![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On Goodreads, there is a review of Bear, Otter, and the Kid by TJ Klune that claims that the plot seems to be lifted from an indie film called Shelter. Both in the review itself and in the (long) comment section, there are scene-by-scene breakdowns showing plot similarities between the book and movie.
I've neither read BOTK nor seen Shelter; however, the fact that someone can go through and make such a detailed comparison does scream "probably plagiarism" to me, whether it was intentional plagiarism or not.
What I wanted to talk about, though, was the claim in the comments by defenders of Klune/BOTK that because the director/writer of Shelter never brought a lawsuit, that means he found that there were enough differences to mean there was no plagiarism.
*puts law student cap on*
The answer to that is: Maybe, maybe not.
The thing is, most copyright owners don't actually enforce their copyrights as much as they are technically entitled to under the law. That's because, legally speaking, copyright violations happen all the time, and if copyright owners did bring lawsuits every time their copyright was violated, we'd be in a constant state of suing each other for copyright violations.
It could be that the director/writer of Shelter thought BOTK was different enough. Or, it could be that he decided it wasn't a case worth litigating. After all, litigation is quite expensive; he might have seen that BOTK is published by a non-traditional publisher (Dreamspinner) and decided that it wasn't worth the effort/potential money damages from winning a lawsuit.
Just as an example of how lawsuits for copyright violations are not instantaneous in practice: There's a current lawsuit pending by Sherrilyn Kenyon against Cassandra Clare for copying symbols, terms, and plot points from Kenyon's Dark Hunters series into Clare's Shadowhunters series, to the extent that there was significant confusion among publishers between the two series when the Shadowhunter books were first published. Now, the Shadowhunters series has been going on for quite a number of years; it's on its third or fourth trilogy within the universe, it's already had a movie made, and there's the ongoing TV show. Why is Kenyon only suing Clare now? Well, the answer is probably that she has enough financial incentive for potential money damages at this point (although I'd have to reread her complaint to remember what relief she's asking for).
(I don't have any judgment as to whether Kenyon's complaint of a copyright violation has any merit, by the way. Of course, there is the fact that Clare had a history of plagiarism when writing fanfiction, and I'm bothered by the fact that in Lady Midnight, she copied a quote from Jane Eyre without referencing that book at all.)
So the moral of the story is: just because there's no lawsuit doesn't mean there's no plagiarism.
And, as a writer, of course I'm bothered by plagiarism. Both from the ethical standpoint (stealing and profiting from another writer's hard work), but also just from a craft standpoint: plagiarism is lazy. Obviously nothing is truly original in fiction, and books are inspired by each other all the time, but there is a difference between that and plagiarism. (PS: It's my understanding that BOTK has sold very well for Dreamspinner, which makes the claims of plagiarism even more troubling to me.)
I've neither read BOTK nor seen Shelter; however, the fact that someone can go through and make such a detailed comparison does scream "probably plagiarism" to me, whether it was intentional plagiarism or not.
What I wanted to talk about, though, was the claim in the comments by defenders of Klune/BOTK that because the director/writer of Shelter never brought a lawsuit, that means he found that there were enough differences to mean there was no plagiarism.
*puts law student cap on*
The answer to that is: Maybe, maybe not.
The thing is, most copyright owners don't actually enforce their copyrights as much as they are technically entitled to under the law. That's because, legally speaking, copyright violations happen all the time, and if copyright owners did bring lawsuits every time their copyright was violated, we'd be in a constant state of suing each other for copyright violations.
It could be that the director/writer of Shelter thought BOTK was different enough. Or, it could be that he decided it wasn't a case worth litigating. After all, litigation is quite expensive; he might have seen that BOTK is published by a non-traditional publisher (Dreamspinner) and decided that it wasn't worth the effort/potential money damages from winning a lawsuit.
Just as an example of how lawsuits for copyright violations are not instantaneous in practice: There's a current lawsuit pending by Sherrilyn Kenyon against Cassandra Clare for copying symbols, terms, and plot points from Kenyon's Dark Hunters series into Clare's Shadowhunters series, to the extent that there was significant confusion among publishers between the two series when the Shadowhunter books were first published. Now, the Shadowhunters series has been going on for quite a number of years; it's on its third or fourth trilogy within the universe, it's already had a movie made, and there's the ongoing TV show. Why is Kenyon only suing Clare now? Well, the answer is probably that she has enough financial incentive for potential money damages at this point (although I'd have to reread her complaint to remember what relief she's asking for).
(I don't have any judgment as to whether Kenyon's complaint of a copyright violation has any merit, by the way. Of course, there is the fact that Clare had a history of plagiarism when writing fanfiction, and I'm bothered by the fact that in Lady Midnight, she copied a quote from Jane Eyre without referencing that book at all.)
So the moral of the story is: just because there's no lawsuit doesn't mean there's no plagiarism.
And, as a writer, of course I'm bothered by plagiarism. Both from the ethical standpoint (stealing and profiting from another writer's hard work), but also just from a craft standpoint: plagiarism is lazy. Obviously nothing is truly original in fiction, and books are inspired by each other all the time, but there is a difference between that and plagiarism. (PS: It's my understanding that BOTK has sold very well for Dreamspinner, which makes the claims of plagiarism even more troubling to me.)
