OTT Variety Show Format Plagiarism Controversies: Why Do They Keep Recurring?

Newly released OTT variety shows are repeatedly getting embroiled in plagiarism disputes shortly after their debut. A survival variety show recently presented by a platform faced accusations in online communities immediately after its broadcast, with claims that "the settings overlap with popular works from other platforms." As allegations poured in that the method of selecting participants, mission compositions, and even set designs were similar, the production company had to belatedly issue a statement calling it a "coincidence."

Within a few days of the controversy erupting, related posts recorded tens of thousands of views, and edited videos comparing scenes from the two programs episode by episode even spread online. Viewers claimed that the order of mission placement, the method of announcing eliminated contestants, and even the structure of the competitive setup were almost identical. The production company stated they were not plagiarizing, citing the timing of their planning documents, but it took a considerable amount of time for the controversy to subside.

Such controversies are not new. As OTT platforms jump into the competition to secure original variety content, the frequency of similar subjects and formats appearing simultaneously has increased. Industry insiders commonly explain that because production is concentrated in specific genres such as dating reality, survival game shows, and observational variety, cases of overlapping ideas have become frequent. One broadcasting official said, "When conducting market research during the planning stage, there are many cases where similar trends are referenced," adding, "It is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between intentional plagiarism and accidental similarity."

In the content industry, some analyze this phenomenon as a structural problem created by the competitive landscape between platforms. As the release cycle for new works shortens, the incentive to reference proven hit elements has grown, leading to an increase in cases where the framework of the planning becomes similar. An official from a content production company shared, "Since investment decisions are made quickly, there are actually quite a few cases where the structure of an already successful format is modified and proposed."

The problem arises when these similarity controversies escalate into actual legal disputes. While domestic copyright law recognizes scripts or video footage of broadcast programs as subjects of protection, there are no clear protection regulations for so-called "formats," such as the program's form or method of progression. According to the general view of the legal community, based on the principle of copyright law that distinguishes between ideas and expression, it is difficult for the subject matter or concept itself to receive copyright protection. One lawyer explained, "There is a high possibility of being recognized as plagiarism only if it can be proven that the order of mission placement or specific directing elements are composed finely enough to possess originality and that they were copied exactly."

In fact, the success rate of lawsuits surrounding broadcast formats both domestically and abroad is not particularly high. To claim similarity in a format, one must prove substantial similarity in the specific method of expression rather than a simple match of subject matter, and meeting this standard is difficult. A research fellow belonging to a copyright-related academic society pointed out, "Overseas, a practice is becoming established where the components of planning are detailed and registered as a document called a 'format bible,'" adding, "In Korea, such a system is not yet sufficiently established, so even when disputes arise, there are often insufficient evidentiary materials."

According to the Korea Copyright Commission, applications for copyright registration related to broadcast formats are increasing slightly every year, centered on the variety show field, but evaluations suggest it is not easy to determine plagiarism based solely on the registered content when an actual dispute occurs. This is because the registration system itself is focused on proving the existence of a creative work, which has limits in proving the similarity of detailed directing elements. For this reason, in actual lawsuits, materials from the entire production process, such as draft planning documents, meeting minutes, and emails, are often submitted together.

From a viewer's perspective, it is not easy to distinguish between what is plagiarism and what is a plan reflecting current trends. Kim (38), a user of an online community, said, "Looking at the variety shows released in recent years, many feel like the large framework is similar, with only the settings being different," and "It is often confusing whether it is plagiarism or a trend." He shared that two variety programs he enjoyed had similar contestant compositions and early developments that he initially thought were the same series.

On the other hand, voices of grievance are also coming from the content production field. An official from a variety production company lamented, "Planning meetings alone take several months, so there is an inevitable aspect where similar ideas emerge around the same time," and "If a plagiarism frame is attached, the entire production team takes a hit." Another production official said, "Once a suspicion of plagiarism is raised, it takes months until an actual conclusion is reached, and in the meantime, the credibility of the program has already significantly dropped."

As these conflicts repeat, voices are growing within the industry for the need for institutional mechanisms to protect formats. Discussions are ongoing, centered around broadcasting and communications associations, to vitalize the format registration system and establish standard review criteria that can be referenced when disputes occur. It is pointed out that while overseas, a format trading market is formed, making it common to officially purchase licenses and localize them, this trading practice is relatively less established in Korea.

In the overseas broadcasting industry, format licensing contracts have long been established as a pillar of the industry. It is common for famous variety formats to be officially exported to multiple countries, where local production teams sign contracts and create local versions, and in this process, the rights of the original creator are clearly defined in contracts. Conversely, industry insiders commonly point out that in Korea, new production companies or small-scale studios often release modified versions of similar ideas themselves rather than following such procedures.

As competition between platforms intensifies, the incentive to quickly secure topical formats inevitably grows. In a situation where the release cycle for new works is shortening and the pressure to recover production costs is increasing, the attempt to reference proven hit elements and the demand to protect the originality of creation continue to clash. A content industry research fellow stated, "The controversy over format plagiarism is ultimately proof that a social consensus on where the boundaries of creation lie has not yet been established," and added, "Discussions are underway to prepare specific guidelines that producers, platforms, and the legal community can refer to together."

Currently, a structure continues where legal judgments are relied upon on a case-by-case basis whenever disputes over plagiarism arise. In production sites, the practice of documenting and storing detailed elements from the planning stage is gradually spreading. Representative methods include recording meeting contents or leaving documents that specify dates for each stage of planning. It is understood that the number of copyright registration applications is also increasing slightly, centered on the variety show field.