Belgian Court spares rich-kid inner turmoil-driven plotlines from copyright protection
34 views
Skip to first unread message
Georgia Jenkins
Dec 12, 2025, 2:59:14 AMDec 12
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to ipkat_...@googlegroups.com
Home / adaptation / Belgian copyright law / Belgium / character / Georgia Jenkins / idea/expression dichotomy / originality / plots etc / storylines / Belgian Court spares rich-kid inner turmoil-driven plotlines from copyright protection
Belgian Court spares rich-kid inner turmoil-driven plotlines from copyright protection
While the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) continues to affirm that there are no additional requirements other than originality (IPKat here), in Piet Baete t. Dingie BV the Ghent Enterprise Court’s judgement reminds us of the very contours of its protectable subject matter. At a time where generative artificial intelligence (AI) continues to blur the line between idea and expression (e.g. styles), this Belgian judgment provides much-needed clarity on the status of storylines.
Facts
Piet Baete, a Flemish jack of all (creative) trades (e.g. self-described professional author, screenwriter, crime analyst and specialist), commenced copyright infringement proceedings against a Flemish film and television production company, Dingie BV. Known for crime fiction, Baete took issue with Dingie’s BV hugely successful and award-winning teen drama TV series, ‘Knokke Off’ (with an English version known as ‘High Tides’) – including an 85% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Baete argued that it was an unlawful adaptation of his crime novel (‘Verzwijg Mij Niet’).
The case comprised a recognizable fact pattern for infringing copyright adaptions. Baete contended that when discussing potential future collaboration with Anthony Van Biervliet, a producer and creative director at Dingie BV, ‘Knokke Off’ was mentioned. In particular, there were parallels drawn between its focus on wealthy young people residing in Knokke and Baete’s book (also set against Knokke’s specific socio-cultural and geographic context). While the factual similarities end here, Baete was certain that these components were original and were used in the unauthorised adaptation.
Knokke, described by some as the ‘Hamptons for the Low Countries’ or ‘Belgium’s answer to Las Vegas’ and by others as the ‘Saint-Tropez of Belgium’ is a place that the Court even reflected has ample inspiration for creators to:
While Baete and Dinge BV initially traded jests via email, it resulted in the latter being sued for infringing both the adaptation right and communication right pursuant to Belgian copyright law (Article XI. 165 of the Code of Economic Law). Baete also requested an injunction to prevent further infringement, either directly or through third parties, when the TV series and its derivatives are made available through streaming platforms, broadcasting or otherwise. For every breach a penalty of 500 Euros was set. Dingie BV maintained that ‘Knokke Off’ was their own idea, developed independently and autonomously, long before the publication of the claimant’s book, and that any similarities were purely coincidental.
Unauthorised adaptation or functional literary device?
The Ghent Enterprise Court primarily focused on whether the allegedly unauthorised adaptation used original components of the book. However, Baete did not base the claim on written excerpts from the book, but rather its storyline. The argument was that the ‘Knokke Off’ script drew upon the book’s storylines. But as you may already guess, the threshold for proving a character, let alone a plot, is original is a difficult threshold to overcome.
The court evaluated the plot’s originality alongside the test for adaptation and held that it is sufficient to compare the overall impressions of the work and the allegedly infringing use. If they evoke the same image, while inspiration, ideas or themes may be reflected, the claimant must evidence that a specifically developed original feature from the original work is copied. The court cited Belgian case law on film adaptations to emphasise the limits of subject matter protection, noting that a general idea that has become common knowledge is insufficient to find infringement.
Unsurprisingly, it was held that the TV series did not infringe copyright in the book. The court characterised the latter as a classic whodunnit murder mystery. In contrast, the TV series does not focus on a murder investigation per se, but rather the lifestyles of young wealthy adults with themes that (apparently) appeal to a younger audience – notably, sex drugs, rock & roll, and mental health issues. Though Baete noted 73 similarities, these did not demonstrate originality, merely the context where events occurred.
