You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

November 27, 2017

Protecting TV Show Formats

Informed Counsel

Licensing of TV show formats is big business, generating billions of dollars in global revenue every year for show creators. In licensing popular show formats, licensees obtain security by investing in TV shows which have already been proven successful, and show creators enjoy the extra revenue streams created by licensing their shows for production and broadcast in new markets, which can strengthen their brand and increase the value of future licenses. In addition, viewers in licensee countries are able to take part in global TV phenomenons which have been adapted to appeal to their local cultures and viewing preferences.

Surprisingly, intellectual property protection in this area remains uncertain. Despite the continued popularity of licensing TV show formats, it is also common for shows exhibiting very similar formats to pop up on competing networks once a given show has proven successful. This article will examine some of the legal hurdles encountered in protecting TV show formats, and some strategies show creators can implement to ensure they do not fall prey to competing broadcasters who want to free ride on their intellectual property.

Definition of a TV Show Format

While there is no single accepted legal definition of what a TV show format includes, the Format Recognition and Protection Association defines a show format as:

“A distinctive combination of comprehensively described television elements (both new and commonplace which may or may not be protected as separate intellectual property items) fixed in any material form that creates an original, repeatable narrative structure.”

As shown by this broad definition, TV show formats may include a wide array of items which may not even be protectable on their own, but may be combined in a unique way to create an original protectable work. Simply put, a show’s format is what makes the show unique and recognizable between different episodes or seasons, and includes the behind-the-scenes knowledge that actually makes the show work.

To understand what a format includes, it may be helpful to compare different types of TV shows to see how formats may differ between genres. Traditional scripted shows are written out in advance to determine the plot, dialogue, character development, mood, pacing, and other elements. An example of a scripted show which has been licensed multiple times is the popular workplace comedy series The Office. While the writing may change for each licensed version to account for cultural differences, the defining aspects of the characters and their relationships to each other largely remain the same between versions.

In comparison, talent competition shows, game shows, and reality shows rely on spontaneity for much of their content, and as a result the core content changes from episode to episode. Examples of these kinds of shows include Survivor, The Voice, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, and Wife Swap. These shows do not utilize scripts for much of their content, and so the formats consist of the show premise and structure, visual features, branding, and production know-how.                    

Limitations on Protection under Copyright Law

Copyright law is the primary form of legal protection for original creative works such as TV shows. However, copyright law provides several limitations on the protectability of TV show formats, namely: (1) the idea/expression dichotomy; (2) scènes à faire, or “scenes to be made”; and (3) merger doctrine.

The idea/expression dichotomy says that ideas are not protected under copyright law, only the expressions of those ideas. This means that the mere idea for a show where contestants compete to be voted the best singer is not protectable. This has allowed a plethora of singing competition shows to flourish, and not given any one broadcasting network monopoly rights over the idea.

Scènes à faire doctrine states that some scenes flow naturally from a given genre, and consequently will not be protectable under copyright. Take, for example, a shoot-out scene in a western show, or an award ceremony in a talent competition show. This doctrine provides that no one creator may have the sole rights to utilize these kinds of generic scenes in their show.

The merger doctrine states that some simple ideas may only be expressed in limited ways. In these cases, the idea and its expression are said to merge and so neither the idea nor its expression will be protected. An example of this is a competitive reality show where the contestants are eliminated in each successive round until there is only one left. This doctrine complements the idea/expression dichotomy and prevents shows utilizing simple ideas from gaining sole rights to those ideas due to the limited options available for their expression.

These limitations, combined with the largely spontaneous content of many reality and competition-based shows, make it difficult to protect many types of TV show format from imitators under copyright. Admittedly, the mere idea of a popular TV show alone is not enough to guarantee that a copied show will be successful, and so creators should also look to protect additional aspects of their shows.

Brand and Production Know-How

The relatively light legal protections available under copyright law belie the strength of the TV show format marketplace. This may be due in part to the additional benefits that come with a standard licensing agreement. For one, the brand surrounding a popular format, including the show name, may be very valuable to show licensees, as it guarantees that a certain number of viewers will already be familiar with the show.

In addition, show licensees may have the most interest in obtaining the production know-how accrued by the original show creators, such as how to make the format profitable, the best times to air the show to acquire the most viewers, and other logistics which can only be discovered through trial and error. Obtaining access to the production know-how of a show ensures that a licensee will be able to successfully implement the format, and will benefit from the experience of the show creators.

Protection Strategies

In order to thoroughly protect their TV show formats from competitors, creators should pursue a multipronged protection strategy. As discussed above, TV show creators should take efforts to build up the brand of their show by registering trademarks in multiple jurisdictions for the show name and other distinctive catch phrases used in the show. Similarly, show creators should safeguard their production know-how as trade secrets and maintain strict confidentiality procedures to prevent inadvertent disclosure.

TV show creators may find additional protection through contracts, by requiring third parties to sign nondisclosure agreements covering any information disclosed during pitch sessions. Alternatively, and depending on the jurisdiction, show creators may require show staff to sign noncompete agreements so that competitors are unable to swoop in and rehire an entire show’s production team en masse.

Finally, compiling all information pertaining to a TV show format into a “format bible” will support protection in two ways. First, it will represent a valuable resource to potential licensees interested in purchasing the right to use the show format, and may even discourage potential imitators from trying to pursue a similar show without the benefit of the extensive know-how available to licensees. Second, in the event of legal action, the format bible may serve as evidence of the extensive creativity and originality contained within the show, which may be used to argue that the show should be protected under copyright as an original creative work.

