19th March 2025

Case Analysis written by Sophie Anim

The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court has handed down a decision which provides helpful guidance in respect of the copyright protection afforded to TV formats – creatives should take note…

In Joshua Rinkoff v Baby Cow Productions Ltd [2025] EWHC 39 (IPEC), the Claimant asserted rights in the format of a TV comedy sitcom and alleged that a series produced by the Defendant infringed his copyright. Claims for copyright subsisting in TV formats are rarely brought and, it seems, for good reason: the Court rejected the claim on both counts, following a sustained trend in case law of format rights claims failing. Nevertheless, the Court’s consideration of copyright subsisting in formats in this judgment provides helpful guidance for IP rights holders regarding their enforcement strategy.

Background

Parties:

The Claim was brought by Joshua Rinkoff, a stand-up comedian and writer. Mr Rinkoff created a digital series named Shambles in around 2013 which sought to interweave scenes of live comedy with a backstage narrative set at a beleaguered comedy club.

Baby Cow Productions Ltd (“Baby Cow”) is a successful production company behind well-known content such as the TV series, Gavin & Stacey. Baby Cow produced a series of 5 shows named Live at the Moth Club (“LATMC”) which were initially broadcast on the TV channel Dave in December 2022.

Mr Rinkoff alleged that the format of Shambles is protected as a dramatic work under s. 1(1)(a) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (the “CDPA”) and that Baby Cow infringed his copyright by copying elements of the format of Shambles and then communicating LATMC to the public. Baby Cow strongly refuted the allegations.

Issues in Dispute:

This case update focuses on the following key issues which were in dispute:

• can a format be protected as an original dramatic work;
• is the format of Shambles, as pleaded by the Claimant, protected as a dramatic work;
• did Baby Cow copy the pleaded features of LATMC from Shambles; and
• if so, does that amount to a substantial part of any protected work?

What did the Court decide?

Can a format be protected as an original dramatic work?

There is no UK case in which it has been held that a format is protected by copyright as an original dramatic work. However, it is discernible from this judgment that it is potentially possible for formats of TV shows to constitute a dramatic work. This is very much dependent on a party being able to demonstrate that: (i) there are several clearly identifiable features which, globally, result in the TV show being distinguished from others in the same genre; and (ii) those features must form part of a cohesive and distinctive framework which can be repeatedly applied so as to enable a show to be reproduced in a recognisable form. This aligns with the more general legal position that copyright protects the expression of an idea, rather than an idea itself.

Is the format of Shambles, as pleaded by the Claimant, protected as a dramatic work?

In the pleadings, the Claimant identified several features which, together, purportedly served to distinguish it from other TV shows of a similar category. This included a protagonist who is a struggling comedy night promoter, an intern character who only adds to the challenges despite his best efforts and the blending of a sitcom documenting an ailing comedy club with actual stand-up performances by comedians.

There were significant issues with the way in which Mr Rinkoff’s claim was pleaded. Further, the features relied upon did not form part of a cohesive framework and did not result in the show ultimately being unique from others in the same genre. Details of the features alone would not render the show capable of being performed due to a lack of necessary specificity. The features pleaded by the Claimant were therefore unprotectable ideas lacking the necessary details which would assist in attracting copyright protection. It was therefore held that the format of Shambles, as pleaded by Mr Rinkoff, was not protected by copyright as a dramatic work.

Did Baby Cow copy the pleaded features of LATMC from Shambles? If so, does that amount to a substantial part of any protected work?

Under the CDPA, infringement of copyright in a dramatic work will have taken place in various instances, including those where the whole work (or a substantial part of it) has been copied. It is worth noting that the assessment of whether a substantial part has been copied is qualitative rather than quantitative.

When aspects of different works are sufficiently similar, it raises an inference of copying. However, in this case, it was held that the examples provided by the Claimant to corroborate his claims of similarity between the two works were too high-level and therefore insufficiently robust. For instance, Mr Rinkoff had pleaded that the live comedy elements which featured in both shows were indicative of copying having taken place. However, the Court held that the live comedy elements in LATMC were of more significance when compared with Shambles. It was also highlighted that LATMC is a mockumentary rather than a sitcom which further limits opportunity for there to be connective tissue between the two works.

In light of the above, the Court held there were insufficient grounds to infer that Baby Cow had copied Shambles and therefore the claim failed.

What are the key takeaways from this decision?

When it comes to copyright infringement claims, it is imperative that creatives nail down exactly what their copyright work is and clearly define it in any pre-action correspondence and subsequent pleadings. Going further, it is advisable for creatives to bring a complaint relating to the copying of literary copyright works contained within TV shows or some other type of copyright in the recordings of TV shows, for instance, rather than relying on format rights which are trickier to protect.

With the above in mind, creatives should make sure they have scripts or other written records which can be relied upon in copyright actions in future, if necessary. This will give a party a stronger chance of robustly evidencing copyright in a TV project.

As a general point, in this decision the Court took a dim view of the Claimant’s speculative lines of argument with regards to purported indirect copying by Baby Cow. It was also noted that the Claimant had failed to retain an objective view in respect of this case when providing his witness evidence. It is therefore important to remain as clear-headed and grounded as possible in proceedings of this nature, particularly when providing evidence as a witness, in order for a party to be in the best possible position before the Court.