I think that's more along the lines of Older Than They Think, if anything.
Okay, but could their be a case of Seinfeld Is Unfunny where the work wasn't that critically acclaimed to begin with? If the basic trope is that a work isn't viewed as favorably by newer audiences as it once was, it seems something that wasn't critically praised to begin with could be hit by this if newer audiences are even hasher.
Seinfeld Is Unfunny is specifically what it is talking about, a production where it's execution is so wildly original and popular that it inspires a fleet of imitators, which then retroactively dilutes how revolutionary the originator was. If the work was not very well received from the beginning it is usually due to being considered bland or uninspiring even at the time it was released.
A production whose reputation improves retroactively due to being ahead of its time and not fully appreciated when it was released would be Vindicated by History. Older Than They Think is related, but more for a work that got a middling reception before a similar work took the concept to new popularity, such as Dark City compared to The Matrix.
So "Seinfeld"Is Unfunny is where a work is critically acclaimed or considered ground-breaking when it came out, but modern audiences don't see it as anything special because of other works copying it and/or doing the premise better. I'm wondering if this could apply to something that wasn't critically acclaimed when it came out, but now opinions towards it are much harsher for those aforementioned reasons. Say a movie came out that critics felt was "Not good, but has an interesting premise". If a bunch of movies come out that do the same premise better, critical opinion of the first movie could become "Not good, check out these other films instead". Would that be considered "Seinfeld"Is Unfunny.