4 ms·

How about Tonya Grotter, the Russian Harry Potter? https://www.amazon.com/Tanya-Grotter-i-pensne-Noya/dp/5699844414 https://www.amazon.com/Tanya-Grotter-i-pens

How about Tonya Grotter, the Russian Harry Potter? https://www.amazon.com/Tanya-Grotter-i-pensne-Noya/dp/5699844414 https://www.amazon.com/Tanya-Grotter-i-pensne-Noya/dp/569984... You can’t copyright the idea of a wizardry school for preteens. You can’t copyright a style. You can definitely trademark your own name.

Retric 3y ago
Edit: It was judged as copyright infringement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter A wizardry school for preteens isn’t on its own particularly unusual. But the question becomes how similar would the works be if the original was never published. You aren’t in the clear of a few paragraph book summery would apply equally well to both works. Barring the normal exceptions, Spaceballs is making reference to other works not just imitating them.
- williamcotton 3y ago
  That Russian book series is a direct knock-off. Even the font looks similar. It’s also not a copyright violation because the question of how similar it is to the idea of Harry Potter is irrelevant with regards to copyright. If it was too similar and it was actively confusing consumers then it would be an issue of trademark. By making the protagonist a girl without glasses it does enough to differentiate itself that no reasonable confusion would ensue. As long as the books don’t contain verbatim copies of text from Harry Potter they are non-infringing!
  - Retric 3y ago
    Except the book you’re referring to was infringing. “Despite its reputation in Russia and the many books it has spawned, the series is not available in English translation, because of the first book having been judged a breach of copyright.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter So, respectfully you are simply mistaken.
    - williamcotton 3y ago
      Doh, I picked one that flew too close to the sun! That doesn’t mean I am incorrect about style not being copyrightable.
      - Retric 3y ago
        Again depends on what is meant by style… Anyway, many Russian works would be considered copyright infringement in other countries. The country however has minimal interest in respecting foreign copyrights. So if that’s your benchmark I can see why you might assume more leeway than actually exists.
        williamcotton 3y ago
        I have two young children and while I was conversing with you I was cooking them dinner and getting them ready for bed. Otherwise I would have done the bare minimum of reading the Wikipedia entry on the book. All I did was Google for “Harry Potter knockoff”, saw that the book was on Amazon, and thought that was enough. Reading the Wikipedia article it is clear that this series took much more than just the idea of a wizardry school and copied verbatim plot elements. It was not the right example to use. Here’s what I mean by style. Reggae music. How different is one reggae song from another? What about when a reggae musician sells the rights to one song and then write another song in their own style? Are they infringing on the previous work they just sold to a music publisher? Here’s what happened when John Fogerty was sued for sounding like John Fogerty: https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/27501/time-john-fogerty-was-sued-ripping-john-fogerty https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/27501/time-john-fogerty-... This logic seemed pretty sound to the jury. It only took two hours of deliberation for the jury to determine that the two songs didn’t meet the legal standard of being “substantially similar” that would have constituted copyright infringement. The Fogerty camp let out a collective “huzzah!”
        Retric 3y ago
        Winning here doesn’t actually mean style across all art is safe just safe in that specific instance: The case was litigated rather than being thrown out because style is legally recognized as falling under copyright. “In 1993 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit shot down that appeal, though, on the same grounds—the original suit had been neither frivolous nor brought in bad faith.” The Supreme Court didn’t disagree, they ruled on a different matter.

Retric 3y ago

Edit: It was judged as copyright infringement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter A wizardry school for preteens isn’t on its own particularly unusual. But the question becomes how similar would the works be if the original was never published. You aren’t in the clear of a few paragraph book summery would apply equally well to both works. Barring the normal exceptions, Spaceballs is making reference to other works not just imitating them.

williamcotton 3y ago
That Russian book series is a direct knock-off. Even the font looks similar. It’s also not a copyright violation because the question of how similar it is to the idea of Harry Potter is irrelevant with regards to copyright. If it was too similar and it was actively confusing consumers then it would be an issue of trademark. By making the protagonist a girl without glasses it does enough to differentiate itself that no reasonable confusion would ensue. As long as the books don’t contain verbatim copies of text from Harry Potter they are non-infringing!
- Retric 3y ago
  Except the book you’re referring to was infringing. “Despite its reputation in Russia and the many books it has spawned, the series is not available in English translation, because of the first book having been judged a breach of copyright.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter So, respectfully you are simply mistaken.
  - williamcotton 3y ago
    Doh, I picked one that flew too close to the sun! That doesn’t mean I am incorrect about style not being copyrightable.
    - Retric 3y ago
      Again depends on what is meant by style… Anyway, many Russian works would be considered copyright infringement in other countries. The country however has minimal interest in respecting foreign copyrights. So if that’s your benchmark I can see why you might assume more leeway than actually exists.
      - williamcotton 3y ago
        I have two young children and while I was conversing with you I was cooking them dinner and getting them ready for bed. Otherwise I would have done the bare minimum of reading the Wikipedia entry on the book. All I did was Google for “Harry Potter knockoff”, saw that the book was on Amazon, and thought that was enough. Reading the Wikipedia article it is clear that this series took much more than just the idea of a wizardry school and copied verbatim plot elements. It was not the right example to use. Here’s what I mean by style. Reggae music. How different is one reggae song from another? What about when a reggae musician sells the rights to one song and then write another song in their own style? Are they infringing on the previous work they just sold to a music publisher? Here’s what happened when John Fogerty was sued for sounding like John Fogerty: https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/27501/time-john-fogerty-was-sued-ripping-john-fogerty https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/27501/time-john-fogerty-... This logic seemed pretty sound to the jury. It only took two hours of deliberation for the jury to determine that the two songs didn’t meet the legal standard of being “substantially similar” that would have constituted copyright infringement. The Fogerty camp let out a collective “huzzah!”
        Retric 3y ago
        Winning here doesn’t actually mean style across all art is safe just safe in that specific instance: The case was litigated rather than being thrown out because style is legally recognized as falling under copyright. “In 1993 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit shot down that appeal, though, on the same grounds—the original suit had been neither frivolous nor brought in bad faith.” The Supreme Court didn’t disagree, they ruled on a different matter.