I think that the similarities might be a form of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. That is, there are many millions of creative works in existence throughout all time. With that many, you are bound to find multiple examples of pairs of works that have similarities, even if the creators were unaware of each others' works.

Non-creative works of the same fallacy include the Lincoln/Kennedy comparison, the one book (can't remember the name) that seemed to predict the sinking of the Titanic decades earlier, and the various Nostradamus "predictions". Also see the Birthday Paradox.

> That is, there are many millions of creative works in existence throughout all time.

Yes, but creators will typically only be aware of a few thousand. And the Disney staff had indeed watched the original.

The drawing of Simba honestly looked nicer to me but there is really no confusion that they copied a lot. And imitation and flattery excuse might have worked until you sue to stop the original show from begin shown ... then you are no longer even a thief but a robber beating up the owner.

I got the legal thing from the article so not sure if its accurate or not. And also if you don't let other do the same with your work then your own excuse don't hold anyway.

Well, I assume it was far higher budget; it had better look nicer.

It wouldn't be so bad if Disney weren't so heavy handed in protecting their intellectual property nor so keen to lobby for the constant extension of copyright law.

But the real kicker is that Disney made their fortune from leeching stories from the public domain: The Little Mermaid, Sleeping Beauty, Jungle Book, etc.

Which I guess answers the question about whether you can have your cake and eat it. In Disney's case, you can.

> Imitation is the sincerest form of copyright infringement after all.

FTFY. Also http://artlawjournal.com/mickey-mouse-keeps-changing-copyrig...