Hey, that's awesome. You asked me a question, I replied, and then I guess you decided that you asked a completely different question and gave me answers based on that instead. Now I look all kinds of stupid.
The examples you just listed are not what you were talking about in your original post. You asked if "someone put out something almost, kinda like what you did", and I said no because "almost, kinda like what I did" is probably not going to hold up well in court. If it
did then so many fantasy novels and games would be getting the hammer brought down on them for being derivatives of Tolkien's work, and
GW themselves would probably be included in that. Hell, if what you're saying is true then why isn't Christopher Paolini, the writer of Eragon, getting the gak sued out of him for basically re-writing Star Wars with a fantasy theme? Why doesn't the Tolkien estate sue Terry Brooks for The Sword of Shannara series?
Why? Because you can't sue the gak out of someone for publishing something
similar to an existing work, even though some people will criticize that work and call it derivative, it's generally accepted that budding writers will take inspiration from existing series. In some cases, like Eragon, they may even lift the entire plot from another source, but they've put enough of their own spin on it that it's technically something new and you can't really do much about it, even if it's obvious enough that you can say "Gee this kid sounds like Luke Skywalker...he finds some great power, gets found and pursued by an evil ruler, then joins up with rebels that aim to take him down."
Your example about the Big Mac is also hilarious, because
that very thing happens in the world of fast food all the time, and McDonald's is guilty of it themselves. Hardee's came up with the "thickburger" a while back, and a couple years after the fact Dairy Queen came up with their own "grillburgers" (they even have an equivalent of the mushroom and swiss burger that Hardee's makes), and now McDonald's is doing their own version of a premium burger made with "real angus beef!", and I'm sure one of them is also a mushroom and swiss. Hardee's came up with a chicken biscuit sandwich for breakfast, and not long after McDonald's has one permanently added to their menu (which has an odd pickle flavor to it that I don't like). Or at least I think they still have the breakfast sandwich, maybe they quit making it I dunno. Sonic also came up with the term "flurry" to describe a mixed ice cream treat before McDonald's introduced the "McFlurry"...I think Sonic eventually dropped the name themselves but they still offer blended slushies.
The
point is that fast food places copy each other all the time and I've never heard about a single lawsuit over any of it. Funnily enough you could make a sandwich that is exactly like the Big Mac, but if you don't call it a Big Mac then no one will really care. All you can do is copyright the name, I don't think you can claim ownership of "a sandwich with two patties, lettuce, cheese, and sauce on a sesame seed bun" like you seem to think. "OMG, Burger King sells BK Joe, that's copying McDonald's McCafe! No one can sell coffee but McDonald's! SUUUUUUUE!" :\
So you're saying that the Tolkien and Lovecraft estates had no confidence in their products when they sued TSR over the use of their copyrighted materials without permission? Or that Gary Gygax had no confidence in his product when it was parodied in one of those ridiculous Chick tracts?
Are you talking about the Deities and Demigods book, which had rules for creatures from the Cthulhu mythos in it? In that case I'd say yeah they were probably in the right, they were blatantly using copyrighted material without permission, like you said. But that's not the same as creating something that looks vaguely similar to the creatures from the Cthulhu mythos, giving them all different names and histories, and passing it off as either a parody of Lovecraft or something completely new.
The Chick tracts are something else, and I didn't know there was actually a lawsuit over that. First of all, I really don't think it was meant to be a parody because there was no joking or satire in the tracts that I could see, and Gygax probably could have made a case by calling it libel (wouldn't be surprised if that's what he did). Second, parodies are supposed to be protected under fair use laws here in the United States anyway, so you can't really sue for that. Although I'm sure the lawyers here on Dakka would know a lot more about that than I do.
Much like how one fast food chain can't claim to own the idea of a hamburger sandwich, I don't think you can happily sue anyone and everyone for making a generic fantasy novel that has elements of your fantasy novel, which most likely had elements of
other fantasy novels that came before, even if you don't realize it. Now if there's a Gandalf clone running around who is also called Gandalf then you might have a case.