As always, TV show creators should seek the advice of experienced counsel to develop effective strategies to protect their valuable intellectual property.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 10, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have issued regulations broadening the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “major shareholder” of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Under relevant SEC regulations, major shareholders of a regulated entity must obtain regulatory approval and undergo screening by the SEC. The revised framework introduces both shareholding-based and control-based tests to determine which shareholders require regulatory approval for a wider range of indirect ownership structures and de facto control. The Ministry of Finance notification took effect on February 21, 2026, while the SEC’s clarifying rules took effect on March 4, 2026. These changes aim to enhance transparency around beneficial ownership and strengthen regulatory oversight of entities operating in Thailand’s capital markets. Expanded Definition Under the revised framework, a “major shareholder” now includes persons who directly or indirectly hold more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company, as well as persons who exercise control over the regulated company or its shares. This system of two separate tests, based on both shareholding and control, differs from the prior regime, which focused primarily on shareholding thresholds and applied a more limited method for determining indirect shareholdings. The two tests (detailed below) operate independently of each other, and any person identified by either of the tests will be deemed a major shareholder. Shareholding-Based Test Broadens Indirect Ownership Attribution For the shareholding-based test, the SEC recognizes two existing methods for identifying indirect ownership, together with a new proportional attribution method. Any person captured under these methods, which are described below, will be regarded as a major shareholder of the regulated company and must obtain SEC approval as a major shareholder. First, the existing framework continues to apply to both first-tier and chain ownership structures. Approval is required for (1) first-tier
March 6, 2026
Thailand’s Legislation Consideration Committee of the Ministry of Interior has ruled that in-game loot boxes in online games do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935). This first-of-its-kind ruling provides useful guidance for online game operators and digital entertainment companies operating in Thailand. Background The ruling came in response to an inquiry concerning an online role-playing game operator that launched a campaign featuring a loot box mechanism. The mechanism allowed players to purchase a token in exchange for the opportunity to receive a virtual loot box containing randomized in-game items. The key features of this were as follows: The items received were digital, noncash items usable only within the game. The items could not be exchanged, redeemed, or converted into cash with the game operator. Items may differ in rarity but remain purely virtual. The central question was whether paying money to obtain randomized in-game items constituted a risk-based activity involving the chance to receive money or property of monetary value, which would constitute gambling under the Gambling Act. Committee Ruling The committee reached the following conclusions regarding the characteristics of the game’s loot-box mechanism: No cash or monetary equivalent: Players did not receive cash or property that could be exchanged for cash. The in-game items were merely usage rights within the online game ecosystem. No real-world monetary valuation: There was no determination of item value in real currency, and no mechanism for redeeming or converting items into money with the game operator. Any off-platform trading of in-game items between players is irrelevant to online game operators, as any value arising from such transactions is determined by the market rather than by the operators themselves. Service fee characterization: Payments made by players purchasing in-game loot boxes constituted fees for online game services. Accordingly, the committee concluded
March 5, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a criminal complaint against a licensed digital asset broker, its overseas trading platform, and its executives for allegedly operating an unlicensed digital asset exchange targeting Thai customers. The case marks an escalation in the SEC’s enforcement efforts against unlicensed offshore platforms that attempt to serve Thai users through local licensed entities. Criminal Complaint On February 20, 2026, the SEC filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division against a local licensed digital asset broker, its overseas global trading platform, and its executives. The SEC alleges that the parties violated the Digital Asset Business Emergency Decree B.E. 2561 (2018) by cooperatively operating a digital asset exchange business on a cross-border basis since 2023 without the required SEC license. According to the SEC, the local broker promoted the overseas platform’s services to the public through Thai-language posts on social media channels, with services available exclusively to customers residing in Thailand. Access to the global platform was provided through the local broker’s website and mobile application. Customers who registered for the local broker’s services were automatically granted access to the global platform without having to undergo a separate identity verification process. The SEC also found that the local broker provided back-office system support services to the global platform. The SEC considers these activities to constitute joint operation of an unlicensed digital asset exchange. The former executives of the local broker are being held liable as the responsible persons during the relevant period. The SEC emphasized that the complaint initiates the criminal process, and the decision to prosecute or convict the accused parties will ultimately be made by law enforcement authorities and the criminal courts. Platform Blocking The SEC has also coordinated with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to block public
February 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has officially implemented a new regulatory framework supervising systemically important retail payment systems (SIRPS), effective February 21, 2026, with PromptPay being the first payment system designated as a SIRPS. Under this new set of regulations, the BOT may designate payment systems under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) as SIRPSs based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Once a system is designated as a SIRPS, the operator becomes subject to expanded supervisory obligations beyond the general requirements of the Payment Systems Act. Enhanced Supervisory Requirements SIRPS operators must comply with a heightened supervisory regime across three key areas, outlined below. 1. Governance SIRPS operators must maintain robust and transparent governance structures, including: Balanced board composition, with at least one-third of the board comprising independent directors who represent stakeholders in the system (such as payment service providers, consumers, and experts). Independent directors may serve for no more than two consecutive terms. Subcommittees to assist the board in overseeing compliance, policy implementation, and operational strategy. Clear separation between executives responsible for risk and information security and those overseeing day-to-day business operations. Risk Management and System SecuritySIRPS operators must implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, including: Clear service agreements between the SIRPS operator and its direct participants (payment service providers who connect directly to the SIRPS), defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. These agreements must include obligations for direct SIRPS participants to supervise any indirect participants they onboard to ensure compliance with service agreements and business rules. A business continuity plan covering both IT and non-IT aspects, with annual review. The SIRPS must target service availability comparable to international payment infrastructures, including the ability to recover operations within two hours of a disruption and to maintain scalable operational capacity. Tools and controls to monitor and manage material or