A Romantasy Legal Battle Reaches Its Final Chapter

A federal court in New York dismissed a copyright infringement suit alleging that bestselling author Tracy Wolff copied unpublished romance-fantasy drafts to create the “Crave” series. Writer Lynne Freeman claimed that Wolff and related publishers misappropriated her manuscripts, pointing to similarities in characters, settings, and romantic plotlines within the young adult “romantasy” genre.

After reviewing more than 6,000 pages of both works, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding no substantial similarity as a matter of law. The court emphasized that the similarities identified by Freeman largely reflected unprotectable ideas and standard genre elements rather than protected expression. The court stressed the core copyright distinction between ideas and expression, noting that shared premises—such as a teenager dealing with parental loss, discovering supernatural powers, and entering a romantic relationship—are not protectable. As Judge McMahon explained, “both plaintiff’s and defendants’ works share an overarching premise… but that similarity is not protectable.”

The court also held that many of the alleged similarities were scènes à faire—elements that naturally flow from the young adult fantasy genre. It rejected Freeman’s reliance on common romantasy tropes, including supernatural love interests and “dangerous” male leads, noting that “hot, sexy, dangerous boys—central to virtually all young adult romance novels—cannot be copyrighted.” In comparing characters and plotlines, the court found material differences that further defeated any inference of copying. While both works featured supernatural male love interests, the court noted differences in species, characterization, and narrative role. More broadly, it found that similarities such as enhanced abilities or romantic appeal were generic features of the genre rather than protectable expression. For example, the court rejected Freeman’s claim that her character Dante, a gray-eyed wolf trapped in an alternate dimension, was similar to Alistair in the “Crave” series, noting that Alistair is depicted as a gargoyle-like creature in some forms and a human in others. The court found these differences in form and characterization made any overlap too generic and unprotectable.

The court also rejected arguments based on thematic overlap, including feminism and diversity, finding them too abstract to support infringement. It concluded that Freeman’s claims improperly attempted to monopolize broad storytelling concepts and genre conventions rather than specific expression. Ultimately, the court held that “no reasonable factfinder could conclude that their plots are substantially similar,” and granted summary judgment for the defendants.

Author’s Note: We disagree with this decision. Deconstructing the works into separate elements and then analyzing each similarity individually is like shooting fish in a barrel when it comes to ruling against creator-plaintiffs. The not for profit that I chair, the National Society of Entertainment and Arts Lawyers (“NSEAL”), has already filed an amicus brief in connection with this case.