It would seem that characters are functional devices within literary works that drive the development of storylines, and Knokke simply provided the perfect setting for certain stereotypes. From Jay Gatsby to Patrick Bateman, or even Effy Stonem or Blair Waldorf (for those millennial Kats among us), characters from wealthy, privileged backgrounds often have internal conflicts that stem from a clash between their opulent environment and an internal desire for authenticity, morality or purpose. These conflicts make characters more realistic and often drive the main plot. Useful for storytelling? Yes. However, the court maintained that this is not evidence of personal touch.
Media strategy or litigation abuse?
As Baete proactively sought media attention, Dingie BV challenged the legitimacy of the claim, alleging that it was vexatious and reckless. While Dingie BV might have suffered reputational damage, the court held that out-of-court conduct is only relevant to determine intent to harm or harass a party. The court was rather curt, finding that not only should Dingie BV have sought redress on legal grounds that accurately reflected the harm perceived, but that the 18-page, detailed defence, was clear evidence that none so this brought in bad faith, let alone malicious.
Comment
The reviews for ‘Knokke Off’ circle the idea/expression dichotomy. Some note that ‘[t]here’s nothing egregiously bad about High Tides, but the story isn’t exactly revolutionary’. Others reflect that the series ‘may lack originality in its premise, but its ability to explore complex relationships and entertain, along with the solid performances of its cast, ensure that the series lives up to expectations, even if it is not necessarily revolutionary.’ It is, in the words of another reviewer:
Perhaps a TV series set in “a piece of Paris by the North sea” captures the same delicious drama and internal turmoil of the ultra-wealthy in Emily in Paris? For this Kat, lacking protection over rich-kid turmoil-driven storylines has resulted in a flourishing genre (do watch, Dallas, Dynasty, Beverley Hills, 90210, and the OC), and if ‘Knokke Out’ joins this glamorous lineage: “Veel kijkplezier!”
 |
| Photo by Lynda B on Unsplash Cool-kid kittens in a Teen Kat Drama. |
Piet Baete, a Flemish jack of all (creative) trades (e.g. self-described professional author, screenwriter, crime analyst and specialist), commenced copyright infringement proceedings against a Flemish film and television production company, Dingie BV. Known for crime fiction, Baete took issue with Dingie’s BV hugely successful and award-winning teen drama TV series, ‘Knokke Off’ (with an English version known as ‘High Tides’) – including an 85% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Baete argued that it was an unlawful adaptation of his crime novel (‘Verzwijg Mij Niet’).
The case comprised a recognizable fact pattern for infringing copyright adaptions. Baete contended that when discussing potential future collaboration with Anthony Van Biervliet, a producer and creative director at Dingie BV, ‘Knokke Off’ was mentioned. In particular, there were parallels drawn between its focus on wealthy young people residing in Knokke and Baete’s book (also set against Knokke’s specific socio-cultural and geographic context). While the factual similarities end here, Baete was certain that these components were original and were used in the unauthorised adaptation.
Knokke, described by some as the ‘Hamptons for the Low Countries’ or ‘Belgium’s answer to Las Vegas’ and by others as the ‘Saint-Tropez of Belgium’ is a place that the Court even reflected has ample inspiration for creators to:
give free reign to their imagination regarding the […] cliches about the elitist Knokke and its residents’ including ‘gold diggers and free loaders […] whose personal lives too often end up in personal ruin.However when Baete eventually became aware of the TV series from his readers and a Het Nieuwsblad interview, a few years too late, he was certain it was plagiarism.
While Baete and Dinge BV initially traded jests via email, it resulted in the latter being sued for infringing both the adaptation right and communication right pursuant to Belgian copyright law (Article XI. 165 of the Code of Economic Law). Baete also requested an injunction to prevent further infringement, either directly or through third parties, when the TV series and its derivatives are made available through streaming platforms, broadcasting or otherwise. For every breach a penalty of 500 Euros was set. Dingie BV maintained that ‘Knokke Off’ was their own idea, developed independently and autonomously, long before the publication of the claimant’s book, and that any similarities were purely coincidental.
