Defamer
In case you hadn't heard, Oprah's Big Give special, which aired on ABC March 2nd, was a hit in the smashiest hit kind of way. The debut attracted 15.7 million viewers, which HuffPo claims was the highest rated primetime show that week aside from American Idol. While it's no surprise that anything Oprah does is bound to reel in a massive audience, her latest profitable stunt may have been formulated under unethical circumstances. A Boston mother of four named Darlene Tracy is claiming Oprah stole the idea from a pitch she'd laid out for Oprah's producers, a nearly identical idea called The Philanthropist, "in which contestants are challenged to help the needy." And now she's taking legal action. But after reviewing the history behind these series of unfortunate events, we're putting on our thinking caps (boy were they hard to find!) to try and figure out whether or not Darlene has a case or not...
Although Darlene had no television experience to speak of, she managed to get a fully outlined pitch into the hands of Oprah producer Ellen Rakieten in early 2005, who then joined forces with another producer on the show to follow up with Darlene and "ask for more details." But four months later, Oprah's Harpo Production company decided to pass. Lo and behold, over a year later, the big (and sometimes small) O announced her plans to launch an altruism-themed show. Darlene immediately went into action, filing suit and attempting to halt production, but a judge sided with Oprah and her undoubtedly powerful legal guns.
But Darlene isn't finished fighting. She's since filed an appeal, which happens to coincide with Oprah's plans to release a Big Give book, and potential publisher Simon & Schuster is conflicted about putting out a book just as Oprah's team is under legal pressure. But aside from the drama and the details, is there really such a thing as "original" programming these days? Particularly in the daytime/reality show genre? Consider the Dance Doctor, who claimed ABC stole his idea for So You Think You Can Dance, the fashionistas who sued Brothers Weinstein and clueless Heidi Klum over Project Runway. Neither party had a chance up against the big guns at ABC and Bravo, and we fear Darlene is facing an even more daunting battle. Hell, Bill Clinton's been helping the poor kids in Harlem for years just by being there and throwing cash at every cause above 110th Street! Public philanthropy stunts performed by bold-faced names aren't the most unique "ideas" in TV executives' bags of tricks (as much as we secretly wish one of the little guys was finally capable of tripping Miss Winfrey's unstoppable gait). As usual, "developing..."
Comments
I can't imagine they didn't make her sign a release. My primary job as a Viacom development intern was securing these releases from anyone submitting project ideas. You know, the releases that no one reads but which basically say, "If we magically come up with a similar idea to this a year after your inevitable rejection, it's a coincidence and you can't sue us."
This sounds like it was well past the "release" stage of interest.
When the second producer requested additional info it would have put them into full-on concept negotiations and all bets would have been off with respect to any earlier release she may have signed to get producer #1 to read the pitch.
She should have had an agent by the second meeting, but they never would have told her that.
O-Man would have done well to have made this go away fast with some philanthropic hush money.
I know I'll get my girl card taken away (and possibly be taken out by a Harpo-hired sniper tomorrow morning) but I cannot stand Oprah.
No wonder O gets along so well with Jessica Seinfeld. I expect Steadman to make an appearance on Letterman any day now declaring that any woman who dares go by two names must be a serial killer. Or maybe that's Gayle's job.
@heidiho:I couldn't agree more. She's so annoying, and thinks way to much of herself.
@ObtuseIntolerant: From the looks of things, this is probably a different situation from what you were doing. I'm sure the releases you did at Viacom also had some language that talked about how unless they contact you (the submitter) and tell you otherwise, you acknowledge that V-com hasn't actually read your submission.
Otherwise, the waiver almost certainly wouldn't be effective. You can't waive away the right to financially exploit your intellectual property without receiving some sort of consideration in return, even if it's nominal.
Comment on this post
Reply by EmailLogin with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?