## Facts

- Tom Robinson and Phil Herter wrote and copyrighted a written treatment for a proposed television series.
- The treatment’s premise involved a present-day suburban family whose home is inhabited by a family reminiscent of a stereotypical 1950s sitcom, producing comedic culture-clash situations.
- Plaintiffs alleged they submitted the treatment to industry contacts and that it circulated within the television industry; the plaintiffs’ project was not produced.
- Defendants later produced and aired the television series *Hi Honey, I’m Home!* on ABC and Nickelodeon.
- Plaintiffs alleged *Hi Honey, I’m Home!* infringed their copyright because both works involved interactions between a modern family and a 1950s sitcom-style family.
- Defendants argued any overlap was limited to unprotectable ideas, stock characters, and predictable situations flowing from the premise, and that the works were not substantially similar in protectable expression.

## Issues

1. Whether *Hi Honey, I’m Home!* was substantially similar to protectable elements of plaintiffs’ copyrighted treatment.
2. Whether plaintiffs could ground infringement on a general premise, stock character types, and predictable incidents rather than on protected expression.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for defendants and dismissed the copyright infringement claims.
- The court held that similarities identified by plaintiffs were largely confined to an unprotectable premise and other unprotectable elements.
- The court found insufficient similarity in protectable expression when comparing the works’ overall structure and concrete expressive details.
- The court concluded that, even assuming defendants had access to plaintiffs’ treatment, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of unlawful copying of protected expression.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright protects expression, not ideas, concepts, or general premises; a creator cannot claim exclusive rights in a broad story concept.
- Stock or generic character types are not protectable as such; only sufficiently delineated original character expression may receive protection.
- Scènes à faire—incidents and situations that naturally flow from a basic premise—are not protectable.
- Substantial-similarity analysis in audiovisual and narrative works considers protectable elements and may include comparison of the works’ “total concept and feel,” filtered to exclude unprotectable material.
- Access, without substantial similarity to protectable expression, is insufficient to support an inference of actionable copying.

## Conclusion

The court entered judgment for defendants because the alleged overlap between plaintiffs’ treatment and the televised series was largely an unprotectable premise populated by stock elements, and the protectable expressive content of the two works was not substantially similar as a matter of law.


Robinson v. Viacom Int’l, Inc., No. 93 Civ. 2539 (RPP), 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9781 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 1995)