How close to, or how far from, copyright violation is the movie "Gattaca"?

Question

In 1942 a novel appeared: Beyond This Horizon by Robert Heinlein.

• The setting is a future time when it has become standard that people's genes are chosen from among their parents' genes by doctors, who try to pick the best among those available, but are forbidden to add any new genes not present in the parents.

• Those whose genes are chosen the old-fashioned way are looked down upon as inferior people.

In 1997 the movie Gattaca appeared.

• The setting is a future time when it has become standard that people's genes are chosen from among their parents' genes by doctors, who try to pick the best among those available, but are forbidden to add any new genes not present in the parents.

• Those whose genes are chosen the old-fashioned way are looked down upon as inferior people.

In 1953 the novel Starman Jones, also by Robert Heinlein, appeared.

• The protagonist falsifies his identity and work record to get a position in the crew of a spacecraft.

• The protagonist has memorized a book on navigation in space.

In Gattaca,

• The protagonist falsifies his identity and work record to get a position in the crew of a spacecraft.

• The protagonist has memorized a book on navigation in space.

But the story in Gattaca is quite different from those in either of the two Heinlein novels. In Gattaca, the spacecraft is on a bold mission of exploration; in Starman Jones it is a luxury liner that makes routine voyages carrying passengers and freight.

In Gattaca the protagonist is one of those whose genes were chosen the old-fashioned way; in Beyond This Horizon he is is one whom the government wants to have many children to continue their eugenics program because he is considered of superior stock. He wishes not to have children because he thinks most humans are naturally unhappy and he would only be sentencing his descendants to unhappy lives. And some of his coevals are so unhappy despite their affluent lifestyle that they want to overthrow the fairly liberal government and replace it with a dictatorship.

Heinlein is not acknowledged in the movie credits.

How much do they need to lift from already published fiction before it becomes a derivative work with obligations to the owner of the copyright on the earlier work?

Answer 1

Under U.S. law (17 U.S. Code § 101 )

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work.”

But probably, focusing on this definition doesn't get to the heart of the question you seem to be asking. A more important matter becomes what protections does a copyright exclude? This is covered in § 102 (b), which says:

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

The similarities you describe seem to be more ideas and concepts rather than Heinlein's expression of those ideas. I have looked no closer than the description used in the question, but the movie seems unlikely to have violated a protected right. Others might disagree.

Answer 2

I have read the Heinlein books you cite many times, and seen the movie Gattaca once. I do not think Gattaca is a derivative work of either or both novels. The concept of faking an identity in order to get a desired job is a very common trope, both in SF and in general literature. The kind of faking done in the movie is not very similar to the deception in Starman Jones. The overt, pervasive, legal discrimination in the movie is quite unlike the situation in Beyond This Horizon. In the novel, "Control Naturals" (people born without artificial genetic selection) receive a government subsidy, but no one knows who they are unless they choose to make this public. They lack the ability for some jobs (or some of them do), but are perfectly able to do many professional jobs, and one is shown as running his own business. They are not at all limited to menial jobs.

Only the (rather cardboard) villains of the novel plan to discriminate against the control naturals, and they are defeated before they can put these plans into effect. (An insider reveals that they actually plan to wipe out the "naturals".)

Also the major themes of the Social Credit economic system, and the investigation into life after death and reincarnation in BTH are not at all present in the movie.

The question asks:

How much do they need to lift from already published fiction before it becomes a derivative work with obligations to the owner of the copyright on the earlier work?

There is no clear bright line on this. But in general copyright does not protect ideas or broad themes. A classic plot such as "boy meets girl" or "monster threatens city" is not enough to make the later work derivative of the earlier one. There must be detailed point-by-point similarities of elements of plot or character for one work to be derivative of another.

For example, the early classic SF movie Forbidden Planet has some similarities of concept and tone with the "original" version of the TV series Star Trek. Indeed FP could probably have been rewritten as an episode of ST without drastic changes. But this was not sufficient to make ST a derivative work.

It might be a good rule of thumb to say that if all the similarities can be described in a one-page plot summery, they are not enough to make the later work derivative. A better test is that the existence of detailed, point-by-point similarities will often lead to a conclusion that the later work is derivative.

Answer 3

The example that comes readily to mind of "plot similarity as copyright infringement" is "Fistful of Dollars" being an old-west copy of Kurosawa's "Yojimbo" samurai movie. Reportedly settled for 15%.

But that wasn't a couple of ideas, that approached a scene-by-scene remake.

Legal merits aren't the only possible reasons to settle. Negative publicity and respect for Kurosawa could've played a part.

Also, this was Italians making a movie in Spain that made most of its money in America being sued by a Japanese guy in the mid-60's--the logistics alone are a compelling reason to settle.