3 ms·

> I bet I would get a call from Disney's lawyers. Disney's lawyers are famously litigious. I'm not clear that they would win a case here. (Although they might

> I bet I would get a call from Disney's lawyers. Disney's lawyers are famously litigious. I'm not clear that they would win a case here. (Although they might have success with this HN comment as evidence) The Adventures of Willy the Wizard: Livid Land (1987) has a similar high-level of comparison to Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2000), and that case was thrown out.

slg 6y ago
Except that book didn't have "a similar high-level of comparison to Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire". To quote the judge: "The contrast between the total concept and feel of the works is so stark that any serious comparison of the two strains credulity"[1]. There is a sort of "know it when I see it" nature that is hard to define, but copyright certainly protects works that are substantially similar even if not straight copies, at least in the US. [1] - https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-12134288 https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-12134288
- learnstats2 6y ago
  What I mean is: "Both Willy [a wizard] and Harry are required to work out the exact nature of the main task of the contest which they both achieve in a bathroom assisted by clues from helpers, in order to discover how to rescue human hostages imprisoned by a community of half-human, half-animal fantasy creatures." is very comparable to your completely hypothetical example above. So, if a paragraph of cherry-picked, high-level description are the only identified similarities, there is no case in copyright law.
  - slg 6y ago
    The only real similarity between those two stories that isn't easily attributed to a trope of the genre is the fact that scene took place in a bathroom. Everything else is unspecific and common. Also there is a difference when one scene shows similarity rather than the overall arc of the story.

3 ms·

> I bet I would get a call from Disney's lawyers. Disney's lawyers are famously litigious. I'm not clear that they would win a case here. (Although they might

by learnstats2 6y ago

slg 6y ago
Except that book didn't have "a similar high-level of comparison to Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire". To quote the judge: "The contrast between the total concept and feel of the works is so stark that any serious comparison of the two strains credulity"[1]. There is a sort of "know it when I see it" nature that is hard to define, but copyright certainly protects works that are substantially similar even if not straight copies, at least in the US. [1] - https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-12134288 https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-12134288
- learnstats2 6y ago
  What I mean is: "Both Willy [a wizard] and Harry are required to work out the exact nature of the main task of the contest which they both achieve in a bathroom assisted by clues from helpers, in order to discover how to rescue human hostages imprisoned by a community of half-human, half-animal fantasy creatures." is very comparable to your completely hypothetical example above. So, if a paragraph of cherry-picked, high-level description are the only identified similarities, there is no case in copyright law.
  - slg 6y ago
    The only real similarity between those two stories that isn't easily attributed to a trope of the genre is the fact that scene took place in a bathroom. Everything else is unspecific and common. Also there is a difference when one scene shows similarity rather than the overall arc of the story.