Claimant's copyright infringement claims dismissed due to lack of substantial similarity and proof of access, underscoring the necessity of originality in copyright cases.

Headnote:(A) Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 - Principles for summary judgment - The court assessed whether a claimant’s proposals had been copied in a television format. Claimant's proposals, while submitted confidentially, were deemed non-infringed after examination based on similarities and access. Defendants’ application for summary judgment was granted. (Paras 10, 28, 57-60)

(B) The claimant's works purportedly did not represent dramatic works qualifying for copyright protection. (Paras 28, 33)

(C) The court emphasized that courts should hesitate in striking out claims in developing legal areas, but found no viable argument for the claimant's case. (Paras 31, 60)

Facts of the case:
The claimant alleged copyright infringement related to three television format proposals he submitted to various networks. The defendants broadcasted a program alleged to contain similar content. (Paras 2-6, 15)

Findings of Court:
The claimant’s proposals lacked substantial similarity and evidence of access was not proven, leading to a dismissal of the copyright claims. (Paras 36, 56, 67)

Issues: The main issues concerned copyright infringement, the validity of claims without substantial similarity, and access to the original proposals. (Paras 57, 65)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that mere similarity in concepts does not suffice for copyright claims, especially when the originality and substantiality are ambiguous. (Paras 37-45, 60)

Result: Summary judgment granted in favor of the defendants.

Table of Content
1. description of the factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. details of applications before the court. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. examination of claimant's proposals. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
4. development and strategies behind the chg program. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. discussion on copyright claims and their viability. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
6. analysis of the claims based on copyright laws. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
7. assessment of similarities and commons between chg and proposals. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 44 , 45)
8. court’s reasoning on proceeding to trial. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)
9. outcome of copyright claims and decisions. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67)
10. final conclusions and orders of the court. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82)

Justice Arnold:

Introduction

[1] This is the latest in a series of cases in which an individual who has submitted proposals for television game show formats to television broadcasters and/or production companies on a speculative basis subsequently claims that his proposals have been copied in a broadcast programme or series.

[2] In the present case the claimant, Robin Meakin, describes himself as a semi-retired graduate of business operations and manufacturing systems with a background in a number of business sectors including the media. Mr. Meakin alleges that the defendants have infringed his copyright in three proposals entitled respectively Cash Call Millions ... Live! revision 3 ("CML3"), Cash Call Millions ... Live! revision 4 ("CML4"); and Cash Call Challenge ... Live! ("CCL"). Mr. Meakin also alleges that the defendants have used the information contained in his proposals in breach of obligations of confidence.

[3] The principal object of Mr. Meakins complaint is a programme entitled Come and Have a Go ... If You Think You Are Smart Eenough ("CHG" or occasionally "CAHAG"). Two series of six and ten episodes, presented respectively by Nicky Campbell and Julian Clary, were broadcast by the first defendant, the British Broadcasting Corporation, between 4 April 2004 and June 2005. Mr. Meakin also complains about an entry on the BBC website describing CHG.

[4] In addition to those complaints, Mr. Meakin complains about two unrelated games and a television programme said to have been developed and/or marketed by the third defendant, Celador Productions Ltd ("Celador").

[5] As well as the BBC and Celador there are two other defendants. The second defendant, Paul Smith, was at all relevant times the Managing Director of Celador. The fourth defendant, Martin Scott, is an employee of the BBC and an ex-employee of Celador.

[6] Mr. Meakin first complained to the BBC by letter dated 14 July 2004. After intermittent correspondence over the next four years, he commenced these proceedings on 22 July 2008. To date the claims have not progressed very far. This is for a variety of reasons, including the proceedings being stayed for a period (for reasons which it is unnecessary to go into) and the pendency of the applications presently before the court.

[7] Although Mr. Meakin has consulted a number of solicitors and barristers with a view to obtaining legal representation, if possible on a CFA basis, he has not been successful. Presently, as for most of the proceedings, he is acting in person. I have borne that fact in mind in considering the present applications, and I have also taken into account the fact that he suffers from the disadvantage of being somewhat hard of hearing. On the other hand, Mr. Meakin has been able to submit two substantial and detailed witness statements on the present applications and a 45 page skeleton argument replete with references to numerous authorities.

The Applications

[8] There are three applications presently before the court. First, an application by the BBC and Mr. Scott, by application notice dated 5 March 2010, for summary judgment dismissing the claims agains

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 MarsdenLR 3760

HIGH COURT ENGLAND AND WALESROBIN GEORGE LE STRANGE MEAKIN – AppellantVersusBRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION & ORS – Respondent[Case No: HC08C02082]

Claimant's copyright infringement claims dismissed due to lack of substantial similarity and proof of access, underscoring the necessity of originality in copyright cases.

Cases Referred (4)

HIGH COURT ENGLAND AND WALES
ROBIN GEORGE LE STRANGE MEAKIN – Appellant
Versus
BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION & ORS – Respondent
[Case No: HC08C02082]