Abstract On the 20th February 2025, the final judgement of Gregorini v. Shyamalan rejected director Gregorini's claims that the show ‘Servant’ produced by Apple TV+ copied her independent film ‘The Truth About Emanuel’. Infringement can be established by proving substantial similarity and access to the work. Although the official complaint appeared to evidence substantial similarity, it did not establish access. In rejecting infringement claims due to lack of demonstrated access, the ruling threatens the future protection of artistic and literary works. A strict application of the law reveals that the conditions for copyright infringement may be outdated in a digitalised and globalised age. Access can be immediate, universal and untraceable. This note examines the court's assessment of both similarity and access, concluding that the requirement of proof of access reflects a misunderstanding of the purpose of copyright law and an outdated view of the entertainment industry.
Anna Monnereau (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: