March 4, 2010
An Open Letter to Television Writers and Producers re:Civilian Consultants
Dear Television Writers and Producers:
Let me start off by saying that I am a huge fan of television and that I particularly enjoy the pervasive one-hour episodic drama genre. Cop and lawyer shows are my absolute favorite, despite the fact that they often present embellishments and minor procedural inaccuracies. One of the only things that a legal education is guaranteed to do is suck all of the enjoyment out of watching courtroom shows that play it fast and loose with the formalities of litigation, but I’ve learned to ignore most of the discomfort that comes from watching a make-believe prosecutor present character evidence in his case-in-chief. I hardly cringe anymore when I hear scripted dialog about “robbing” a house or “murdering” an animal. I am writing today, however, to tell you of a related faux pas that I haven’t been able to ignore.
“Are you saying that our show is unoriginal?”
As I’m sure you are aware, a subclass of the traditional police show has been popping up with greater frequency in recent years. The basic premise for these shows is this: A civilian “consultant” is brought in by a law enforcement agency, based on some enhanced knowledge or skill possessed by said civilian, thereby magically improving the agency’s crime solving abilities. Amongst this subclass, I am a religious viewer of Psych, The Mentalist, Castle, White Collar, Fringe, and Bones (I can’t stand this one, to be honest, but it’s my wife’s favorite), to name a few. With varying degrees of success, each of these programs attempts to present a compelling dynamic between straight-laced cops and one or more outside-the-box thinkers, who presumably aren’t bound by the paradigm that you’re typical “G-man” occupies. It’s a classic odd couple arrangement – rambunctious corner cutter plays off of an endearing straight man. My issue lies with one particular outside-the-box solution that is floated again and again on these shows.
December 15, 2009
Does Disney Own the Concept of a Castle?
It is a well known axiom of U.S. intellectual property law that there is no protection afforded to mere ideas. In order to employ the force and power of our legal system to enforce your intellectual property rights, you must have something more concrete than an idea. In patent law, for example, you must have reduced your invention to practice (although constructive reduction to practice can be used to satisfy the requirement). In trademark law, you must have actually used your mark in association with goods or services. In the realm of copyrights, an author must fix her expression in a tangible form before the government will recognize any exclusive rights.
The bottom line is that you can’t sue anyone for “stealing your idea” or “taking that movie plot you thought of.” This concept is hard for some to grasp, and every so often, a big player in the IP world may take advantage of this common misunderstanding. While perusing sites that sell graphic tees (one of my favorite forms of communication – e.g., here, here, or here), I came across an example of this that I think is worth sharing.
