IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—S.D.N.Y.: Reality TV show creator’s copyright claims against HBO and others dismissed, (Feb 26, 2025)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., LL.B., LL.M.

The writer failed to plausibly allege that HBO had access to his copyrighted material and did not demonstrate substantial similarity between his work and the allegedly infringing shows.

A federal district court in New York dismissed a writer’s copyright and breach of contract claims against Good For You Productions, LLC, Grand Street Media Inc., and Home Box Office, Inc. (HBO), finding that the plaintiff did not plausibly allege that HBO had access to his copyrighted work, nor that the alleged similarities between his show and HBO’s productions were legally protectable. The court also found that the plaintiff’s contract claims were preempted by the Copyright Act and that he failed to specify how the defendants breached their non-disclosure agreements (Piuggi v. Good For You Productions LLC, No. 1:23-cv-03665-VM (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2025)).

Background. The plaintiff, Jack Piuggi, is a content creator and founder of Flipp Productions, LLC. He conceived the concept for a documentary-style reality TV show called Instafamous in 2021. The defendants, HBO, Grand Street Media, and Good For You Productions, are media and entertainment companies involved in producing television content.

The asserted copyright work included Instafamous, a reality TV show concept that combined a documentary-style narrative with a faux-dating competition. The show was centered around Piuggi’s personal journey of becoming an Instagram influencer while also using the format as a means to find a romantic partner. The Instafamous treatment—a 55-page document—outlined a blend of personal storytelling, comedic elements, and workplace dynamics.

The accused works included Fake Famous, a documentary that follows the process of transforming ordinary individuals into social media influencers, and FBOY Island, a reality dating competition featuring men classified as either “Nice Guys” or “FBoys,” with female contestants attempting to identify the latter.

Piuggi pitched Instafamous to executives at Grand Street Media in January 2021 and later to representatives at Good For You Productions. He alleged that after sharing his show concept and treatment under an NDA, the defendants improperly disclosed his work to HBO, leading to the production and release of Fake Famous and FBOY Island. Fake Famous premiered on HBO on February 2, 2021, and FBOY Island aired on July 29, 2021.

In May 2023, Piuggi filed this lawsuit asserting copyright infringement and breach of contract claims against HBO, Grand Street Media, and Good For You Productions. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff failed to show substantial similarity between Instafamous and the accused works and that his contract claims were preempted by copyright law. In July 2024, the court dismissed the claims but granted Piuggi leave to amend. In response, Piuggi filed the amended complaint at issue in this motion.

Actual copying. The court ruled that Piuggi did not adequately allege that HBO had access to his copyrighted treatment. While he shared his treatment with Grand Street Media and Good For You Productions, he did not present a plausible connection between those companies and HBO that would suggest that HBO’s producers had the opportunity to review Instafamous.

The court emphasized that mere speculation about industry relationships and potential connections does not establish access. While Piuggi claimed that Grand Street had ties to HBO through its executives and that Good For You Productions had connections to Warner Bros. Discovery (HBO's parent company), he did not provide any concrete allegations showing that HBO decision-makers ever reviewed his treatment.

Substantial similarity. Even if access had been established, the court found that Instafamous and the accused works were not substantially similar. Applying the "more discerning ordinary observer" test, the court determined that Instafamous contained numerous stock elements common to reality TV shows, such as influencer culture, a workplace setting, and romantic subplots, which are not protectable under copyright law.

The court found significant differences between the works. Instafamous was described as a personal documentary about Piuggi’s own life, with elements of a comedic reality series, whereas Fake Famous was a documentary-style social experiment on influencer culture. Similarly, FBOY Island was a structured dating competition with a distinct elimination format, while Instafamous focused on Piuggi’s quest to balance his career and romantic life.

Citing Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1986), the court emphasized that broad thematic similarities do not constitute actionable copying. The court also referred to Abdin v. CBS Broad. Inc., 971 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2020), holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate substantial similarity in the selection, arrangement, and expression of elements, not merely in general themes or ideas. Since Piuggi’s claims were based on non-protectable stock concepts and the overall structure and feel of Instafamous differed significantly from the accused works, the court dismissed the copyright claim.

Breach of contract claim. The court also dismissed Piuggi’s breach of contract claim against Grand Street Media and Good For You Productions, finding that it was preempted by the Copyright Act under 17 U.S.C. § 301(a). The court reasoned that Piuggi’s claim, at its core, was based on unauthorized use of his copyrighted work—an issue governed exclusively by copyright law.

Even if the claim was not preempted, the court found that Piuggi failed to adequately allege a breach. He did not specify how Grand Street or Good For You Productions violated their NDAs, nor did he provide factual support showing that confidential material was improperly shared with HBO. The court cited Briarpatch Ltd., L.P v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296, 309 (2d Cir. 2004), which held that breach of contract claims involving unauthorized use of copyrighted material are generally preempted unless they involve an additional legal duty beyond the rights protected under copyright law. Additionally, the court found that Piuggi did not adequately plead damages resulting from the alleged breaches, stating that speculative harm and conclusory assertions of lost opportunities were insufficient to support a claim.

Leave to amend. Further, the court denied Piuggi further leave to amend, reasoning that his amended complaint failed to cure the deficiencies identified in the previous dismissal. Because the Instafamous treatment itself demonstrated that his work was not substantially similar to Fake Famous or FBOY Island, the court found that any further amendment would be futile. Without a valid federal copyright claim, the court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim, further justifying dismissal with prejudice.

The Case is No. 1:23-cv-03665-VM.

Judge: Marrero, V.

Attorneys: Robert J. Hantman (Hantman & Associates) for Jack Piuggi. Thomas Scapoli (Ingerman Smith, LLP) for Good For You Productions, LLC, Grand Street Media Inc., and Home Box Office, Inc.

Companies: Good For You Productions, LLC; Grand Street Media Inc.; Home Box Office, Inc.

Cases: Copyright NewYorkNews