NY Writer’s Copyright Suit Over ‘Abbot Elementary’ Dismissed By Court

Ah, the idea/expression dichotomy strikes again! It really is incredible just how many copyright lawsuits and disputes are launched due to the fundamental lack of understanding of this particular nuance of copyright law. As a very quick reminder: you cannot copyright an idea, but you can copyright specific expression. For example, you cannot copyright the idea of a wise-cracking rabbit that outwits a human being, but you can copyright the character Bugs Bunny.

You also cannot copyright the idea of a mocumentary about teachers in an under-funded elementary school, but you can copyright the show Abbott Elementary. This, however, is a concept that appears to be lost on writer Christine Davis, who sued a whole bunch of folks responsible for that show for copyright infringement.

Davis, a New York-based actor, writer and schoolteacher, sued ABC, Emmy award-winning Abbott Elementary" creator Quinta Brunson and others in 2022, calling the show a veritable knock-off" of This School Year." Davis said she pitched her show to producers with connections to ABC and Abbott Elementary" streamer Hulu, who allegedly forwarded her work to the companies without permission.

Davis argued that Abbott Elementary," a workplace mockumentary about an underfunded public school in Philadelphia, copied several elements of her planned mockumentary about her experience teaching in New York City public schools.

The suit's claims were roughly what you'd expect from a suit like this if you've read them before. Rather than alleging any actual direct copying of expression, the suit instead accuses those responsible for the hit show of copying a whole bunch of independently unprotectable elements" from a pitch document she submitted to ABC in the hopes that all of them strung together result in something protectable. Opening scenes of a teacher in a classroom giving a speech to students. Teachers operating in an underfunded school where hilarity ensues. You get the picture.

Fortunately, the defendants moved to dismiss the suit, first for lack of personal jurisdiction, and second due to the claims being for unprotectable ideas. The court denied the first, but granted the motion to dismiss on the second.

While both works depict the lives of idealistic teachers working in an inner-city public school," Failla said, differences in plot and structure far outweigh this general likeness."

Failla also noted distinctions in each show's tone, characters and total concept and feel" in finding that Davis could not sustain her copyright case.

The two works use qualitatively different plots, themes, and characters to cast different perspectives on the experiences of teachers in under-resourced, inner-city public-school settings," Failla said.

The ruling itself, embedded below, goes into excruciating detailed analysis on each of the claims, excoriating each of them. For example, on the claim that the opening scenes were identical, the court says:

Far from copy[ing] the identical message and tone for the opening speech[] of [its] protagonist," as Plaintiff would have it, Abbott Elementary introduces its protagonist and supporting characters in a markedly more happy-go-lucky way. (Pl. Abbott Opp. 12). Teagues's monologue is decidedly more optimistic and hopeful than Davis's, and is delivered in a different format, intercut with lighthearted vignettes depicting the relative chaos of her classroom and those of her colleagues, unlike the pointed dialogue in This School Year. (AE 1-3). Even the references to Teagues's frustrations are depicted in a comedic, upbeat light. (Id. at 3 (suggesting Teagues sub[bed] out therapy for axe-throwing," and interposing a cutscene depicting the activity)). Ultimately, the entirely different contexts" of the opening monologues and Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 92 Filed 03/19/24 Page 33 of 49 34 their differences in tone, Shull v. TBTF Prods., Inc., No. 20-3529, 2021 WL 3027181, at *2 (2d Cir. July 19, 2021) (summary order), defeat Plaintiff's attempt, by ipse dixit alone, to declare the two speeches nearly identical" (SAC, Ex. E 2).

You get the point.

And so the suit, of course, goes nowhere, but the groups behind the show had to waste time, money, and effort defending what is a clear money-grab. But, hey, at least the court got this one right!