Maria Cresielda S.

Ecalnea, 3S
FINAL PAPER

Battle Royale versus Hunger Games: Is there an infringement?

Introduction
According to Professor William Fisher of Harvard Law School,
Copyright provides an incentive for creative expression on a wide
array of political, social, and aesthetic issues, thus bolstering the
discursive foundations for democratic culture and civic association.
The second function is structural. Copyright supports a sector of
creative and communicative activity that is relatively free from
reliance on state subsidy, elite patronage, and cultural hierarchy.1
Also Justice read in his opinion in Mazer v. Stein said: "Sacrificial
days devoted to . . . creative activities deserve rewards
commensurate with the services rendered."2
This fundamental principle of Intellectual Property is the core of
every work. Imagine if the rights will not be protected or regulated?
Imagine if the protection of the rights will not be limited? It will hamper
and hinder our literary and technological development. Disney will not
be able to make different version and adaptation of Alice in
Wonderland. There will be a slower innovation of touch screen
gadgets. There will be a slower progress in our medical world. This is
all because the right of use will be constrained and exclusive to the
writer or the inventor.
Limitation of Intellectual Property.
However, not all intellectual works can be protected. In the
Philippines there are works under Section 175 of Intellectual Property
Code which are not protected such as idea, procedure, system,
method or operation, concept, principle, discovery or mere data as
1 http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/tfisher/iptheory.html
2 347 U.S. 201, 219 (1954). For a similar argument in the patent context, see
Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Manufacturing Co., 243 U.S. 502
(1917).

such, even if they are expressed, explained, illustrated or embodied

in a work; news of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the
character of mere items of press information; or any official text of a
legislative, administrative or legal nature, as well as any official
translation thereof. The list is almost the same limitations provided by
other states and international convention.3
Application of the IP Law:
Hunger Games and Battle Royale
I was in college then, and my classmate Raymond was so
furious about an alleged plagiarism. It was about Hunger Games
Trilogy authored by Suzzane Collins which was followed by the movie
adaptation of the books. The first book was released on 2008 and the
movie adaptation was released on 2012. And the striking similarity of
Hunger Games Trilogy to the novel Battle Royale penned by a
Japanese author Koushun Takami which was released on 1999 and
the movie adaptation was released on 2000. The controversy arose
from the similarity of the plot of the story. It is basically about the
government choosing from each places or districts representatives to
fight in a battle or program every year. He or she who stands alive in
the fight will be declared as the winner.
I was not in any way familiar with Battle Royale but upon
reading the synopsis of the book, I concluded that there was a
substantial similarity as to the plot of the story. But my knowledge
about the Intellectual Property, specifically about the Copyrights was
too general and yet limited then. One can easily conclude that
Hunger Games is nothing but a modernized plot of the Battle Royale.
Is there really an infringement?
No. There was no infringement because similarity as to the plot is not
protected by the Intellectual Property Law or Code but the expression
of the plot or the idea of the whole story.
First, why was there a similarity? Some may argue that it is
impossible for two persons to think of one and the same thing. As
3 Article 175, Republic Act No. 8293

explained by the Collins, she was not familiar with Battle Royale and
that her primary inspiration for the book was the Greek myth of
Theseus and the Minotaur. This fact should be related again to the
fundamental principle of IP law and the concept of public domain.
This Greek myth is already a part of public domain which is free to be
adapted, used, or even modified by any person or writer. Therefore,
inspirations which are already part of public domain is not an act of
infringement. Using an existing art for inspiration is not actionable
because there exist a presumption that such existing art was actually
taken from another pre-existing art.
Second, the essential requisites of infringement are not present
in the case. It is not the similarity of the idea of the plot which is
protected by copyright laws but the expression of these ideas. In
order to sustain a case of infringement, it is important that the
infringer copy either the whole work or scene-by-scene or words-bywords of the other. In this case, aside from the plot of the story,
everything is different. The artists and characters are different. The
setting of the scenes and installations are very different. Therefore, to
sustain the case of infringement in this particular case, there must be
at least a proof of plagiarism.
Conclusion
In analyzing this case and others of the same, there are two
essential queries that must be considered. One, there must be an act
of copying of the scene or the exact dialogues which is the
expression of the ideas of the author. Second, the importance of the
inspiration of the author. If the inspiration came from the public
domain and the work is actually derived from such, it will not be
subject to infringement.
In the end, it will all go back to the principle of IP Law the
importance of balancing the protection of the works and rights of the
authors as to encourage them to produce more and that of the benefit
of the public after the lapse of the protection when the works become
part of the public domain. After all, stories may be of the same ideas
and plot but there are countless unique ways to tell them.

Word Count: 990