In Gane v The Walt Disney Company (Australia) Pty Ltd [2026] QDC 34, the District Court of Queensland applied the principles from IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited [2009] HCA 14 and Zeccola v Universal City Studios Inc [1982] FCA 271 to decide if Disney had infringed Ms Gane’s copyright in ‘The Michelangelo dilemma: secrets of Renaissance time travellers’ in releasing the film ‘Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny’.

Facts

In 2021, Ms Gane self-published the book ‘The Michelangelo dilemma: secrets of Renaissance time travellers’ via Amazon. The plot of this book concerns a mystery around a formula for time travel that was discovered by Leonardo Da Vinci and then placed in octagonal tiles in the vault of the Pantheon.

In 2023, Disney released ‘Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny’. This film concerned Indiana Jones’ adventure to find the Archimedes Dial before it can be used by the Nazi collaborator Dr Voller to travel back in time and change the outcome of the second world war.

Ms Gane commenced proceedings against Disney alleging that Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny infringed a substantial part of The Michelangelo dilemma: secrets of Renaissance time travellers.

Disney applied for summary judgment on the basis that Ms Gane had no real prospect of succeeding on this claim because there is no objective similarity between the e-book and the film.

Legal principles

The Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) protects the expression of an idea, but the not the idea itself.

An individual can infringe the copyright in a work by copying a substantial part of that work, which is assessed qualitatively and in consideration of the works as a whole. This requires a sufficient degree of objective similarity between the two works.

This assessment is further complicated in relation to copying between mediums, as it can be difficult to assess substantiality when the expression of the idea appears to be so unique. This assessment requires the court to consider plot structure and sequence, incidents or scenes, character information (such as distinctive traits or backstory), themes, and dialogue as the bare storyline is unlikely to attract copyright.

Outcome

The Court held that Indiana Jones was not objectively similar to the Michelangelo dilemma on the basis that:

• there was only an abstract level in the ideas being expressed;
• the method of time travel used in each work is different;
• the characters are different; and
• there is no shared dialogue.

This means that the film did not reproduce a substantial part of the expression of the novel and Ms Gane had no real prospect of succeeding in her claim.

Takeaways

Gane v Disney highlights the complexities of applying copyright across mediums and the need to take a wholistic qualitative approach to this analysis.

If you have concerns around copyright infringement, especially across mediums, then please do not hesitate to contact us for assistance.

HWLE Lawyers’ IP and IT team has extensive experience in advising businesses regarding copyright infringement, contract and common law. If you are concerned about copyright infringement, please contact us for further information on how we can assist you.

This article was written by Luke Dale, Partner, and Max Soulsby, Associate.