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​ 

June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review
June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
June 5, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security released a draft Child Protection Act (“CPA”) for public review. The draft CPA would completely repeal and replace the current Child Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003). This represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Thailand’s child protection framework in over two decades, reflecting the government’s stated objective of modernizing the law to address evolving social challenges—including those arising from digital technology—and to promote greater coordination among government agencies, local authorities, and civil society. The public review period closes on June 9, 2026. Key changes introduced by the draft CPA that could have significant implications for businesses, particularly online platform providers, media companies, and entities operating child-related services in Thailand, are set out below. Expanded Definition of “Child” Under the current CPA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, excluding those who have attained legal majority through marriage. The draft CPA removes the marriage exception entirely, broadening the scope of the law’s protections to include all individuals under 18 without exception. Replacement of “Abuse” with Broader Concept of “Violence” The current CPA uses the term “abuse/cruelty,” which covers acts causing harm to a child’s liberty, body, or mind; sexual offenses against children; and using children in harmful or immoral activities. The draft CPA replaces this with the broader concept of “violence,” which encompasses any act or omission causing harm to a child’s body, mind, or development; abandonment or neglect; improper exploitation; and sexual abuse. Notably, the new definition adds developmental harm as a recognized category of injury and captures all forms of misconduct regardless of the child’s consent. New Standalone Definition of Sexual Abuse, Including Online Conduct One of the most significant additions in the draft CPA is the introduction of a standalone definition