Copyright protection for TV show formats: another loss for ‘Shambles’ claimants

The January 2025 decision in Rinkoff v Baby Cow Productions Ltd [2025] EWHC 39 (IPEC) is a significant one for anyone working in TV, film or online media content, particularly those relying on innovative show formats as their core IP.

The case concerned an allegation of copyright infringement by Joshua Rinkoff (aka comedian Harry Deansway), the creator of a YouTube comedy series called Shambles. Rinkoff claimed that the TV series Live at the Moth Club (LATMC), created by Baby Cow Productions and aired on Dave, had copied the format of Shambles.

After extensive submissions, the court ultimately rejected the claim, providing further clarity on when and how a format might attract copyright protection.

What was the claim about?

Rinkoff's Shambles series (produced in two runs between 2013 and 2015) combined behind-the-scenes sitcom-style storytelling with footage of live stand-up performances. He argued that this created a distinctive “format” that was protectable under copyright law as a dramatic work.

He pointed to various repeated elements across episodes – a flailing promoter protagonist, a run-down comedy venue, chaotic backstage characters, and a faux-documentary filmic style – as combining into a unique and original format. His complaint was that Baby Cow’s LATMC copied this core idea and a number of the show’s elements, even if not verbatim.

What did the court decide?

The judge, Recorder Amanda Michaels, held that Rinkoff’s alleged format did not amount to a protectable dramatic work. The key reasons included:

• Lack of precision: The elements of the format may have been original in concept but they were described in such general terms that they didn’t offer a clear, fixed expression of a work that could be performed or reproduced.

• No consistent framework: Not all eight key features relied on by Rinkoff appeared across all episodes of Shambles. This undermined his claim that they formed a repeatable, coherent framework, which is central to establishing a format as a dramatic work.

• Expression vs idea: The court reiterated that copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. The concept of blending sitcom with live stand-up was not specific or detailed enough to be protectable. As a result, even if LATMC had a similar “vibe”, that alone wasn’t sufficient for infringement.

• No evidence of copying: Although the court accepted that Baby Cow’s creative lead Rupert Majendie had seen Shambles at some point in the past, there was no evidence that he had it in mind when developing LATMC. The claimants’ suggestion of unconscious or indirect copying was dismissed as speculative.

Even if the format had qualified as a protectable work, the court found that LATMC had not copied a substantial part of it.

What does this mean for TV formats?

This decision is the latest in a long line of failed attempts to assert copyright in show formats in the UK. While the court did not rule out that a format can be protected, the bar remains very high. In particular:

• Fixation and detail are critical: To be protected, a format must be expressed in a fixed, repeatable form with sufficient detail to allow reproduction. Vague references to tone, style or themes will not be enough. Documents like scripts, episode breakdowns, and production bibles can help, but only if they are comprehensive.

• Ideas remain unprotected: Even if your idea is original and industry insiders are clearly inspired by it, you must identify and capture its expression. For example, a sitcom about a failing comedy night may be original, but without distinctive, repeatable and fixed details, it remains an unprotectable idea.

• Characterisation matters: The court found that even central characters like “Harry” in Shambles were too sparsely described in the pleaded case. If characters are key to your format, they need to be developed in a way that reflects creative choices not just archetypes.

• Protect early and clearly: Creators hoping to rely on copyright in a format should develop and document their structure from the outset – and ideally before any collaboration with third parties. In this case, ownership of Series 2 of Shambles was further muddied by contractual arrangements with Wildseed Productions.

• Format claims face an uphill struggle: The court reviewed numerous cases involving claims to copyright in show formats and found none where such a claim had succeeded under English law. The judgment reinforces that such claims are still a legal longshot without exceptional evidence and careful formulation.

For content creators, this decision is a timely reminder of the limits of copyright protection. Format development should be accompanied by commercial strategies, such as trade mark registration, confidentiality agreements, and contractual protections when pitching ideas. Relying on copyright alone – particularly for ideas or loosely structured formats – is a risky approach.

To find out more about the issues raised in this blog contact Rosie Burbidge.