Television is living through a golden age of reinvention. Familiar characters return, universes expand, and beloved series spawn sequels, prequels, and reboots at an unprecedented pace. While audiences enjoy revisiting old favorites, the legal boundaries behind these projects are becoming increasingly complex. Where exactly is the line between being inspired by an original work and unlawfully copying it?

That question sits at the heart of an emerging legal battle that could shape how the entertainment industry approaches derivative content.

The Current Case: ER vs. The Pitt

Few shows defined 1990s television like ER. The medical drama’s blend of realism, character development, and storytelling influenced an entire generation of writers and producers. Now, decades later, the show’s original creators are in court claiming that a new pilot, The Pitt, borrows too heavily from their work.

According to reports, The Pitt follows a group of medical professionals working in a struggling Pittsburgh hospital. The lawsuit alleges that the characters’ archetypes, the rapid-fire dialogue, and even the camera techniques echo ER too closely. The plaintiffs argue that NBC Universal’s use of a “frozen rights” provision in the original contract gives them continued control over certain creative elements, making this a potential breach.

What’s at stake isn’t just one show. The ruling could influence how studios approach future reimaginings and inspire creators to be more vigilant about protecting their original concepts.

What Counts as a Derivative Work?

Under U.S. copyright law, a “derivative work” is any creation based on one or more preexisting works—such as a sequel, adaptation, or translation. To qualify as derivative, the new work must recast, transform, or adapt elements of the original. Courts often look at specific aspects: characters, plotlines, settings, tone, and distinctive stylistic choices.

A spin-off like Better Call Saul is a legitimate derivative because it was authorized by the copyright holder of Breaking Bad. Conversely, an unauthorized project that mimics a show’s essence without permission risks infringement. The key factor is whether the new work captures protectable expression from the original rather than merely drawing inspiration from its ideas.

For example, a show about emergency medicine is not automatically an ER copy. But replicating its distinctive structure, real-time trauma sequences, overlapping dialogue, and recurring character arcs could cross into infringing territory.

The “Frozen Rights” Provision

One of the most intriguing aspects of the ER lawsuit is the so-called “frozen rights” clause. This contractual provision is designed to prevent studios from reusing key creative elements without the original creators’ involvement. It essentially “freezes” certain rights related to characters, settings, or storylines, ensuring that derivative projects cannot move forward independently.

Such provisions are common in high-value television contracts. They protect creators from seeing their intellectual property repurposed in ways that dilute its value or diverge from the original vision. In the ER case, the plaintiffs argue that The Pitt violates this restriction by reviving core thematic and stylistic traits without authorization.

How the court interprets this clause will be closely watched. If the decision favors the plaintiffs, it could strengthen writers’ negotiating power in future development deals.

Inspiration vs. Infringement

Every creative work builds on something that came before it. The law recognizes this reality through the “idea/expression dichotomy.” Ideas are free for everyone to use, but specific expressions of those ideas, how they’re written, filmed, or structured are protected. The challenge lies in determining when similarity crosses the threshold of substantial infringement.

Courts typically use a “substantial similarity” test, comparing the overall feel and structure of the two works rather than isolated elements. If an average observer would perceive the new work as capturing the essence of the original, infringement may be found. In the entertainment industry, where homage and imitation often blur, this analysis becomes both technical and subjective.

Practical Implications for Creators and Studios

For creators, the ER case is a reminder that protecting one’s intellectual property begins with strong contracts. Negotiating provisions that define ownership, derivative rights, and creative control can prevent costly disputes later. Studios, on the other hand, must tread carefully when developing shows “inspired by” existing hits. Conducting early legal reviews and clearance checks can help distinguish homage from infringement.

Best practices include:

• Documenting creative development to show independent creation.
• Avoiding use of names, character traits, or signature stylistic devices that directly mirror another work.
• Consulting IP counsel before pitching or producing content similar to an existing franchise.

At the same time, creators developing authorized spin-offs should ensure proper licensing and collaboration to maintain continuity and respect original contributions.

The ER versus The Pitt lawsuit underscores a defining tension in entertainment law: balancing creativity with protection. As the industry continues to thrive on reboots and reinterpretations, this case could clarify how far creators can go before inspiration becomes imitation.

For studios and writers alike, the message is clear. Originality remains both an artistic pursuit and a legal necessity and in a marketplace built on nostalgia, knowing the boundary between the two is more important than ever.

‍