Source: http://patentarcade.com/tag/copyright
Timestamp: 2020-04-05 07:09:43
Document Index: 54927526

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 117', '§ 117', '§ 117', '§ 117', '§ 117', '§ 117', '§ 117', '§ 106', '§ 411', '§ 411', '§ 1051', '§ 1127', '§ 411', '§ 411', '§ 408', '§ 408', '§ 450']

Copyright – Patent Arcade
Pac-Man Owners Caught in Retro Game IP Maze
Bandai Namco Entertainment America Inc. v. AtGames Holdings Ltd. et. al.
Case No. 5:19-cv-05898
Filed September 20, 2019
Bandai Namco, the company that owns the Pac-Man video game franchise, is suing retro game maker AtGames over its iterations of Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man. AtGames, which revamps old classic video games and consoles, was provided a license by Bandai Namco to create a version of Pac-Man. Bandai Namco is asserting claims of copyright and trademark infringement against AtGames.
According to Bandai Namco’s suit, AtGames developed a version of Pac-Man that was never accepted by Bandai Namco and which “substantially deviated” from what it had shown Bandai Namco as part of license negotiations. An initial version of AtGames’ Pac-Man concept received positive reviews from Bandai Namco, but a later version developed received negative reviews from Bandai and was not approved. The later-developed version of Pac-Man may have been developed without authorization from Bandai Namco.
Bandai Namco alleges that AtGames’ version of Pac-Man, which prominently features Bandai Namco’s company name, brands, and other licensed intellectual property, harms Bandai Namco’s image. Bandai Namco further alleges AtGames’ version of Pac-Man will create negative responses from consumers and will cause irreparable harm to Bandai’s reputation and goodwill.
Bandai has asked for an injuction barring AtGames from making or selling the Ms. Pac-Man game, and also damages and profits from the allegedly infringing Pac-Man game. Bandai’s request for an injunction appears to be related to AtGames’ alleged representation to retailers such as Walmart and Gamestop that it has a license for Pac-Man.
We will continue to update this case as new information comes to light.
No Fun and Games: Blizzard Alleges Infringement by JoyFun Inc.
Blizzard Entertainment Inc. v. JoyFun Inc. Co.
Case No. 8:19-cv-01582
Filed August 16, 2019
A new lawsuit filed by video game developer Blizzard Entertainment Inc. (“Blizzard”) alleges that Sina Corp, a subsidiary of JoyFun Inc., has infringed Blizzard’s copyright on the wildly popular “Warcraft” series, which includes games such as World of Warcraft. Blizzard says Sina Corp’s game Glorious Saga has been nearly entirely copied from Blizzard’s Warcraft games and related products. In particular, Blizzard alleges that the game infringes its copyright of Warcraft by appropriating:
Visual depictions of Blizzard’s characters, races, creatures, animals, and monsters;
Blizzard’s in-game artwork or concept artwork;
Blizzard’s in-game icon artwork;
Visual depictions of locations and landmarks which appear in Blizzard’s games; and
Blizzard’s sound and/or music files.
According to Blizzard, Glorious Saga even copies the descriptions of in-game content that are used by Blizzard in their Warcraft and World of Warcraft games franchises. Notable examples include distinctive character names, such as “Jaina Proudmoore, Gul’dan, and Malfurion.”
Blizzard alleges that Sina Corp has blatantly ripped off the Warcraft games in order to profit from Blizzard’s products. Blizzard’s complaint requests an injunction preventing the further sale of Glorious Saga, as well as damages.
We will continue to track this case and provide updates over the course of the litigation.
A new web-based game recently popped up and gained fame fairly quickly on the Internet. The game features the familiar red plumber in a familiar atmosphere as he jumps over pipes and stomps on Koopa’s to save the princess. This is of course the game Super Mario Bros. created by Nintendo. However, this game online is called Mario Royale and features the familiar protagonist along with 74 other copies of him controlled by other players. The goal is to race through the levels in each “World” as fast as possible. While dodging the familiar hurdles of a typical Mario game, players must also avoid fireballs and terrain destroyed by other players. The name Mario Royale draws from the fame of the popular Battle Royale genre of games, the genre of monumental game Fortnite.
When you enter a game of Mario Royale you could set a player name and a squad ID if you wanted to pair up with friends. However, if no name is listed then you are automatically given the name “Infringio.” This most notably references the fact that this game itself could be considered copyright infringement against Nintendo’s intellectual property in the Super Mario franchise. The game uses the assets from the base Mario game.
Following its rapid rise to fame, it appears Nintendo’s lawyers have finally taken note of Mario Royale and have issued a cease-and-desist to the game’s creator and issued a DMCA takedown request. In response to this move, the game’s textures have been reskinned with similar but non-infringing assets. And the game name has been renamed to DMCA Royale. The speed of the asset flip appeared somewhat suspect to those following the game, as it appeared they had been in development for some time. The Mario name and likeness served as efficient marketing for this game to get it off the ground and it remains to be seen whether it can retain a player-base while avoiding further actions from Nintendo.
King.com Ltd. Tries to Crush Competitors
King.com Limited v. JoyFox Company Limited
Case number 3:17-cv-01636
Action Dismissed: March 31, 2017
The operator of the mobile game “Candy Crush Saga,” King.com, filed suit in March 2017 against Chinese game company, JoyFox Company. King.com claims that JoyFox copied a number of its mobile apps in a violation of copyright law. King.com is a social games development company which operates as an independent unit of Activision Blizzard. King.com is the maker of more than 200 game titles, and claims that they have over 340 million active users per month across social, mobile and web platforms.
