Who Owns Myth? Moana, Copyright Law, and the Ethics of Cultural Storytelling

[1] 

When Disney released Moana in 2016, the film was widely praised for its vibrant animation, infectious music, and celebration of Polynesian heritage.[2] However, beneath its commercial and critical success, Moana stirred debate about the boundaries of cultural appreciation, particularly when myth and folklore become the building blocks of mainstream entertainment.[3] This tension came to the forefront in a lawsuit filed by writer Buck Woodall, who alleged that Disney’s story in Moana mirrored his own unpublished manuscript for Bucky the Surfer Boy.[4] This case raised a deeper question that continues to challenge creators and courts alike: Where should we draw the line between creative inspiration and unlawful appropriation?[5]

Two Stories, One Ocean of Influence: Woodall v. Walt Disney Co.

The manuscript for Bucky the Surfer Boy featured a modern-day teenager who time-travels back to ancient Polynesia.[6] Woodall alleged that in 2004 he shared his story outline and illustrations with Jenny Marchick, an assistant at Mandeville Films on the Disney lot, and that the material eventually made its way to Disney Television.[7] When Moana premiered, Woodall noticed similarities and filed suit in 2020, four years after the film’s original release.[8]  However, the court dismissed most of his claims under the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations.[9] 

Undeterred, Woodall attempted to revive his claim in January 2025 following the release of Moana 2 in November 2024, arguing the sequel constituted a new act of infringement.[10] Because the jury found that Disney had not accessed Woodall’s work, the court never analyzed whether the two stories were substantially similar, a required element for proving infringement.[11] To prove access, the plaintiff would have to show a reasonable possibility that the defendant had a chance to view the work.[12] The only alleged link between the two parties was through a third-party associate who had access to Woodall’s manuscript, which courts have found is not sufficient to show reasonable possibility of access according to the Ninth Circuit.[13]

Even had Woodall overcome this evidentiary hurdle, the substantive legal standards posed additional challenges because courts have long held that copyright does not protect general themes, mythological stories, and folklore-based characters.[14] Copyright does not extend to ideas, systems, or concepts, only their specific expression in a fixed medium; therefore, the use of Polynesian folkloric ideas, such as ancestral spirits taking animal forms or magical sea journeys, falls outside the scope of copyright protection.[15] Even when characters share traits, such as a demigod’s tattoos and giant fishhook, those elements may be considered a reinterpretation of unprotectable stock characters.[16]

Law vs. Legacy: What Copyright Cannot (or Will Not) Protect

The limitations of copyright law become even more apparent when considering derivative works because derivative works are only protected when the original work is protectable in and of itself.[17] Further, a derivative work cannot secure rights for material already in the public domain.[18] This legal framework presents a recurring challenge for creators like Woodall, whose inspiration derives from cultural stories often shared collectively across generations, and therefore not subject to copyright protection.[19]

Courts apply two doctrines to limit copyright protection: the idea-expression dichotomy and the scènes à faire doctrine.[20] In both Moana and Bucky the Surfer Boy, copyright protection for elements like magical sea voyages, spirit animals, or demigods would likely be limited by the scènes à faire doctrine and only Woodall’s unique expression of these ideas and elements would be protected by copyright law.[21] Yet legality is not the only measure of legitimacy because even if folklore-based elements are unprotected under copyright law, their use without cultural context or consent can still feel exploitative.[22] Folklore is more than raw material for creative adaptation, as it reflects the values, beliefs, and identities of the communities that preserve it and constitutes a form of cultural inheritance rather than mere ideas to be borrowed.[23]

Beyond the Law: Moving Towards Ethical and Culturally Conscious Storytelling

Disney’s own approach to cultural storytelling in Moana illustrates the broader tension between respectful inspiration and commodification because while the film celebrates Polynesian heritage, it also packages that heritage for global consumption, raising important questions about authorship, authority, and profit.[24] In the Moana series, the fictional island of Motunui is a composite of many Polynesian traditions.[25] The film draws loosely from Māori legends of the demigod Māui, who, in traditional stories, slows the sun and pulls islands from the sea with a fishhook.[26] 

To ensure its portrayal of Polynesian culture was accurate, in 2011 Disney formed the “Oceanic Story Trust,” a group of anthropologists, linguists, choreographers, and cultural practitioners across Polynesia.[27] Their feedback prompted meaningful changes, such as removing Papua New Guinean face paint from voyagers, revising lyrics about coconuts, and giving Māui a full head of hair to reflect the cultural belief that hair carries spiritual power, yet these revisions raise their own ethical questions.[28] It remains unclear whether the Oceanic Story Trust was compensated or granted meaningful creative authority, reminding us that consultation alone does not guarantee equity, and that ethical storytelling requires more than surface-level inclusion.[29] 

While Woodall’s lawsuit ultimately failed on procedural and evidentiary grounds, it highlights a deeper and more pressing issue: How do we honor and engage with cultural narratives, especially those rooted in living traditions, without exploiting them?[30] As creators continue to draw from the world’s shared stories, the question is no longer just what the law permits, but what ethics and equity require.[31] Respecting these narratives means going beyond avoiding legal liability; it means engaging in meaningful collaboration, ensuring fair compensation, and acknowledging that some stories carry cultural significance that cannot and should not be commodified.

References

[1] Photo by Luke McKeown on Unsplash, https://unsplash.com/photos/people-swimming-near-shore-with-waves-during-daytime-nlyWZtWTzCo.

[2]See Moana, Rotten Tomatoes, https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/moana_2016 (last visited Aug. 20, 2025).

