What’s the deal with this suit against Jerry Seinfeld?

LEGAL ENTERTAINMENT

Almost six years following the release of the series "Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee," Jerry Seinfeld is facing a lawsuit filed by Christian Charles, who has collaborated with Seinfeld on numerous projects since 1994. The lawsuit claims copyright infringement of the overall idea for the show and the pilot for the series which was originally created in 2011, among other state law claims such as misappropriation and breach of implied contract.

Seinfeld responded with a motion to dismiss the copyright claims as barred by the statute of limitations and dismiss the remaining state law claims as preempted by the federal copyright claims. Charles still needs to respond to the motion, but it looks like the allegations he made within his first amended complaint will make it difficult to argue that the claim is fruitful and that the lawsuit should move forward.

There are three main reasons asserted by Seinfeld to support the dismissal of the overall action as barred by the statute of limitations: (1) the underlying claim is about ownership rather than infringement; (2) the statute of limitations began to accrue in 2012 and thus has been barred for over two and a half years; and (3) the fundamental principal under the public policy of the statute of limitations supports such dismissal.

Seinfeld initially argues that the dispute concerns ownership of the show rather than the overall infringement of the alleged copyright. Most of the time ownership of the copyright is not under dispute in an infringement case, especially if there are registrations involved. Charles has claimed that he is the "true-creator and author" of the concept and pilot episode supporting his contention with a copyright registration. However, Seinfeld does not concede the ownership and instead claims that the registration was obtained fraudulently since he holds a prior copyright registration for the disputed work, effectively raising the issue and disputing Charles' claims of ownership. Seinfeld alleges that the infringement claim is a tactic to evade the statute of limitations by claiming the on-going infringement of the pilot episode streaming on Netflix (the pilot originally aired on Crackle, but later migrated to Netflix, where all episodes are now available to stream).

Since the claim is based in ownership, Seinfeld next argues that the copyright claims have been barred for over two and a half years. The statute of limitations for the claim of ownership begins to run when a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have been put on notice as to the existence of their right, which can be trigged by numerous events. Seinfeld alleges three separate grounds that the claim for ownership has expired. First, during pre-production, Charles admits in his first amended complaint that Seinfeld told Charles directly that he was no more than a work-for-hire for the project and that he would be paid his directing fee only, and without any "backend compensation." Charles further admits in his first amended complaint that the phone calls had taken place in 2012 effectively barring the claim in 2015. Next, Seinfeld alleges that the limitations began to run starting July 19, 2012, the date of the public distribution and publication of the show crediting Seinfeld as the sole creator of the show. This is because a reasonably diligent person should have known that the claims were accruing and would not have waited over five years following the public release to bring the claim, especially given the lack of compensation which would generally be earned by a co-owner of a show. Lastly, Seinfeld has consistently and publicly claimed sole ownership of the show. The motion claims that there were 20 public articles and interviews published after the release of the first episode where Seinfeld clearly claims that he is the sole owner and creator of the show. Thus, the claim began to accrue in 2012 and effectively barred as of 2015.

The motion argues that the very purpose of the statute of limitations is to prevent the situation of the current litigation. Since filming a TV show is known to be a highly collaborative business, the statute of limitations exists to ensure that "claims seeking ownership in a work are timely adjudicated which 'permits individuals to invest in the publication of copyrighted materials without undue fear of litigation.'" This gives the owners certainty when entering into future agreements and deals. Seinfeld argues that this frivolous lawsuit only comes after Charles learned of the overall success of the show. Charles states in his first amended complaint that he learned of the success in a New York Times article and only thereafter reached out to Seinfeld with a letter asking for credit and compensation. The motion further argues that this particular behavior should not be allowed and potential plaintiffs cannot wait for years to bring a claim only when there is a lucrative market for the show.

If Charles somehow overcomes the burden to demonstrate that the claim is not based on ownership and barred by the statute of limitations, he still has a big burden ahead of him. Charles will still have to address Seinfeld's assertions that the elements of claimed ownership are common ideas and not protectable under the Copyright Act, and Seinfeld's allegation that all legal claims were released by Charles in an email discussing the payment of his director's salary fee in return. All-in-all, Charles is going to have a tough time responding to the motion to save it from dismissal.