IAANAL, but I do deal with these topics from a technical point of view.
"look and feel" are generally a part of Trademark law, not Copyright law. More specifically, Trademark law deals with concept of "customer confusion".
Copyright deals generally with "expression", and generally does not cover what something looks like. So for example, it's possible to copyright the textual rules of a game, but it's not possible to copyright a particular style of game. Which is why it's generally legal to clone something.
It would not legal to do what the person has been been accused of here, which was to substantially copy the original code.
The reason why Trademark/Copyright generally get mixed up with regards to clones is because:
1.) It's actual copy of the original source code, and thus is a copyright violation
2.) It's a "from scratch" clone of the game elements, but mentions the original work in a way that doesn't make it clear to the consumer that it's not actually the original, which is a Trademark violation
3.) It's a "from scratch" clone of the game elements, and mentions specifically that it takes inspiration from the original, but makes it clear that it's not the original. But the original creator doesn't like it, and they are really mad that "anyone can steal my work", and the original creator bills it as a Copyright/Trademark infringement when it's really not.
Assuming the complaint is correct, this is obviously a case of #1. It's been ruled that a literal translation from one language to another is a "mechanical translation", and is not deserving of it's own copyright.
Obviously this is a very coarse overview of a very complicated framework, but should hopefully provide a little more insight in to what the actual law is.
"look and feel" are generally a part of Trademark law, not Copyright law. More specifically, Trademark law deals with concept of "customer confusion".
Copyright deals generally with "expression", and generally does not cover what something looks like. So for example, it's possible to copyright the textual rules of a game, but it's not possible to copyright a particular style of game. Which is why it's generally legal to clone something.
It would not legal to do what the person has been been accused of here, which was to substantially copy the original code.
The reason why Trademark/Copyright generally get mixed up with regards to clones is because:
1.) It's actual copy of the original source code, and thus is a copyright violation
2.) It's a "from scratch" clone of the game elements, but mentions the original work in a way that doesn't make it clear to the consumer that it's not actually the original, which is a Trademark violation
3.) It's a "from scratch" clone of the game elements, and mentions specifically that it takes inspiration from the original, but makes it clear that it's not the original. But the original creator doesn't like it, and they are really mad that "anyone can steal my work", and the original creator bills it as a Copyright/Trademark infringement when it's really not.
Assuming the complaint is correct, this is obviously a case of #1. It's been ruled that a literal translation from one language to another is a "mechanical translation", and is not deserving of it's own copyright.
Obviously this is a very coarse overview of a very complicated framework, but should hopefully provide a little more insight in to what the actual law is.