With success come lawsuits. Comedian Jerry Seinfeld has seen his share and, as Charles v. Seinfeld illustrates, is getting pretty good at them.
In 2011, plaintiff Christian Charles worked on the pilot episode of Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee. He would later go on to claim authorship of it, which was disputed by Jerry Seinfeld. According to Seinfeld, Charles worked as a hired producer and director — essentially giving up any claims to authorship for copyright purposes.
Charles nevertheless sued Seinfeld, the producers, the television station, et al. in the Southern District of New York for copyright infringement. (Parenthetically, if this were a trademark suit it would fail because Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee is a pretty descriptive name — that is, until it gained secondary meaning, which is presumed after 5 years and might be demonstrated by the commercial success of this particular series.)
The defendants brought a motion to dismiss, alleging that as a matter of law the case failed because it was brought after the statute of limitations had run. The Southern District agreed that Charles’ claims were time-barred, as the events occurred in 2012 and the statute of limitations for copyright infringement is three years from when Charles discovered the infringement. Even if Charles’ authorship of the show was unclear, the court reasoned, it became clear to Charles on two occasions:
- In 2011, when he wrote to Jerry Seinfeld asking for credit on the pilot — and Seinfeld asserted that he was actually a “work made for hire” contractor; and
- In 2012, when the first episode aired and his name was missing from the credits.
At the latest, the statute of limitations began to run in 2012 — seven years before the start of the suit. Predictably, the Southern District granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Second Circuit found no errors in the district court’s ruling.
The takeaway from this case is the importance of phrasing things and building claims in a way that is the most advantageous to the client. For instance, perhaps the complaint could have been drafted to plead that the more recent episodes of the show were derivative of Charles’ initial contributions on the pilot. Using that claim, the plaintiff could have argued that his work is continuing to be infringed to this day. That pesky three-year statute of limitations could then be used to claw back three years of profits.
But it’s easy to second guess at the end of the journey through an appeal. Bottom line is, you had to be there. And maybe it wasn’t funny then, either.
