Piuggi v. Good For You Productions LLC

Background

Jack Piuggi alleged that the defendants conspired to use his ideas for a reality television show called Instafamous in two HBO shows, Fake Famous and FBOY Island. Piuggi asserted copyright infringement against Grand Street Media Holdings Inc., Home Box Office, Inc. (HBO), and Good for You Productions, LLC (GFY). He also asserted breach of contract against Grand Street and GFY based on nondisclosure agreements.

Piuggi described Instafamous as a documentary-style reality show about his effort to become an Instagram influencer, build a production company, and find a wife through a dating-related workplace setup. He attached a 55-page treatment to his amended complaint. According to the opinion, Fake Famous follows people being turned into social-media influencers, while FBOY Island is a dating competition involving female contestants and male suitors who are either “Nice Guys” or “FBoys.”

The court had previously dismissed Piuggi’s original complaint and allowed him to amend. Piuggi then filed an amended complaint attaching the treatment and again asserting copyright and contract claims. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Copyright claim

A copyright-infringement claim requires ownership of a valid copyright and copying of original elements. To plead copying, a plaintiff must plausibly allege both actual copying and substantial similarity between the defendant’s work and the protectable parts of the plaintiff’s work.

The court held that Piuggi did not plausibly allege that HBO had access to the treatment. Piuggi had sent it to individuals at Grand Street, but he did not allege a concrete chain of events showing that the treatment reached HBO. The court found insufficient his allegations concerning relationships involving Grand Street, GFY, Warner, HBO, other companies, and individuals. It also found insufficient the allegations that former counsel represented both Piuggi and HBO, because Piuggi did not allege that he shared the treatment with those attorneys or that they were connected to the people who received it from him.

The court separately concluded that the works were not substantially similar. It compared the treatment with Piuggi’s descriptions of the HBO shows and found that the works’ overall concepts and feel were significantly different. The court emphasized that copyright protects an author’s particular expression, not general ideas or common features of a genre. It characterized alleged similarities such as auditions, documenting contestants’ journeys, behind-the-scenes footage, and showing contestants in personal settings as common reality-television concepts. The court therefore dismissed Count I.

Breach-of-contract claim

Piuggi alleged that Grand Street and GFY breached their nondisclosure agreements by sharing information about Instafamous. The court held that Piuggi waived his argument that the contract claim was not preempted by Section 301 of the Copyright Act because he failed to respond to the defendants’ preemption argument, as he had also failed to do in the earlier proceeding.

The court stated that dismissal was independently warranted because Piuggi failed to identify which provisions of either nondisclosure agreement were breached. His allegations against Grand Street were conclusory and did not specifically explain how Grand Street breached its agreement. As to GFY, Piuggi alleged that an individual associated with GFY shared information with a camera operator, but he did not adequately explain how that conduct harmed him. The court therefore dismissed Count II.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court denied leave to amend the copyright claim because Piuggi had already amended once and the treatment showed that Instafamous was not substantially similar to Fake Famous or FBOY Island. The court concluded that another amendment would be futile. It also concluded that, without the copyright claim, it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the contract claim, and that amendment of that claim would therefore be futile.

The order states that the defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. It further states that Counts I and II are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, that no issues remain before the court, and that the Clerk of Court must close the case.