Obviously there are stories out there with similar themes, etc that don't copy each other, but where is the line? For example, let's take the famous example of Eragon. I've actually had people tell me that Eragon doesn't copy anything at all from another work, even though the internet is full of well documented examples. Personally, when I read the synopsis of a story (or the beginning of the story), and it reads almost exactly like that of another story...or that of another hundred stories....it triggers a red flag for me. The first thing to come to mind is "oh great another copy of X, Y and Z". Parodies are an obvious exception since you are parodying the original source material. I'm talking about non-parodies that simply change a few details here and there. For example, take Lord of the Rings. Instead of the MC being a hobbit, he's a human. Instead of being reluctant to go on the quest, he is enthusiastic about it. Instead of the macguffin being a ring, it's an amulet. After making a series of minor changes like this, it gets published and you get a copy of LOTR under another name. I've had people tell me that it's totally not a ripoff as long as you change a few details to be "different". So where do you think is the line that makes a story original enough to not be called a copy?
You've started two threads about authors "copying" other works and your single other post is on the same topic. Can you tell us what your real issue is? Do you think an author has plagiarised your work and been published? Have you written something that you're afraid is too close to another work? You'll get more relevant answers if you tell us the actual problem.
They are not the same topic. The other one is about how publishers work. There is no issue, this is for discussion purposes.
Tbh, that bold part doesn't sound like a minor change. That could entirely change the dynamic of the story. If you're going to equate any 'quest'-type story with being a LOTR rip-off, we may as well all just give up and take up flower-arranging instead, because all the stories have already been told.
Got to agree with the above, although I'm no fan of Eragon. Originality vs derivativeness is a matter of how an idea, or a collection of ideas, is executed on the whole: how the story and characters develop, how the style is constructed, how all the literary elements contribute to the theme, how it all comes together. I wouldn't call Eragon derivative because specific plot/character elements have been seen before. It's derivative because it's not well-written: it shallowly and ineptly rehashes the tropes which have been established by better writers. If it built on all the same tropes with better prose, better details of plot, more interesting details of world-building, better character psychology, actual thematic depth, etc., it might hold up in its own right, but as it is, it's just a confused imitation of a bunch of other, better stories. You can't judge originality by looking at how similar two things sound when you summarise them very briefly. That's entirely missing the point. If you don't want to be derivative, focus on learning to write well and exploring your ideas in depth. You won't ever be able to quantitatively determine your originality by seeking a certain number of points of difference. But understanding and appreciating the art of fiction will help you understand true originality qualitatively.
The flippant answer to this is "When the other other author sues you". More seriously though the line is pretty blurry when it comes to the 'copying' of another work outside of outright plagiarism or certain types of fan-fiction as at this point there are very few stories that haven't already been told in some form or another. I'd also be a little bit cautious about reading a synopsis and basing my conclusions on that alone. The synopsis is unlikely to convey the emotion, writing techniques or much in the way of characterisation and is likely to skip any clever use of wording entirely. I could waffle for a bit but I'll keep this short and just say that unless the work is pretty much just another work with the character names changed it is not entirely a copy.
I don't think it can be called a line. As mentioned by @truthbeckons, it's not as simple as quantitative points. Again, I agree with @truthbeckons in that Eragon is not the best example for this discussion because it's not a good example of anything other than what happens when you have all the props for a certain kind of story, but little or no reason behind telling the story. There are certain structural scaffoldings for stories that you are bound to see over and over again. Like the monomyth (aka, the hero's journey). The story of Jesus Christ (engaged solely as plot and character) is a monomythic story. So is the Arthurian saga. If you know both stories well, you will be able to draw many, many, many parallels between the two. This portion of your question speaks to intent, and clearly that's important in this discussion. The story of Christ, of King Arthur, and of both Bilbo and Frodo Baggins are clearly monomyth stories. But the monomyth underpinnings (or scaffolding) is only a framework upon which to create a story that can have any intent you wish to imbue upon it. The way you worded the above-quoted portion of the question makes it sound like it's being engaged with a willful intent to copy someone else's story and just tweak it (not you personally, but the question). This seems pretty fruitless to me. LotR is famously a story about the changing face of England to which Tolkien was witness in the late Edwardian period and on into the two World Wars. That's the deeper story beneath the events of Middle Earth. If I try to copy that story - the finished product - then my story would necessarily also reflect this fact. Just tweaking a few bits here and there would not be enough to erase the reason Tolkien wrote his story. But if I understand the structure of the monomyth, and use that as my starting point, you will be able to draw parallels between my story and another monomyth story, but the reason for telling my story will be my own. So, when you read a synopsis of a story and think to yourself "oh great another copy of X, Y and Z" are you talking about the underpinnings of the story? Because be that the case, then, as mentioned, get ready for the fact that a huge number of stories are scaffolded upon a small number of basic structures, and that Tolkien may seem seminal and foundational - and he is, as regards High Fantasy - but by no means did he invent the scaffold upon which he created his stories. That scaffold is ancient enough that some anthropologists theorize that it represents a retelling of a truly ancient Indo-European mythos that is now lost to us.
