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​ 

May 6, 2026
Thailand has introduced new requirements for online social media platforms to verify the identity of paying advertisers before publishing their advertisements. On May 5, 2026, the Electronic Transactions Commission published the Notification on Measures for Prevention of Technology Crime for Online Social Media (No. 2) in the Government Gazette. The notification, which aims to prevent technology crimes such as fraud and scams, takes effect 180 days after publication (i.e., on November 1, 2026). Mandatory Advertiser Identity Verification Online social media service providers must verify the identity of every advertiser before publishing an advertisement. Verification remains valid for up to one year from the most recent verification date. The notification requires social media providers to use either of the following methods when verifying advertisers: Document-based verification: Examine government-issued identity documents (e.g., national ID, passport, or juristic person registration certificate), cross-check the connection between the advertiser and the identity documents (e.g., facial comparison with photo ID), and ensure that the identity documents are verifiable against reliable sources. Digital identity verification: Use an identity verification system with a level of assurance no lower than that prescribed by the Electronic Transactions Commission. Advertiser Data Collection and Retention Service providers must collect and retain certain data—including name, identification number, and contact details—from the start of the advertising service and for a minimum of 90 days after the end of the advertising service relationship. The same requirements apply where there is a third-party payer, such as an ad agency. Implications for Affected Businesses The notification raises two key areas of concern for affected businesses: Social media platforms must implement know-your-advertiser (KYA) onboarding as described above, including document upload and identity matching processes. The 180-day implementation window requires immediate technical and operational planning. The collection and retention of national ID cards, passport copies, and other personal
April 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,
April 23, 2026
Vietnam has progressively positioned blockchain as a strategic technology within its broader digital transformation agenda over the past decade. From early policy orientations to more recent legislative developments, the regulatory approach has gradually shifted from high-level recognition to more concrete legal integration. Against this backdrop, a new draft decree regulating activities relating to product and goods identification, authentication, and traceability (the “Draft Decree”) marks a notable turning point. Rather than merely referencing blockchain as a policy priority, the Draft Decree incorporates blockchain directly into a nationwide regulatory system, positioning it as part of the underlying infrastructure for data governance and public administration in relation to the management, verification, and traceability of product-related data. Evolution of Vietnam’s Blockchain Legal Framework: The Draft Decree in Context Vietnam’s blockchain legal framework has developed in several distinct phases. The first phase, beginning around 2019, was characterized by high-level policy recognition in several resolutions of the Party Central Committee. Particularly, blockchain was identified as part of the broader category of digital technologies critical to industrial modernization and participation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These resolutions did not regulate blockchain directly, but established its strategic importance at the national level. The second phase (2023 to 2025) saw the introduction of national strategies and technology policies that more explicitly recognized blockchain as a priority technology. Those policies collectively signaled a clear policy commitment to developing blockchain infrastructure and applications. However, these instruments remained largely at a policy-level and did not establish binding regulatory frameworks. The third phase (from 2025) involves the gradual integration of blockchain into sectoral legislation. Laws such as the Law on Digital Technology Industry (2025), the Law on Personal Data Protection (2025), and the Law on Science, Technology, and Innovation (2025) have introduced concepts such as digital assets, crypto assets, and even specific
April 21, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has launched a public consultation period on a draft notification setting out criteria for data subject access requests (DSARs). The draft notification addresses practical uncertainties in handling DSARs by introducing standardized procedural requirements for data controllers. The consultation period runs from April 16 to May 15, 2026. The notification will enter into force 30 days from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. Key Features of the Draft Notification The draft notification covers the following key areas: Scope of information subject to access. Data controllers must enable data subjects to access at least the following upon request: (1) personal data collected directly from them; (2) personal data obtained from other sources; and (3) the source of personal data obtained from other sources without consent. Information required under section 23 of the PDPA and information that must be recorded pursuant to section 39 of the PDPA—such as the categories of personal data collected and purposes of processing—must also be made available. Submission channels and formal requirements. Data controllers must provide at least in-person and postal channels for DSARs, while electronic or other channels are optional. Requests may be made either directly by the data subject or through an authorized representative, and must be signed and include sufficient identifying information, a preferred response method, and DSAR details. Identity verification documents (and proof of authority if the request is through a representative) are required, and additional documentation may be requested for verification or communication purposes. Data controllers may use different verification methods for DSARs submitted via electronic or other channels, provided this does not create undue obstacles to the exercise of data subject rights. Verification and response timelines. Data controllers must complete preliminary verification within seven business days of receiving a request. If a