A Brisbane author has lost her appeal against Disney’s local arm over claims her self-published e-book heavily inspired the final instalment of the Indiana Jones film series.
Brisbane author Daria Gomez Gane argued in Queensland’s Court of Appeal on Thursday that a District Court judge erred when they found in favour of The Walt Disney Company (Australia) Pty Ltd last year.
Ms Gane sued the entertainment conglomerate in 2024 over an alleged copyright infringement.
The self-published author claimed the 2023 film Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny reproduced a substantial part of her 2021 e-book The Michelangelo Dilemma: Secrets of Renaissance Time Travelers.
In 2025, Brisbane District Court Judge Dominique Grigg threw out the case before it went to trial, finding no prospect of success for Ms Gane.
“No one owns the copyright in a basic story idea. The question is whether the themes and plots necessarily follow?” Judge Grigg said.
“Here, the details in the e-book are limited compared to the richness of the film’s content. The
simple identification of a male protagonist, a time-travel device or both is not sufficient to attract copyright protection.
“Even relying on a combination of features or elements does not necessarily elevate what is a commonplace or abstract idea into protectable copyright subject matter.
“There are certainly some similarities in ideas but only at an abstract level.
“The devices are different, the method of time travel is different, the characters are different, and there is no shared dialogue.”
At her appeal, Ms Gane argued Judge Grigg had been “fed incorrect information” and could not properly interrogate each work for similarities.
She drew attention to perceived inconsistencies in the judgment, including the amount of time travellers identified in her e-book, the setting location in both works and certain similar wording such as Walt Disney Company’s use of the word “propeller”.
“It is a ridiculous suggestion as a matter of law to say that the use of the word propeller or propel is an original literary word,” Justice Thomas Bradley said.
“It is unusual” Ms Gane replied.
“I think it is also ridiculous to say it’s unusual, but that is a statement of opinion,” he retorted.
Ms Gane clarified she was not claiming “originality” but rather “similarity” between the two works.
Disney’s barrister Chris Curtis argued there was a focus on “trivial matters” in Ms Gane’s appeal that ignored significant differences between the works that proved their relative uniqueness.
He claimed there was no resemblance between the e-book and the film bar simple plot ideas identified in the original ruling.
The Court of Appeal panel agreed, maintaining the District Court judgment.
“The film does not reproduce any particular form of original expression,” Justice Bradley said.
“Most of the appellant’s examples were pedantic criticisms, not legal errors.”
Ms Gane was ordered to pay standard costs to Disney over the failed appeal.
The court also heard the matter would be Justice Bradley’s last appearance on a judge’s panel before he retired to take up the role of Queensland’s governor.
Ms Gane’s $9, 4000-word novella follows a university student and her lover as they uncover time-travelling secrets previously hidden by historical figures such as Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo.
The Hollywood production centres around titular character Indiana Jones and his niece, played by Phoebe Waller-Bridge, as they race against time to find a time-travelling device called Archimedes Dial before it lands in the wrong hands.
The film grossed $US384m ($A542m) at the box office worldwide.
Read related topics:Brisbane