Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?…How Do I Protect TV Format Rights
The Traitors, The X Factor, Love Island, Big Brother, The Weakest Link, The Apprentice, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? – when cultural commentators examine the television of recent years what is striking is the global domination of prime time by shows made to particular formats. Despite this, it is hard to define precisely what we mean by formats as they intersect different genres (music, sport, quiz, comedy, drama) and rely on different components to make them attractive to viewers. We certainly know what a format is when we see it, and we know how incredibly successful they can be!
The most recent water cooler hit, The Traitors, was originally a Dutch format that is now produced in over 30 local versions, with both a main series and celebrity spin-offs, as well additional content being available on video-on-demand services and radio. The basic premise for the Traitors is very novel for TV, and yet it is based on the social deduction game “Mafia” or “Werewolf”.
ITV is looking to match this success with The Box, a 2026 launch, based on a Norwegian format, in which celebrity contestants are sealed inside giant yellow boxes before being transported to mystery locations to face elimination challenges.
Whilst this article looks at TV formats, the lessons learnt from the TV industry can be (and in some cases already have been) equally well applied in other industries, including film (most notably movie franchises), immersive entertainment, sport formats, e-sports formats, theatre formats (most notably of musicals), on-line gaming formats and more besides. As format rights lawyers, we at Hansel Henson see the same patterns across sectors. So, if, for instance, you want to know how to protect a new immersive entertainment concept, what we say here is important for you to know.
Below we look at why successful formats are so valuable in the television industry before turning to the connected issue of their legal protection.
So, what is a format?
Suffice to say, all of us can identify a format when we see it, even though formats exist across a range of programming from talent shows (The X Factor, The Apprentice) to magazine shows (Top Gear, Antiques Roadshow) to reality TV (Big Brother, The Real World) to game shows (Deal or No Deal, Weakest Link) to scripted comedy (the Office). Each format shares an overall concept which exists outside the individual participants and contains common elements making them replicable and scalable.
A host of things can go into a successful format, including scripts, set designs, jingles, theme music, catchphrases and the concept itself. It’s creating and protecting a detailed collection of such elements and bringing them together as a compelling, cohesive and protected package that makes for valuable format rights. Look at Who Wants To Be A Millionaire in Afghanistan, with the same music and style of opening credits.
In 2026, spin off shows such as the recently launched Millionaire Hot Seat have appeared on ITV, along with a licensed Win A Million prize draw game.
As viewing habits change, video-on-demand is an increasingly important part of the jigsaw in monetising formats. The UK's Media Act 2024 brings large video-on-demand services much closer to the regulations imposed by Ofcom on broadcast TV.
And video-on-demand serves not only to distribute the local broadcast versions of hit formats. BBC iPlayer allows fans of the Traitors to watch the versions produced and broadcast in a number of countries, such as Ireland, the USA, Australia and New Zealand.
So, it is important to note that a format is very, very much more than just an idea. Far too many people confuse a collection of thoughts punched into a Word document (or generated by AI) with a format.
When we look at the legal position in protecting a format, each of its different elements can be very important in terms of protecting the format. But a key point you must understand is that legally there is no such thing as a “format right”.
Why are successful TV formats so valuable?
There are a number of reasons why TV formats are now part of a multi-billion-pound industry, spawning some of the biggest hits on TV channels around the world.
We think there are five big reasons why broadcasters choose to make format TV:
A format rights holder can often secure a substantial fee for the use of its format. For instance, TV formats regularly attract format rights fees of 10% of the budget plus further income from ancillary rights such as merchandising and apps. In many cases the format rights holder will secure the right to produce the format and sell to the broadcaster. Money is to be made not just on format rights fees but also in the fees of the “flying producer” who will lend their experience in overseas territories.
Once a TV show has been broadcast, what is there to allow you to control the future exploitation of the event by licensing and to prevent other people from copying your idea or doing the same thing on a larger scale thereby eliminating you from the market? That is when the smart producer looks to the law to help. Let’s look at the legal protections which the format creator can look to, to establish and protect its rights to the event “format”.
