A Brisbane author has lost her appeal against Disney\u2019s local arm over claims her self-published e-book heavily inspired the final instalment of the Indiana Jones film series.<\/p>\n
Brisbane author Daria Gomez Gane argued in Queensland\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
Ms Gane sued the entertainment conglomerate in 2024 over an alleged copyright infringement.<\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
\u201cNo one owns the copyright in a basic story idea. The question is whether the themes and plots necessarily follow?\u201d Judge Grigg said.<\/p>\n
\u201cHere, the details in the e-book are limited compared to the richness of the film\u2019s content. The<\/p>\n
simple identification of a male protagonist, a time-travel device or both is not sufficient to attract copyright protection. <\/p>\n
\u201cEven relying on a combination of features or elements does not necessarily elevate what is a commonplace or abstract idea into protectable copyright subject matter. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u201cThere are certainly some similarities in ideas but only at an abstract level.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe devices are different, the method of time travel is different, the characters are different, and there is no shared dialogue.\u201d<\/p>\n
At her appeal, Ms Gane argued Judge Grigg had been \u201cfed incorrect information\u201d and could not properly interrogate each work for similarities.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s use of the word \u201cpropeller\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt 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,\u201d Justice Thomas Bradley said.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is unusual\u201d Ms Gane replied.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think it is also ridiculous to say it\u2019s unusual, but that is a statement of opinion,\u201d he retorted.<\/p>\n
Ms Gane clarified she was not claiming \u201coriginality\u201d but rather \u201csimilarity\u201d between the two works. <\/p>\n
Disney\u2019s barrister Chris Curtis argued there was a focus on \u201ctrivial matters\u201d in Ms Gane\u2019s appeal that ignored significant differences between the works that proved their relative uniqueness. <\/p>\n
He claimed there was no resemblance between the e-book and the film bar simple plot ideas identified in the original ruling. <\/p>\n
The Court of Appeal panel agreed, maintaining the District Court judgment.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe film does not reproduce any particular form of original expression,\u201d Justice Bradley said.<\/p>\n
\u201cMost of the appellant\u2019s examples were pedantic criticisms, not legal errors.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ms Gane was ordered to pay standard costs to Disney over the failed appeal. <\/p>\n
The court also heard the matter would be Justice Bradley\u2019s last appearance on a judge\u2019s panel before he retired to take up the role of Queensland\u2019s governor. <\/p>\n
Ms Gane\u2019s $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. <\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
The film grossed $US384m ($A542m) at the box office worldwide.<\/p>\n