Jerry Seinfeld Wins BS 'Comedians In Cars' Copyright Suit That Was Filed Way, Way Too Late
from the hello...jerry dept
Copyright statute of limitations cases are relatively rare, but we have written about a few such cases at times. Still, here's a new ruling that tosses out a case based on the statute of limitations, involving a guy suing Jerry Seinfeld claiming infringement over the latter's Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee series. Though, it seems like the case could have been defeated other ways as well, even if it had been filed within the statute of limitations.
U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan of the Southern District of New York ruled Monday that the suit by Christian Charles, a writer and director who worked with Seinfeld on the show’s pilot, was barred under the three-year statute of limitations for copyright infringement claims.
In a nine-page ruling, Nathan said that Charles knew about his potential claim for ownership as early as 2011, when Seinfeld twice rejected his request for back-end compensation on “Comedians in Cars,” making it clear that Charles’ only involvement was on a work-for-hire basis.
But Charles, who claimed to have pitched the idea of two friends “driving and talking” to Seinfeld, did not file his lawsuit until February 2018.
Which was roughly around the time that Seinfeld took the show from its fun little origins on Crackle and inked a lucrative deal for the series with Netflix, where it now resides. Suddenly Charles asserted a copyright claim, stating that it was his idea to have a comedian hosting a talk show of sorts by driving around in a car and getting coffee. And if you're thinking that such a claim would be defeated by the idea/expression dichotomy in copyright law, well, you're right. It almost certainly would have. Such a concept is plainly a broad idea and not the kind of specific expression over which one can successfully sue on copyright grounds. Add to all of that that Seinfeld claims that Charles' work on the pilot was work for hire, for which he was paid a six figure sum, and the lawsuit sure seemed like a loser from the get-go.
But the suit didn't even get that far, as the judge tossed it over the 3 year statute of limitations instead.
“Even if all inferences are drawn in favor of Charles, a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have understood that Seinfeld was repudiating any claim of ownership that Charles may have,” Nathan wrote.
“Because Charles was on notice that his ownership claim had been repudiated since at least 2012, his infringement claim is time-barred,” she said.
Charles' attorney states they intend to appeal on the grounds that the judge is misinterpreting the statute of limitations. As to what that misinterpretation might be? Well, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: christian charles, comedians in cars, copyright, idea expression dichotomy, jerry seinfeld, statute of limitations
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Copyright’s best and blightest, everybody!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't you just love it when copyright law is enforced?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tossed
And that is what is means to have your case tossed on it's ass by a judge before it can go to jury.
Even if everything the contestant claims is correct - you have no case. Because you aren't following the rules. Which most copyright cases don't, really...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO SUE FOR YOU!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO SUE FOR YOU!
I did Nazi that coming!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congress needs to make copyright law consistent... /s/
The statute of limitations for copyright lawsuits should, for consistency's sake, match the term of the copyright in question-- life plus seventy years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congress needs to make copyright law consistent... /s/
/s/ tag acknowledged - Seriously though, I'd rather it went the other way - make copyright only last 3 years :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Which was roughly around the time that Seinfeld took the show from its fun little origins on Crackle and inked a lucrative deal for the series with Netflix, where it now resides"
Bingo. When it was a relatively low budget show on a site with relatively low viewing figures, he didn't care. He asked a couple of times, was turned down, it was worth a shot. But then, it was reported that Seinfeld was paid around $100 million for the show and other specials, so he decided he wanted in on the action.
That's about as nakedly transparent as you can get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And it's not like Seinfeld is ripping off anyone. Being paid six figures for work-for-hire writing is VERY generous. I know Star Trek Discovery writers would KILL for even half that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“But Charles, who claimed to have pitched the idea of two friends “driving and talking” to Seinfeld, . . .”
Remember. It’s not a lie if you believe it’s true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a show about nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While Seinfeld himself is an insufferable ass, at least his guests are usually funny and interesting. All of his guests' egos added together are still easily eclipsed by Seinfeld's and he was never funny or interesting, only the people around him. If he was half as smart as he thinks he is he'd understand that and check his self image.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have not watched it, but did watch the sitcom.
There was an episode where they were attempting to sell their show to producers, who wanted to know what the show was about ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
GEORGE: See, this should be a show. This is the show.
JERRY: What?
GEORGE: This. Just talking.
JERRY: (dismissing) Yeah, right.
GEORGE: I'm really serious. I think that's a good idea.
JERRY: Just talking? Well what's the show about?
GEORGE: It's about nothing.
JERRY: No story?
GEORGE: No, forget the story.
JERRY: You've got to have a story.
GEORGE: Who says you gotta have a story? Remember when we were waiting for, for that table in that Chinese restaurant that time? That could be a TV show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think Seinfeld was very funny playing off the antics of his cast. Love the show Jerry. Genius humor about a day in the life of some pretty funny goofballs!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jerry throws the best partays!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm bringing the cinnamon bobka!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]