{"id":2341,"date":"2019-04-26T17:08:03","date_gmt":"2019-04-26T21:08:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/?p=2341"},"modified":"2023-07-25T11:43:28","modified_gmt":"2023-07-25T15:43:28","slug":"who-owns-the-concept-for-netflixs-stranger-things","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/2019\/04\/who-owns-the-concept-for-netflixs-stranger-things\/","title":{"rendered":"Who Owns the Concept for Netflix\u2019s Stranger Things?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last week, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied <\/a>a motion for summary judgement submitted by Stranger Things <\/em>creators, Matt and Ross Duffer, in a breach of implied contract suit<\/a> filed by independent filmmaker Charlie Kessler. Kessler claims the Duffers stole the idea for their show after he pitched his own project to the brothers at the 2014 Tribeca Film Festival.<\/p>\n

With sky-high ratings<\/a>, an accompanying book deal, and a PlayStation VR game in the works, Stranger Things\u00a0<\/em>has made its mark as the single most popular streaming show<\/a> of all time. Based in small-town 80\u2019s America, the series (originally titled The Montauk Experiments<\/em>) focuses on the disappearance of a young boy and the dark forces that unfurl as his family and friends search for answers. What starts as a simple missing persons case develops into a supernatural mystery that includes top-secret government experiments, children with extraordinary psychic abilities, and a monster from another dimension. Though viewers have embraced the innovative premise of the Duffer Brothers\u2019 creation, filmmaker Charlie Kessler alleges that the idea was taken directly from his short film, Montauk<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>as well as his accompanying feature-film screenplay, The Montauk Project. <\/em>Like the Duffers\u2019 story, Kessler\u2019s work centers on the search for a missing boy, a battle against paranormal forces, and the discovery of an abandoned military base that conducts secret experiments on children.<\/p>\n

It may seem odd that Kessler chose to bring an implied-contract claim, rather than a copyright infringement complaint. However, under federal copyright law<\/a>, Kessler has no case. Ideas \u2013 even those that are finely detailed and significantly developed \u2013 cannot be copyrighted. This means that a film idea, and \u201cany of the characters portrayed [with]in it\u201d is largely free for the taking, regardless of who thought of it first. Under the contract claim, however, Kessler can (and does) allege that there was a \u201cmutual [understanding]…that [the Duffers] would not disclose, use, and\/or exploit\u201d Kessler\u2019s ideas. The Duffers aim to show that they independently created Stranger Things\u00a0<\/em>prior to meeting Kessler, a complete defense against the filmmaker\u2019s claims in the state of California. (See <\/em>Teich v. General Mills<\/em><\/a>, 170 Cal.App.2nd 791, 799 (1959)).<\/p>\n

While the Duffers\u2019 motion for summary judgement<\/a> cites emails from 2010, three years before Kessler\u2019s alleged pitch, that detail their plans for a supernatural film project, Judge Michael L. stated that the brothers provided insufficient \u201cverifying evidence of the originality of their idea,\u201d raising several issues surrounding the ownership of original work. The emails directly reference central elements of\u00a0Stranger Things<\/em>, such as a protagonist who is \u201c[a]bducted with a group of other psychically gifted…children,\u201d a \u201c[s]ecret underground research facility,\u201d and the \u201copening up another dimension\u201d that leads to a \u201ccreature…escap[ing].\u201d Considering the specificity of these plot details, one must wonder: what does<\/em>constitute sufficient, unrebutted evidence of the originality of a creative idea?<\/p>\n

The answer to this question could have a serious impact on Hollywood\u2019s creative circles and the manner in which artists develop and pitch their ideas. With the possibility of an implied contract breach stemming from standard mingling lurking on the horizon, industry movers may become more hesitant to hear casual pitches from relative unknowns. This, of course, could make it increasingly difficult for independent artists to break into the Hollywood sphere and secure financing for their projects. On the flipside, the protections Kessler seeks to establish may give emerging writers and directors some comfort that, should they manage to pitch their next big project to potential collaborators, sponsors, or producers, their work will be safe from copycats.<\/p>\n

The trial, now with a May 7th start date, is set not only to provide insights into the development of Netflix\u2019s runaway series, but may also serve as an indicator for how the entertainment industry as a whole could evolve to regulate the free exchange of creative ideas.<\/p>\n

Matt Shields and Susannah Benjamin are Entertainment Highlight Contributors for the Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law and current first year students at Harvard Law School (Class of 2021).<\/em><\/p>\n

Image: Lowtrucks<\/a>,\u00a0Stranger Things logo<\/a>,\u00a0CC BY-SA 4.0<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last week, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied a motion for summary judgement submitted by Stranger Things creators, Matt and Ross Duffer, in a breach of implied contract suit filed by independent filmmaker Charlie Kessler. Kessler claims the Duffers stole the idea for their show after he pitched his own project to the brothers […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":39,"featured_media":2342,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[88,36,15,99,93,87,112],"ppma_author":[382],"class_list":["post-2341","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-highlight","tag-contract","tag-copyright","tag-entertainment-2","tag-highlight","tag-intellectual-property","tag-litigation","tag-netflix"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/78\/2019\/04\/Stranger_Things_logo.png","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZjrR-BL","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"authors":[{"term_id":382,"user_id":39,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jsel","display_name":"JSEL","avatar_url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4abb87a025d5a7951a4b4249facf4d22ea8002b216770229a96689038d0f83bc?s=96&d=mm&r=g","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2341","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/39"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2341"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2341\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2342"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2341"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2341"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2341"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2341"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}