I think there is a difference between copying and intertextuality. There is no such thing as entirely original, because everything is influenced by everything else, and the Charlie Chaplin that we think of as original has his roots in vaudeville and in Commedia Dell'Arte and so on and so forth. There is blatant plagiarism, done without thought, and only with the intention of cashing in on something successful and then there is taking something forward, or paying tribute to something. On most occasions, the Hindi film industry is blatantly plagiarist, and sometimes destroys the soul of what it copies by putting no thought into it. At other times, it is more innovative - taking something up but changing it, extending it, playing with it, and making something new and wonderful out of it. And that is what Barfi does, in my opinion. Of course, I am aware that this could be argued against - one's person's innovation is another person's ruination, that I am making this argument for Barfi and someone else may make it for Tezz (can't think of any other example at this point of time). I see that, and so will say this - I make this argument on a case by case basis, and in the case of Barfi I see intertextuality rather than plagiarism, creativity rather than mere copying. But it is an individual preference, an individual reading, and other individuals will have other readings and other preferences.
2