## Facts

- Patricia Willis created and copyrighted an outline for a proposed television series titled “Schmoozers,” centered on a money-driven talent agent.
- Home Box Office (HBO) produced and aired the comedy series “Arli$$,” focused on an unscrupulous sports agent.
- Willis alleged HBO had access to her outline and that “Arli$$” copied protectable elements from “Schmoozers.”
- The asserted similarities included an agent-protagonist motivated by money and careerism and supporting roles described as hapless male sidekicks and smart female assistants.
- The works differed in narrative structure and framing: “Arli$$” used narrated readings from the protagonist’s autobiography, while “Schmoozers” used an assistant character directly addressing the audience.
- The district court granted HBO summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence favorably to Willis, a reasonable jury could find substantial similarity between protectable expression in “Schmoozers” and HBO’s “Arli$$.”
2. Whether the alleged overlaps were limited to unprotectable ideas, stock characters, and scènes à faire, warranting summary judgment for HBO.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment for HBO.
- The court held that no reasonable jury could find actionable substantial similarity of protectable expression between Willis’s outline and “Arli$$.”
- Similarities identified by Willis were treated as general concepts and common genre elements rather than protected expression.
- The works’ differing framing devices and overall presentation supported the conclusion that protectable expressive similarity was lacking as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright protects original expression, not general ideas, premises, or concepts for a television series.
- Stock characters, standard character relationships, and scènes à faire that naturally flow from a premise are generally unprotectable.
- Substantial-similarity analysis filters out unprotectable elements and compares the remaining protectable expression, including the works’ overall “total concept and feel.”
- Summary judgment is appropriate where, after filtering, no reasonable factfinder could conclude that protectable elements are substantially similar.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld dismissal of Willis’s claim because the alleged similarities between her series outline and “Arli$$” concerned unprotectable ideas and common tropes, and the works’ expressive content and framing differed enough that substantial similarity could not be found as a matter of law.


Willis v. Home Box Office, 57 F. App’x 902 (2d Cir. 2003)