Does copyright protect a format?
The starting point remains the same: copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
The classic early warning comes from the 1989 Privy Council decision in Green v Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand, where Hughie Green claimed protection for the format of Opportunity Knocks. The claim failed. The case remains a reminder that general programme concepts are difficult to protect as copyright works.
That does not mean that format protection is impossible. But it does mean that the legal threshold is high.
In Banner Universal Motion Pictures Ltd v Endemol Shine Group Ltd, the English High Court accepted that a documented television format could, in principle, qualify for copyright protection as a dramatic work. But the format would need clearly identified features distinguishing it from other shows of a similar kind, and those features would need to be connected in a coherent framework capable of repeated application so that the programme could be reproduced in recognisable form. On the facts, the claim failed because the document was unclear and lacking in specifics.
That case opened the door in theory. A 2025 decision of the High Court, Rinkoff v Baby Cow Productions Ltd, shows how narrow that opening remains.
In Rinkoff, the claimant argued that the format of Shambles, a comedy series combining live stand-up performances with a backstage sitcom narrative, was protected as a dramatic work. The claim failed. The court held that the claimed features were not consistently applied in every episode, were not connected with each other in a coherent framework, did not sufficiently distinguish the show from similar shows, and did not establish a formula capable of being repeatedly applied so as to reproduce the show in recognisable form.
The practical lesson is blunt. A format will not be protected simply because it has a premise, a setting, a tone, a “vibe” or some familiar production devices. To stand a realistic chance in a UK court, the format needs clearly identified and distinctive features, connected in a coherent and repeatable framework.
For TV executives and in-house lawyers, the message is this: do not assume that copyright will rescue a loosely documented format. It probably will not.
The court’s approach in Rinkoff should make format owners ask hard questions before any pitch or dispute:
1. Have we identified the features that make this format distinctive?
2. Are those features specific, or are they just familiar ideas common to the genre?
3. Are the features connected to each other in a coherent framework?
4. Are they consistently applied across episodes?
5. Could someone reproduce the programme in recognisable form from its Format Bible and surrounding collateral?
6. Can we prove when the format was created, by whom, and what was disclosed to whom?
If the answer to those questions is weak, a copyright claim is likely to be weak too.
Look at some of the features here in this compilation of The Weakest Link international welcome intros with the same dramatic licensing, music and ice cold delivery from the host clad in black : Welcome to The Weakest Link! (International) | WLTR1 – YouTube.
The "Copyright Distinction": Format vs. Bible
While cases like Banner and Rinkoff prove that UK courts will rarely protect an abstract television format as a dramatic work, the Format Bible itself is automatically protected as a literary or artistic work.
This creates a dangerous legal illusion for creators, driven by a critical distinction:
If a rival production company reads your Format Bible, fully understands your high-concept elimination mechanics, and then writes their own script from scratch using different wording and distinct branding, your literary copyright in the Bible will generally not protect you. They have not copied your text; they have taken your concept.
The Bible is not a magic bullet that stops copycats from adapting your mechanics; rather, its true legal value is that it establishes an objective, dated paper trail of your creation.
The Two-Front AI Threat: Ownership and Infringement Risk
The Subsistence Trap (Who owns the Bible?)
Generative AI creates a new and practical risk for format developers.
A production company may be tempted to use AI to generate a Format Bible, sample scripts, challenge rules, contestant journeys, studio layouts, voiceover lines, graphics prompts or catchphrases. That may be useful as a development tool. But it may also create serious questions about originality, authorship and ownership.
The UK currently has statutory provisions for computer-generated works, but the Government has acknowledged that the position is uncertain and under active review. In its March 2026 report on copyright and AI, the Government noted that UK law currently provides copyright protection for computer-generated works created without a human author, but also stated that most respondents supported removing that protection for works created solely by AI, while retaining protection for AI-assisted works.
