Daily Dicta: This Lawsuit Is a Joke. No Really.
A comedy writer accused late night host Conan O'Brien of stealing his jokes. Now, the copyright case is headed to trial in federal court in San Diego.
April 18, 2019 at 01:40 PM
6 minute read
Did you hear the one about the Washington Monument, which surveyors found is actually 10 inches shorter than previously thought? You know the winter has been cold when a monument suffers from shrinkage.
Or that towns with streets named after Bruce Jenner might re-name them? One will go from cul-de-sac to cul-de-sackless.
(Is this thing on?)
Those jokes, plus one from 2015 that I don't even get—“Tom Brady says he wants to give his MVP truck to the man who won the game for the Patriots. So enjoy that truck, Pete Carroll”—are the subject of a copyright lawsuit against late night host Conan O'Brien that's barreling toward trial in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
As reported by The Hollywood Reporter, comedy writer Robert “Alex” Kaseberg claims that O'Brien stole the jokes from his blog or Twitter feed and used them in his monologues.
Represented by J. Lorenzo Law, Kaseberg claims the “infringement has been willful and deliberate and was done for the purpose of making commercial use of and profit on plaintiffs material and to entertain audiences throughout the country and within this judicial district… Plaintiff is entitled to recover increased damages as a result of such willful copying.”
O'Brien, whose legal team includes power litigator Patricia Glaser of Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro, has offered multiple defenses, including that the similar jokes are a coincidence, and that his versions are different enough not to infringe the “thin” copyright protection to which the witticisms are entitled.
After four years of litigation, it's all scheduled to come to a head in May before a federal jury in San Diego.
Part of what makes the case amusing isn't the actual jokes (personally, if I was going to steal jokes, I'd have picked funnier ones), but how seriously U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino analyzes them—presumably the same way she'd tackle patent infringement or employment discrimination or other weighty questions of law.
“Each joke begins with a factual sentence and then immediately concludes with another sentence providing humorous commentary on the preceding facts. Facts, of course, are not protected by copyright,” she wrote in 2017, when she cut two of the five allegedly copied jokes from the suit on summary judgment.
In one of the nixed jokes, Kaseberg wrote, “The University of Alabama-Birmingham is shutting down its football program. To which the Oakland Raiders said; 'Wait, so you can do that?'”
The following day, O'Brien on his show said, “Big news in sports. University of Alabama-Birmingham has decided to discontinue its football team. Yeah. When they heard the news, New York Jets fans said, 'Wait can you do that? It's something you can do?' ”
Similar? Yes. But not similar enough, Sammartino found.
“[T]he factual setup of the UAB discontinuing its football team is not entitled to protection,” the judge wrote. “The protectable aspect in plaintiff's joke is instead the expression of a fictional version of the Oakland Raiders hearing that news and then commenting 'Wait, so you can do that,'” she continued, validating the long-standing rule that jokes cease to be funny when you explain them.
“Defendants' version changes the expression to fans (rather than team members) of a different team—the New York Jets—hearing the news and then commenting 'wait, can you do that?'”
Her conclusion? Justice demands that the joke be excluded from the suit. “To hold otherwise would grant plaintiff's UAB joke the power to preclude any expression of disbelief and desire for a beloved but beleaguered sports team to also shut down their operations upon hearing the UAB news. This would fundamentally impede, rather than 'promote the progress of' the creative arts.”
So there.
She tossed this joke by Kaseberg too: “A Delta flight this week took off from Cleveland to New York with just two passengers. And they fought over control of the armrest the entire flight.”
But five hours before Kaseberg posted the joke on his blog, a Conan show writer sent a time-stamped email with his own version: “Yesterday, a Delta flight from Cleveland to New York took off with just 2 passengers. Yet somehow, they spent the whole flight fighting over the armrest.” Which meant that in this instance, despite the similarity, the Conan show couldn't possibly have copied him.
Apparently comedy writers really do think alike.
Indeed, the Conan defense team has offered multiple examples of third parties coming up with similar jokes. For example, remember when the leader of Latinos for Trump said that if the U.S. didn't crack down on immigration, there'd be taco trucks on every corner? That prompted Kaseberg—as well as hordes of other wits on Twitter—to respond with variations of “Dude, how's that bad thing?”
Kaseberg's lawyers in pre-trial motions argued this is irrelevant. “Whether various third parties came up with similar jokes after the dispute in this action arose has nothing to do with whether defendants independently created the jokes at issue in this case,” they wrote.
But the judge disagreed, ruling on Tuesday that she'll allow five such examples as part of the defense's bid to show that anyone “could independently create monologue-style jokes like the jokes at issue.”
She also refused to allow the testimony of two comedy experts proposed by the plaintiff. One witness, David Barsky, Ph.D, was going to opine on the statistical likelihood of “joke overlap,” but Sammartino criticized his methodology and found that his opinion “is not only unreliable but irrelevant.”
In addition, she nixed plaintiff's expert Elayne Boosler, an experienced comedian, because a jury doesn't actually need an authority to tell them whether jokes are similar. “[W]here, as here, the subject matter is not complex or technical . . . , expert testimony will seldom be necessary to determine substantial similarity,” the judge wrote, quoting Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
On the plus side—comedians Patton Oswalt and Andy Richter remain on the joint witness list, with O'Brien slated to testify too.
At this point, there should be a cover charge and two-drink minimum for the jurors. (Please tip your servers, I'm here all week.)
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the (Past) Week: Tackling a $4.7 Billion Verdict Post-Trial for the NFL in 'Sunday Ticket' Antitrust Litigation
Take-Two's Pete Welch on 'Getting the Best Results While Getting in the Way the Least'
Litigators of the Week: Kirkland Beats Videogame Copyright Claim From Lebron James' Tattoo Artist
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250