How on earth the first film would not qualify as a transformative work? The hero was replaced by the mother. Cybil becomes a martyr. The witch Dahlia is split into i. the Cassandra, ii, the Religious Fanatic. Magic --> Power of Devil Alessa. Pagan cult replaced by generic Christian sect, with physical symbol changed etc. Not that any of those things are covered by copyright in the first place.JKristine35 wrote:The overriding theme / moral of the story in SH1 was a parent who would do anything for their child, which is the exact same overriding theme / moral of the story in the film. Both games and films feature an alternate reality that metaphorically represents purgatory / hell, both speak of the dangers of religious fanaticism, and both carry Christian symbolism. In both films and games, the world that most of the story takes place in is a manifestation of a particular person's emotions (Alessa, Heather), and so decides almost everything seen by the protagonist.
I spoke to my sister, who is a third year law student, about your claim that a copyright lawsuit would fail if the films changed the names of the characters. She says you have no idea what you're talking about, and that a copyright lawsuit on either film absolutely would be won. She even quoted the law in question, which boils down to whether a person of reasonable mind would be able to see a marked resemblance.
If your sister remains in good humor ask her to clarify if the reasonable person's viewpoint is a hurdle or the finish line? Let's assume that an RP is capable of seeing that the The Davinci Code obviously took the idea of Holy Grail = Mary Magdalene from some other books. That doesn't mean Brown infringed, he made a new piece of art from the existing art. The court would want to see that the movie copied parts of the game, not the idea of the story.
The plaintiff has to show an RP would see that copying before anyone examines whether or not the film was a transforative work [it is].