Conan O’Brien is actually going to court over joke-stealing accusations
Way back in 2015, as part of a report on Twitter cracking down on supposed joke thieves, we noted that a freelance comedy writer named Robert Alexander Kaseberg had filed a lawsuit against Conan O’Brien and the staff of his Conan show for allegedly stealing some jokes from his Twitter and personal blog. Now, The Hollywood Reporter says that a judge has decided to hear the case, so O’Brien must actually go to court and defend himself and his writers against these accusations.
The specifics of this case are very dry for a lawsuit centered on stealing jokes, but the gist of the defendants’ argument is that jokes based on current events or utilizing “commonly used expressions” do not deserve fully copyright protection, since two people could theoretically witness the same thing and come to the same humorous conclusion without necessarily stealing from each other. The judge—Janis Sammartino—agrees with this to a point, since facts can’t by protected by copyright and there are only so many ways to phrase a punchline, so convincing a jury that the jokes were overly similar would have to depend on establishing that they share a “virtual identity”—which is to say that the structures of the jokes would have to be basically the same.
So, to determine whether or not there could be any meat to that argument, the judge went through and unpacked Kaseberg’s original jokes and the versions O’Brien told on his show, and the weirdness of the result is way funnier than either joke ever was. You can see it in this deconstruction of a stupid gag about streets named after Bruce Jenner being changed to Caitlyn, with Kaseberg saying that a cul-de-sac would become “cul-de-sackless” (ugh) and O’Brien saying that a cul-de-sac would become “cul-de-no-sack” (also ugh). Here’s Sammartino’s take:
Although Conan changes the punchline from “sackless” to “no-sack,” the framing is identical: the change happens to the observer no matter what, and that change is the removal of the sac from “cul-de-sac.” Although these jokes are not exactly identical, that is not the test. There is a genuine issue of material fact whether a jury would find these objective similarities to be virtually identical within the context of the entire joke.