Sheeran getting harassed by a descendant looking for blood money. A has-been trying to make money off studio’s success… not so much. At the same time I’m not feeling too empathetic to the Abbot Elementary team, purely because this is the sort of nuisance that they can afford as a cost of doing business.
More importantly, I feel like copyright supporters and maximalists should own these experiences, where their demand for lowering the barriers to IP litigation is precisely what incentivizes demonstrations of greed and suing over tangential similarities for a quick buck. Hardly the bastion of innovation and creativity that they’ve constantly insisted that they are. But I’m not holding my breath. Integrity is not something that IP fanatics demonstrate, even in small amounts. Case in point: out_of_the_blue, antidirt, John Smith, Tero Pulkinnen…
Re:
Would that be the same Tero Pulkinnen who demands that no one be able to use Meshpage before paying for it, and then runs screaming to the hills because no one is using that particular program?
Re: Re:
The exact same one, who also peddles a somehow even stricter version of copyright law that even he can’t follow, but expects everyone else to, in hopes that RIAA-senpai finally notices him.
What Likely Happened
Davis said she pitched her show to producers with connections to ABC and “Abbott Elementary” streamer Hulu, who’d already had a very similar idea already, and thus weren’t interested.
"Stealing" ideas is a thing, though
Copyright is an attempt to allow putting a marketable value on intangible and redistributable assets. So are trademarks and patents. Plot ideas certainly fall within that general category but they fall through the cracks of the various protectable entities. So do lots of other things: the problem with protecting every form of idea or expression is that society would grind to a halt.
The cracks of unprotectable elements are somewhat arbitrary (not least of all because copyright is a concept dating back and designed around the realities of the printing press) but their existence is a necessity to keep the consequences of enforcement tolerable, and enforcement is ultimately required as long as “earning a living” and “just rewards” are basic pillars of our socioeconomic structures.
So I can follow the view that the writer here suffered an injustice, but going to the courts for remedy is as useful as going to a plumber for getting a broken egg fixed. Because due to what is and what is not protected from individuals’ creative output, her grievance is not addressable by the body of law the court is working with.
There are two roads to “fixing” that: one is pumping up the legal system until it covers this case as well. Another would be to move society in a direction where your means of living do not critically depend on being able to market contributions to the general pool of ideas.
In particular in the U.S. where courts are really expensive remedies, the latter seems like a saner approach in the long run.
Re:
The problem is that there’s very little incentive to pursue any other means of “justice”. Copyright law has demonstrated, time and time again, that evidentiary standards are non-existent, judges are fine with giving plaintiffs unlimited benefit of the doubt, and plaintiffs are given every opportunity to take multiple bites at the apple until they get the IP addresses and subscriber information they need.
Copyright has thus become some sort of super proxy law, where any content creator can leverage it as a hammer to slam away at anything inconvenient. Unfavorable YouTube review? DMCA it. Opinion writer authors a critical article in the Financial Times? Whine about Section 230. I’ve long since opined that maybe cops should start suing murder case defendants for infringing the copyright on the victim’s life just to get the cases to move faster, and also demonstrate the ridiculous reach that bastardized copyright has in modern times.
Unfortunately it seems that content creators have absolutely no reason to consider the latter option as you wished. Especially now they have the bogeyman of AI generated content to demand more rights up front to content that they had no decision in making.
“who allegedly forwarded her work to the companies without permission.”
Allegations are easy, its that whole proof thing you need.
“she pitched her show to producers with connections to ABC and “Abbott Elementary” streamer Hulu”
And are any of those people part of the show?
Technically I have connections with all sorts of people, famous & infamous, that doesn’t mean I can assume if Tim writes something I brought to Mike’s attention that there was actually a direction connection there. All 3 of us have overlap in things we encounter online and its possible to have similar ideas without theft.
(See also: That one copyright troll that filed lawsuits over the WRONG ‘Night of the Living Dead’ inspired animation harassing people he accused of torrenting his clients IP that apparently even he couldn’t recognize.)
Underfunded schools… WHAT A UNIQUE AND UNHEARD OF IDEA.
Re:
Well the names have been changed since you wrote of us
But those dreams have remained but you’re litigious
Who’d have thought you’d saddle up
Peddle your dreams to Hollywood
Sorry that it didn’t work out,
but Welcome back.
Damn, damn, damn, damn, … now I’ve got this brilliant idea about an aspiring writer who sues over an idea she thinks someone stole from her/him … and I know Stephen King wrote a shortish novel (at least by his standards) on a similar theme, and I’m afraid … deadly afraid he’ll send the Tommyknockers and the Langoliers after me … and that crazed writer with the axe in that deathly cold run-down motel in the Rockies as well … and those running men … there’s nowhere safe, I tell you, nowhere safe at all … and if I escape those, there’s always Carrie, and … and …. and … AAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!!!
Re:
You forgot the crazed woman who chopped off a writer’s feet with an ax.
Can we trade you for bratty Matty? At least you aren’t embarrassing yourself but repeating one debunked bullshit myth after another then throwing your your toys out the pram when called on it…. Every single time.