5 ms·

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 t

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.
        williamcotton 3y ago
        Ok, so then back at you: That Ms. Rowling and her publisher won doesn’t mean that style is covered by copyright either. It could just mean they had a more expensive legal team. One of the key elements of copyright is this doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distin... An adventure novel provides an illustration of the concept. Copyright may subsist in the work as a whole, in the particular story or characters involved, or in any artwork contained in the book, but generally not in the idea or genre of the story. Also, let’s take a step back. What do you think is a fair outcome, that once John Fogerty sold the rights to one CCR song that he is no longer able to write music? Or that he needed to learn to write and play an entirely new genre? Does the first music publisher to buy a reggae song now own the rights to every single reggae song produced after? What are you arguing for?
        Retric 3y ago
        I am not arguing for anything, just describing the system as it exists. > Or that he needed to learn to write and play an entirely new genre? As the court case you mentioned shows genre isn’t specific enough to be problematic. I can’t draw a clear line in the sand and say this is safe because ultimately that’s up to the courts to determine in each instance. But, it is important to understand the general areas that are risky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharrell_Williams_v._Bridgeport_Music https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharrell_Williams_v._Bridgepor... Appellate Court Judge Jacqueline Nguyen wrote a dissenting opinion: “that the judgement allows for protection over musical style” That doesn’t mean “style” is enough to lose a copyright case, but shows such things are potentially problematic.

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.
      - williamcotton 3y ago
        Ok, so then back at you: That Ms. Rowling and her publisher won doesn’t mean that style is covered by copyright either. It could just mean they had a more expensive legal team. One of the key elements of copyright is this doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distin... An adventure novel provides an illustration of the concept. Copyright may subsist in the work as a whole, in the particular story or characters involved, or in any artwork contained in the book, but generally not in the idea or genre of the story. Also, let’s take a step back. What do you think is a fair outcome, that once John Fogerty sold the rights to one CCR song that he is no longer able to write music? Or that he needed to learn to write and play an entirely new genre? Does the first music publisher to buy a reggae song now own the rights to every single reggae song produced after? What are you arguing for?
        Retric 3y ago
        I am not arguing for anything, just describing the system as it exists. > Or that he needed to learn to write and play an entirely new genre? As the court case you mentioned shows genre isn’t specific enough to be problematic. I can’t draw a clear line in the sand and say this is safe because ultimately that’s up to the courts to determine in each instance. But, it is important to understand the general areas that are risky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharrell_Williams_v._Bridgeport_Music https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharrell_Williams_v._Bridgepor... Appellate Court Judge Jacqueline Nguyen wrote a dissenting opinion: “that the judgement allows for protection over musical style” That doesn’t mean “style” is enough to lose a copyright case, but shows such things are potentially problematic.