[3] See Betsy Reed, Moana: progressive paean to Polynesia – or another of Disney’s cultural blunders?, The Guardian, (Sept. 26, 2016), https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2016/sep/26/moana-polynesia-disney-cultural-blunders (describing the divergence between Polynesian myths and Moana); see also Winston Cho, Disney Wins Copyright Infringement Trial Over ‘Moana’, Hollywood Reporter, (Mar. 10, 2025) https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/disney-wins-copyright-infringement-trial-moana-1236160630/. 

[4] See Woodall v. Walt Disney Co., No. CV 20-3772-CBM(Ex), 2024 WL 5329913, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2024) (explaining how Woodall filed suit against Walt Disney Company, asserting claim for copyright infringement).

[5] See Rae Marie Manar, Copyright Infringement vs Inspiration: Where to Draw the Line?, Copyrighted, (Apr. 3, 2025), https://www.copyrighted.com/blog/copyright-infringement-vs-inspiration (outlining scope of copyright protection and what rights are  protected).

[6] See Blake Brittain, Disney wins US copyright trial over animated hit ‘Moana’, Reuters, (March 10, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/disney-wins-us-copyright-trial-over-animated-hit-moana-2025-03-10/.

[7] See Woodall, 2024 WL 5329913 at *9; see also Brittain, supra note 6; see also Edvard Pettersson, ‘Bucky’ creator testifies about his shock in seeing Disney’s ‘Moana’ in theater, Courthouse News Service (Feb. 27, 2025), https://www.courthousenews.com/bucky-creator-testifies-about-his-shock-seeing-disneys-moana-in-theater/ (explaining timeline of events).

[8] See Woodall, 2024 WL 5329913 at *9.

[9] See id. at 15; see also 17 U.S.C. § 507(b) (2024). The only surviving claim was the one against Buena Vista Entertainment, an entity of the Walt Disney Company, which the verdict came out in March 2025 for Buena Vista Entertainment.

[10]See Cho, supra note 3.

[11] See Andrew Dalton, Disney didn’t copy ‘Moana’ from a man’s story of a surfer boy, a jury says, Associated Press, (Mar. 10, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/moana-lawsuit-trial-disney-04e73ba5fbe788ffabf2b4b8fa32d276 (explaining how jury of eight people did not find there was access of work and did not turn to question of whether there was substantial similarity).

[12] See Woodall, 2024 WL 5329913 at *4, (quoting Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc., 883 F.3d 1111, 1116–17 (9th Cir. 2018) (“When the plaintiff lacks direct evidence of copying, he can attempt to prove it circumstantially by showing that the defendant had access to the plaintiff's work and that the two works share similarities probative of copying.”)).

[13] See Woodall, 2024 WL 5329913 at *9-10.

[14] See DiTocco v. Riordan, 815 F. Supp. 2d 655, 673 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (holding “Percy Jackson” books not substantially similar to “The Hero Perseus” and “Atlas’ Revenge” despite both pulling themes and characters from Greek mythology).

[15] See Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 355; see also 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) (describing how ideas are not subject to copyright).

[16] See Disney Enters. v. Sarelli, 322 F. Supp. 3d 413, 442-43 (S.D.N.Y.  2018); see also Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119, 122-23 (2d Cir. 1930) (holding that copyright protection does not extend to stock characters).

[17] See 17 U.S.C. § 101 (“A ‘derivative work’ is a work based upon one or more preexisting works”); see also 17 U.S.C. § 103(a) (extending copyright protection to derivative works); see also Unicolors, Inc. v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 853 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding copyright protection for derivative works only extended to original material contributed by author, limiting scope of protection).

[18] See 17 U.S.C. § 103(a).

[19]See World Intellectual Property Organization, Consolidated Analysis of the Legal Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions, WIPO Pub. No. 913 (2017) https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/tk/913/wipo_pub_913.pdf.

[20] See Feist, 499 U.S. at 355 (outlining principle of Idea expression dichotomy, which excludes general ideas while protecting manner in which those ideas are expressed); see also Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44, 50 (2d. Cir.1986) (explaining scènes à fair doctrine excludes protection for stock elements that naturally flow from genre or cultural tradition).

[21] See Walker 784 F.2d at 50.

[22] See World Intellectual Property Organization, supra note 19 at 15.

[23] See id.

[24] See Tina Grandinetti, Moana might be great for representation but it’s not all heartwarming for Hawaii, The Guardian (Jan 12, 2017) https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/jan/13/moana-might-be-great-for-representation-but-its-not-all-heartwarming-for-hawaii.

[25] See Livia Gershon, Origin Myths Behind Disney’s Moana, JSTOR Daily (Apr. 15, 2025), https://daily.jstor.org/origin-myths-behind-disneys-moana/.

[26] See id.

[27] See Brian Handwerk, How the Story of Moana and Maui Holds Up Against Cultural Truths, Smithsonian Magazine (Dec. 2, 2016), https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/how-story-moana-and-maui-holds-against-cultural-truths-180961258/. 

[28] See Joanna Robinson, Disney Formed an “Oceanic Trust” to Ensure Moana’s Cultural Authenticity—but Polynesian Critics Remain Skeptical, Vanity Fair (Nov. 16, 2016), http://vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/11/moana-oceanic-trust-disney-controversy-pacific-islanders-polynesia?srsltid=AfmBOopo8m6alai5WbEiuv24FHzwO_FhAN3SakHBDpRZ91CXGvqzkXY9. 

[29] See id.

[30] See World Intellectual Property Organization, supra note 19  at 15. 

[31] See id.