A bid to take a bite out of the production powerhouses Netflix and Goldin Auctions has flatlined. A lawsuit filed by Survivor alumni Gervase Peterson citing copyright infringement was dismissed by a federal judge recently. Peterson, who dared to navigate the often stormy seas of legal litigation, pointed a lawsuit at producers of the hit reality TV series “King of Collectibles,” including touched parties Netflix and Ken Goldin, founder of Goldin Auctions. He claimed his vision for a show, subtly titled “The Goldin Boys” found an unauthorized reincarnation in “King of Collectibles.”
The provocative plot twist in this off-screen drama orbits around Peterson’s assertion that the reality show, now revving up for its second season on Netflix, finds its roots in an idea he originally tossed in Goldin’s direction as early as 2019. Selections from the script go that Peterson’s concept had a mysterious metamorphosis into a full-fledged show by Wheelhouse Entertainment, eventually finding its way into Netflix’s powerhouse lineup, conspicuously sans Peterson.
With Peterson’s case hinging on his observation of uncanny parallels between his pitch and the show, we enter murky waters. After diving into discussions with Peterson, mid-2020 saw conversations abruptly drowned, coinciding disturbingly with the evolution of a concept eerily similar to Peterson’s whispering into the production pipeline.
Yet, the defense’s stance paints a different picture – their reality show, a vivid sketch of the workings behind Goldin Auctions’ scenes and poignant snapshots of Goldin’s life, rests safely on a bed of ideas that the Copyright Act considers generic and beyond the reach of copyright protection.
New Jersey federal district court’s Judge Christine O’Hearn raised her gavel in agreement, dissecting Peterson’s claims of protectable elements as falling under the umbrella of scènes à faire. This legal principle labels certain scenes or themes that are typically woven into the fabric of a genre as ineligible for copyright protection, thus shining a light on reality TV’s copyright woes. Judge O’Hearn elaborated, pointing to many realities of reality television, not least the depiction of everyday business operations in “King of Collectibles,” floating in this not-to-be-copyrighted boat.
Judge O’Hearn did not leave it at that, shedding light on the common categorization of real-life subjects and hallmarks of reality shows as beyond the reach of protection. Past legal judgments take a similar stance, once again bringing to the surface the challenge of claiming copyright over broad themes routinely seen in reality TV.
Despite the legal whirlwind, “King of Collectibles” continues to sizzle, having nimbly navigated the lawsuit and earning itself a noteworthy Emmy nomination. The dismissal of this case magnifies the intricacies of safeguarding intellectual property within the entertainment industry, particularly within the realm of reality TV. Although the show must go on, this certainly adds another layer of complexity to the evolving narrative of copyright law within the screen-lit world of reality television.
