> This is an interesting statement that not only includes the statement that the Disney movie is based on earlier works, but also a value judgement at the same

> This is an interesting statement that not only includes the statement that the Disney movie is based on earlier works, but also a value judgement at the same time. At what point do we declare something a "rip-off" vs. an "homage" or simply be content saying it was "based on" or "inspired by" some earlier, original work? Interesting you should mention this. My guess is that there are possibly 'bad' factors in play. For example, these 2 I can think of (there might be more): 1) The newer version might not contain enough original quality content. So it took the good parts from the original, and did not add anything substantive to it. 2) Or the newer version isn't referring to the original at all, pretending being the original. I suppose we can simply translate the terms "rip-off" and "homage" to "based on" or "inspired by" instead (for lack of better term). This allows everyone to draw their own judgement. In that sense, calling something a "rip-off" is akin to name calling. (The irony being here that my comment is largely based on yours. I'm reusing the definitions you mentioned, word for word.)