Unauthorised adaptation or functional literary device?
The Ghent Enterprise Court primarily focused on whether the allegedly unauthorised adaptation used original components of the book. However, Baete did not base the claim on written excerpts from the book, but rather its storyline. The argument was that the ‘Knokke Off’ script drew upon the book’s storylines. But as you may already guess, the threshold for proving a character, let alone a plot, is original is a difficult threshold to overcome.
The court evaluated the plot’s originality alongside the test for adaptation and held that it is sufficient to compare the overall impressions of the work and the allegedly infringing use. If they evoke the same image, while inspiration, ideas or themes may be reflected, the claimant must evidence that a specifically developed original feature from the original work is copied. The court cited Belgian case law on film adaptations to emphasise the limits of subject matter protection, noting that a general idea that has become common knowledge is insufficient to find infringement.
Unsurprisingly, it was held that the TV series did not infringe copyright in the book. The court characterised the latter as a classic whodunnit murder mystery. In contrast, the TV series does not focus on a murder investigation per se, but rather the lifestyles of young wealthy adults with themes that (apparently) appeal to a younger audience – notably, sex drugs, rock & roll, and mental health issues. Though Baete noted 73 similarities, these did not demonstrate originality, merely the context where events occurred.
It would seem that characters are functional devices within literary works that drive the development of storylines, and Knokke simply provided the perfect setting for certain stereotypes. From Jay Gatsby to Patrick Bateman, or even Effy Stonem or Blair Waldorf (for those millennial Kats among us), characters from wealthy, privileged backgrounds often have internal conflicts that stem from a clash between their opulent environment and an internal desire for authenticity, morality or purpose. These conflicts make characters more realistic and often drive the main plot. Useful for storytelling? Yes. However, the court maintained that this is not evidence of personal touch.
Media strategy or litigation abuse?
As Baete proactively sought media attention, Dingie BV challenged the legitimacy of the claim, alleging that it was vexatious and reckless. While Dingie BV might have suffered reputational damage, the court held that out-of-court conduct is only relevant to determine intent to harm or harass a party. The court was rather curt, finding that not only should Dingie BV have sought redress on legal grounds that accurately reflected the harm perceived, but that the 18-page, detailed defence, was clear evidence that none so this brought in bad faith, let alone malicious.
Comment
The reviews for ‘Knokke Off’ circle the idea/expression dichotomy. Some note that ‘[t]here’s nothing egregiously bad about High Tides, but the story isn’t exactly revolutionary’. Others reflect that the series ‘may lack originality in its premise, but its ability to explore complex relationships and entertain, along with the solid performances of its cast, ensure that the series lives up to expectations, even if it is not necessarily revolutionary.’ It is, in the words of another reviewer:
Another knokke off teen drama [..] [that] struggles to break free from the mould it sets itself, comfortably revelling in the cliches without ever doing anything to set it apart from the masses.It would appear that the strongest defence for unauthorised audio-visual adaptation is to argue that storylines are too basic to be considered original, falling outside the concept of expression. This is important as it ensures that genres (e.g. Teen dramas) remain free to reuse familiar characteristics for new audiences and settings. However, given the speed that generative AI can replicate style, while falling outside the boundaries of expression, it requires rumination on whether human-created styles require remuneration based on its socio-cultural collective worth.
Perhaps a TV series set in “a piece of Paris by the North sea” captures the same delicious drama and internal turmoil of the ultra-wealthy in Emily in Paris? For this Kat, lacking protection over rich-kid turmoil-driven storylines has resulted in a flourishing genre (do watch, Dallas, Dynasty, Beverley Hills, 90210, and the OC), and if ‘Knokke Out’ joins this glamorous lineage: “Veel kijkplezier!”
Do you want to reuse the IPKat content? Please refer to our 'Policies' section. If you have any queries or requests for permission, please get in touch with the IPKat team.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages