TMTV, CORP. v. Mass Productions, Inc.
645 F.3d 464 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Copyright protects the fixed expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves, and infringement occurs when a subsequent work is substantially similar by borrowing the entire creative framework of the original, including its characters, setting, and inter-relationships. A settlement with one joint infringer for a single harm will be treated as an offset against a later damages award against another infringer to prevent double recovery.
Facts:
- In 1997, television producer Antonio Mojena hired entertainer Emmanuel 'Sunshine' Logroño to co-host a new variety show.
- For a comedy segment within the show, Logroño met with writers Roberto Jiménez and Miguel Morales, where Jiménez suggested a sitcom set in a condominium building, which became '20 Pisos de Historia' ('20 Pisos').
- During the meeting, the group discussed potential characters, many of which were based on stock characters Logroño had previously portrayed.
- At Logroño's request, Jiménez and Morales wrote the first three scripts for '20 Pisos', fixing the general concepts from the meeting into a tangible form.
- '20 Pisos', produced by Mojena's company Creative Relief Corp., aired successfully for nearly two years.
- The writers, Jiménez and Morales, subsequently assigned any copyright they held in the scripts to TMTV, Corp., Mojena's successor company.
- In 1999, Logroño left the network and, through his own company Mass Productions, began producing a new sitcom called 'El Condominio'.
- 'El Condominio' featured many of the same actors portraying the same characters in a virtually identical condominium setting as '20 Pisos', though with new stories and minor modifications.
Procedural Posture:
- TMTV, Corp. filed a copyright infringement action against Mass Productions, Inc., Emmanuel Logroño, and his wife in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
- Logroño filed a counterclaim asserting that he was the sole owner of the copyright for '20 Pisos'.
- The district court granted summary judgment to TMTV on its infringement claim, finding TMTV owned the copyright and that 'El Condominio' was an infringing derivative work of '20 Pisos'.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial on the issue of damages.
- The jury returned a verdict awarding TMTV $772,079.29 in actual damages.
- After the verdict, the district court judge reduced the award by $700,000, offsetting the amount TMTV received in a prior settlement with Televicentro, the network that broadcast 'El Condominio'.
- Both Mass Productions (appellant) and TMTV (cross-appellant) appealed the final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a second sitcom infringe on the copyright of a first sitcom when it retains substantially the same characters, setting, and overall concept, but introduces new plotlines and minor variations?
Opinions:
Majority - Boudin, Circuit Judge
Yes, the second sitcom infringes on the copyright of the first because it is substantially similar in its protected expressive elements. The court determined that authorship of the original scripts belonged to the writers who 'fixed' the ideas in a tangible medium, not the actor who contributed uncopyrightable general ideas and stock characters. The second show, 'El Condominio', was found to be an unauthorized derivative work because it borrowed wholesale the entire backdrop, characters, inter-relationships, and genre of '20 Pisos', making the two works strikingly similar. Trivial modifications, such as adding minor scenes or character traits, are not a defense to infringement. The court also affirmed the district court's decision to offset the jury's damage award by the amount of a prior settlement with a joint tortfeasor (the broadcaster), reasoning that production and broadcast were two steps causing the same indivisible harm—lost licensing fees—and the plaintiff is not entitled to a double recovery.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the idea-expression dichotomy, clarifying that contributing concepts or stock characters is insufficient to establish copyright authorship; authorship requires fixing those ideas in a tangible medium. The case provides a strong precedent for findings of infringement based on copying the 'total concept and feel' of a work, even without literal copying of dialogue or plot points. Furthermore, it applies the modern tort principle of damage offsets to copyright law, confirming that a settlement with one joint infringer reduces the liability of others for the same harm, thereby preventing duplicative recovery by the plaintiff.