For a format owner, the commercial risk is immediate. If a rival copies the format, the claimant may need to prove copyright subsistence, originality, authorship, ownership and copying. If the key materials were generated by AI with little meaningful human creative input, that evidential task may become significantly harder.
The safer course is not to ban AI, but to control it. AI should be used as an assistant rather than as the creator, with records kept of human creative decisions, drafts preserved to show the evolution of the format, and clear evidence of who wrote, edited and approved the Format Bible. Development teams should avoid prompts that ask AI to imitate an existing show, check the terms of any AI tool used in the process, and ensure that the final Format Bible reflects human-authored expression rather than merely lightly edited machine output.
This is not just a copyright issue. It is also a boardroom issue. If a production company wants to license a format internationally, it needs confidence that it owns what it is selling.
The Input Trap (Prompting Your Way Into Trouble)
There is a second AI risk. The problem is not only whether AI-generated output is protectable. It is also what the development team asked the AI system to do.
A prompt such as “create a show like The Traitors” or “draft rules in the style of Love Island” may become uncomfortable evidence in a later dispute. It may suggest that the development process began with imitation rather than independent creation.
The Government’s copyright and AI consultation recognised the wider uncertainty around the application of UK copyright law to AI training and AI outputs, including concerns from rights holders about control, remuneration and transparency.
For production companies, the practical approach should be simple: development teams should be trained not to prompt for imitation. If AI tools are used, the audit trail should show independent human development, not machine-assisted copying.
Streaming, video-on-demand and the Media Act 2024
The regulatory background is also changing.
The implementation of the Media Act 2024 brings the UK’s largest video-on-demand services under enhanced Ofcom regulation. The Government announced on 24 February 2026 that major streamers with more than 500,000 UK users, including platforms such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, ITVX and Channel 4, would need to comply with new standards and accessibility codes.
Ofcom has also stated that Part 4 of the Media Act 2024 creates a new regime for Tier 1 on-demand programme services, and Ofcom published a consultation on the Tier 1 Standards Code on 14 May 2026.
For format owners, this matters because international exploitation is no longer only an intellectual property and licensing exercise. Local versions of a format may also need to be adapted for platform regulation, audience protection, accessibility, fairness, privacy and standards compliance. So, show mechanics involving psychological pressure, voting, or contestant isolation must be designed from the outset to withstand the stricter fairness, privacy, and viewer-protection standards now hitting SVOD platforms.
A modern Format Bible should therefore do more than explain how to reproduce the show creatively. It should also help producers understand which elements are essential, which can be adapted locally, and which may require regulatory review in particular territories.
This is especially important for formats involving children, vulnerable contributors, factual claims, public voting, hidden cameras, user-generated content, controversial topics, gambling mechanics, prize mechanics or intense contestant welfare issues.
Other legal protections
Because copyright protection for formats remains uncertain, the practical strategy is to build a matrix of protection. No single right does all the work.
Confidentiality
Confidentiality is one of the most important protections before a format enters the public domain.
If a producer is pitching a format, the disclosure should be controlled. That usually means using a properly drafted non-disclosure agreement (NDA) before any sharing, particularly where the format is sufficiently developed to be commercially valuable but has not yet been broadcast or publicly disclosed.
The pitch materials should also be marked confidential, circulated narrowly, and recorded carefully. If there is later a dispute, the producer will need to show what was disclosed, when, to whom, and in what circumstances.
Confidentiality is especially important where copyright protection is uncertain. A format that is too general to qualify for copyright may still contain confidential information if it is original, commercially valuable and disclosed in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence.
Registered trade marks
Trade marks are often the most practical and reliable rights in a format protection strategy. They offer a high degree of protection for format titles and distinctive catchphrases and logos. Provided they are sufficiently distinctive, trade marks can be registered in key territories around the world in order to protect not only rights in the title and the catchphrases used, but also ancillary rights such as for merchandising.
