We’re all living in a reality TV show, but who owns the rights to it? This was precisely the conundrum in a recent legal spat involving Goldin Auctions, Netflix, and the producers of a reality TV series, “King of Collectibles.” A concept belonging to Gervase Peterson, an ex-participant of the reality show “Survivor,” who pitched to Goldin Auctions the template for “King of Collectibles,” became the bone of contention. ‘Survivor’ turned court combatant Peterson contended that his idea, dubbed “The Goldin Boys,” was mimicked, manipulated, and materialized into ‘King of Collectibles’ by Wheelhouse Entertainment and subsequently lapped up by Netflix – sans any credit to Peterson.
When Peterson pitched his idea in the summer of ’19, everything was bathed in potential glory. Yet, come mid-2020, communication lines with him allegedly collapsed, followed swiftly by a production plan eerily resemblant of Peterson’s brainchild. He accused Goldin Auctions of stealing his concept, branding it as their own, and selling it to Wheelhouse Entertainment without his knowledge or approval.
However, defended by a wall of legal jargon, Netflix and Goldin Auctions contended that the reality show was fundamentally grounded on generic notions, thus, unshackled from the confines of the Copyright Act. Judge Christine O’Hearn, holding court at the Federal District Court of New Jersey, took their side, stating that the elements Peterson flagged as ‘pilfered properties’ were nothing but scènes à faire. This French phrase-ology, translating to ‘obligatory scenes,’ encompasses situations that are intrinsically tied to a specific genre, making them un-copyrightable by nature. This conceptual boundary line has been seen to extend even to reality television, casting a permanence on the day-to-day affairs of a company, as seen in ‘King of Collectibles.’
Quoting examples from legal history where courts have traditionally dismissed copyright infringement claims on real-life subjects and standard reality tropes, Judge O’Hearn gave her verdict in favor of the defendants. With this judgment, she reminded the world of the challenges involved in claiming proprietorship of popularly employed corollaries and broader outlines saturating the contours of reality television.
In the wake of this high-profile decision, “King of Collectibles” remains undeterred. Having weathered the storm of legal action, this Emmy-nominated reality programming is likely to continue demonstrating that in the world of television reality, not all common experience can be given exclusive copyright protection. Apart from scripting a new chapter in the annals of copyright law, ‘King of Collectibles’ continues its quest for supremacy, and how, ever strong and victorious in the great arena of reality television.
