## Facts

- Members of the comedy troupe Monty Python wrote and performed *Monty Python’s Flying Circus* for the BBC under a scriptwriters’ agreement.
- The agreement gave BBC limited pre-recording change authority with writer consultation, but did not authorize altering programs after recording; the troupe retained rights in the scripts except as expressly granted.
- BBC licensed U.S. distribution rights to Time-Life Films, which obtained limited editing authority for commercials, timing, and censorship-related requirements.
- After Monty Python rejected ABC’s proposal to air excerpts, ABC contracted with Time-Life to broadcast two ninety-minute specials comprised of three thirty-minute programs each, with broader editing authority than the troupe had granted to the BBC.
- ABC edited the first special by removing roughly 24 minutes of content from the 90-minute compilation, citing commercial insertion and audience-sensibility concerns, and aired the program as Monty Python content.
- Monty Python obtained a recording of the edited broadcast and sought to prevent further broadcasts of edited versions.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success that ABC’s post-recording edits exceeded licensed rights and infringed plaintiffs’ common-law copyright in their scripts by impairing the integrity of the work.
2. Whether plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success that ABC’s attribution and broadcast of a substantially edited program violated Lanham Act § 43(a) by misrepresenting the nature or origin of the creative work to viewers.
3. Whether plaintiffs satisfied preliminary-injunction requirements, including irreparable harm and a balance of hardships favoring injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief and directed the district court to issue a preliminary injunction against further broadcast of the edited programs.
- The court held plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on both their common-law copyright theory and their Lanham Act § 43(a) claim.
- The court found the editing impaired the integrity of the original work and that reputational injury from a distorted broadcast was not readily compensable by money damages.
- The court concluded the balance of hardships favored plaintiffs because ABC’s asserted countervailing harms no longer carried the weight attributed to them by the district court.
- The court rejected the absence of BBC and Time-Life as a bar to preliminary relief against ABC, treating ownership and contracting questions as issues that could be addressed in later proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction may issue where the movant shows a strong likelihood of success and irreparable injury, and where equitable considerations favor interim relief.
- Where authors retain rights in scripts and do not grant authority for post-recording alteration, extensive editing that materially changes content can support a claim of common-law copyright infringement.
- Substantial excision that impairs a work’s coherence or meaning may be treated as an unauthorized derivative or distorted presentation for purposes of assessing likely infringement at the injunction stage.
- Lanham Act § 43(a) can apply when a defendant presents a materially altered version of a creative work as the plaintiff’s work, creating a likelihood of consumer deception as to authorship or the nature of what is being offered.
- Reputational harm from public attribution of a distorted creative work can constitute irreparable injury supporting injunctive relief.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit ordered a preliminary injunction preventing ABC from further airing heavily edited Monty Python programs, concluding the troupe was likely to prove that the edits exceeded granted rights and infringed their script interests and that airing the altered program as Monty Python content likely violated Lanham Act § 43(a), with irreparable reputational harm outweighing ABC’s claimed hardship.


Gilliam v. Am. Broad. Cos., 538 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1976)