Trade mark filings should be considered early. If the format is intended for international exploitation, the filing strategy should reflect the intended rollout, likely merchandise, digital products and local production markets.
While a trade mark is a powerful way to protect titles, logos, and catchphrases, creators must remember that trade mark law cannot protect a game mechanic or a television concept itself.
Passing off
Passing off may assist where a format has acquired goodwill and a rival’s conduct misleads the relevant public into believing there is a commercial connection with the original format.
However, passing off is not a straightforward substitute for copyright. It depends on evidence of goodwill, misrepresentation and damage. Because copycat formats typically adopt entirely different branding, logos, and titles, establishing that the public has been genuinely misled into believing there is a commercial connection is a notoriously high hurdle in broadcasting.
Contracts
Contracts are central to format protection.
A production company should use clear written agreements with writers, producers, designers, consultants, composers, editors, agencies, freelancers and other contributors. It should be clear who owns each element of the format and whether the production company has the right to exploit it internationally.
Format licence agreements should be detailed. They should identify what is being licensed, what must be reproduced, what may be adapted locally, what approvals are required, who owns local improvements, who controls trade marks, who bears regulatory risk, and what happens if there is a third-party claim.
Bad contracts create expensive disputes. Good contracts prevent them, helping all involved in the exploitation and creation of format rights understand what they can and cannot do in relation to those rights.
The Format Bible
A strong Format Bible should do more than describe the concept. It should explain the structure of the show in enough detail for the programme to be reproduced in recognisable form.
A Format Bible may include material created by employees, freelancers, agencies, consultants, composers, graphic designers, software developers and production staff. Unless those rights were created by employees in the course of employment, or have been properly assigned, the production company may not own everything it thinks it owns.
This matters particularly where a format is being licensed internationally. A licensee, broadcaster, platform or buyer may ask for warranties that the format owner controls the rights. If those warranties are wrong, the commercial problem can become serious very quickly.
A chain-of-title review should cover not only copyright materials, but also trade marks, music, graphics, software, app mechanics, voting systems, set designs, production documents and AI-generated or AI-assisted materials.
A producer should keep an evidence pack from the start of the various elements making up the format, including all the elements of the chain of title.
If the format becomes valuable, the producer will be pleased to have the evidence. If the format is copied, the producer may need it urgently.
How to actually protect yourself
The hard commercial truth is that UK copyright law remains hostile to the basic concept of a protectable TV format.
The recent Rinkoff v Baby Cow Productions case shows that a general premise, a genre, a setting, a tone or a production style is unlikely to be enough.
Format owners should therefore avoid building their protection strategy on copyright alone.
The practical approach is this:
1. create a detailed Format Bible;
2. make sure the format contains distinctive, repeatable and consistently applied features;
3. record the human creative development of the format;
4. avoid relying on AI-generated materials without proper human authorship and documentation;
5. use robust NDAs before the first pitch meeting;
6. register trade marks for titles, logos and distinctive catchphrases;
7. secure written assignments from contributors;
8. keep a clear evidence pack;
9. use detailed format licences and production agreements;
10. consider regulatory compliance, especially for streaming and international exploitation.
If a format is valuable enough to pitch internationally, it is valuable enough to protect before it leaves the building.
The best format owners do not wait until there is a dispute. They build the rights, evidence and contracts from the beginning. That is what turns a good programme idea into a licensable and defensible commercial asset.
© Hansel Henson Limited 2026
Intellectual property notice
The Weakest Link, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? and other programme titles referred to in this article may be protected by copyright, trade marks and other intellectual property rights. All such intellectual property rights remain the property of their respective owners. References are included solely for legal commentary and analysis.
4th Floor, 37 Dean Street,
London, W1D 4PT
Email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Tel+44 (0)20 7770 6584
Fax+44 (0)20 7504 8717