King.com alleged in particular that two games produced by JoyFox, “Cookie Crush” and “Bubble Mania,” are derived from King.com’s “Candy Crush Saga,” “Candy Crush Soda Saga” and “Bubble Witch 2 Saga.” King.com argues the JoyFox games were essentially copied from King.com’s apps. It claims the alleged infringement has cost King.com revenue and has unjustly enriched JoyFox.
The complaint stated that “JoyFox wholly appropriated much of the original expression and creative decision-making embodied in King’s games, including King’s artwork, design aesthetics, layouts, and its selection and coordination of game elements, colors, and shapes.” King.com argues that “Cookie Crush” in particular is patterned after King.com’s games “Candy Crush Saga” and “Candy Crush Soda Saga,” and that “Bubble Mania” was based on King.com’s “Bubble Witch 2 Saga.” Some of the similarities concern major game elements, including the use of lollipops as tools in “Candy Crush” and “Cookie Crush,” and similarities between characters in “Bubble Mania” and “Bubble Witch 2 Saga.” For example, the main characters in both “Bubble” games have a cat sidekick, a wand, and purple clothes. The menus and UI also have similarities, including the pink-and-white border around windows in “Candy Crush Saga” and “Cookie Crush” as well as the pop-up and feature menus in the games. Further similarities include the maps and game interfaces in “Bubble Mania” and “Bubble Witch 2 Saga.”
Both of the JoyFox games in question were released two years after Candy Crush was released. The complaint alleges that some design elements of JoyFox’s games were modified after their launch to hide the “shameless theft of its intellectual property.” The complaint sought an injunction against JoyFox, as well as damages, profits, and attorney fees. On March 31, 2017, King.com voluntarily dismissed the action against JoxFox without prejudice.
While this case appears to be short-lived, it has drawn attention to companies who wish to emulate popular games’ fortunes. China’s mobile game industry is infamous for a proliferation of copycats. While the legal field in America places a greater emphasis on individual ownership over things like characters, art and gameplay, in China these ownership rights are not as well established. There are a number of reasons why there are so many copycats in the Chinese gaming market. Launching a mobile game in China involves complex business transactions and regulations. As a result, gamers in China are forced to wait for games, or are not even aware of the original. This allows other developers to fill in the gap. Many Chinese gamers strongly prefer original games, but without access they often don’t have a choice between the original and the copycat. In many parts of the world, only Apple and Google provide app stores. In China, however, there are over 60 to 70 app stores. Even though the most popular games of 2016 in China are based on established IP, game developers have to be vigilant if they want to successfully defeat copycat competitors.
Bots and Cheaters Lose as League of Legends is awarded a $10 Million Payout
Riot Games, Inc. v. Stefan Delgado Argote et al
Case number 2:16-cv-05871
Decided: March 1st 2017
In August 2016, California-based Riot Games, Inc. sued the makers of a service called LeagueSharp. LeagueSharp was a software product that was designed to allow players to hack Riot’s game “League of Legends.” The complaint claimed that the software allowed players to see hidden information, play an automated version of their game and accelerate through the game faster than would be otherwise possible for a human player. Riot alleged that selling the product violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act because it was technology that was specifically designed to dodge Riot’s anti-cheat software. The suit was filed against three individuals as well as Chachani Mistie y Pichu Pichu SRI, which is a Peru-based company. It was allegedly a shell company formed by the makers of LeagueSharp in order to evade liability. Alleged violations included trafficking in circumvention devices, an unfair competition claim, and intentional interference with contractual relations.
The complaint alleged that LeagueSharp charged customers a $15 fee per month in order to obtain and use its service. The complaint alleges that LeagueSharp also offered a separate “botting service” for $50 per month which allowed users to automate multiple accounts simultaneously.“League of Legends” is free to play, but players win in-game currency in successful matches that can be used to purchase new characters. Players can also purchase “skins” for their characters, giving them a new look or new phrases to say with some themed according to holidays or fictional works. In addition to harming the gaming community, Riot Games claimed that the operators of LeagueSharp attacked its servers and advised customers to dispute in-game transactions fraudulently. When Riot tried to resolve these problems by reaching out directly to LeagueSharp’s creators, the creators allegedly didn’t respond and then leaked an employee’s private information.
On March 1st, 2017, Riot received both a $10 million payout and a court-ordered ban on the makers of LeagueSharp. The parties reached a confidential settlement that will govern the release of the $10 million judgment, but the judgment amount was made public by U.S. District Judge Ronald S.W. Lew during the March 1st filing. Judge Lew signed off on the injunction and settlement, which call for the makers of the software to never play a Riot game again and relinquish control over the websites used to sell the software, among other provisions. The terms of settlement appear similar to a previous cases, MDY v. Donnely, and Jagex Limited v. Impulse Software et al.
Like countless other video games – whether on a PC, gaming console, or mobile device – League of Legends has been plagued with cheaters and bots. On top of causing unfairness in the game, aggressive botting and cheating third party software can take up large amounts of precious server resources. Freeing those resources can potentially allow increased reliability and performance benefits. Dealing with this issue can also have an opportunity cost. Developers could possibly have to spend time dealing with cheaters that they could have spent developing new features. While motives leading to cheating in games can vary from competitive gaming to exploitative commercial ventures, cases such as these indicate that there is a substantial amount of money on the line to control the rampant spread of third party software.
847 F.2d 255
Decided: June 20, 1988
Vault Corporation was a manufacturer of floppy disks that contained a system called PROLOK. PROLOK was designed to prevent the unauthorized copying of software programs. Vault sold these disks to computer-software producers, who installed their own programs onto the disks. Each disk contained a “fingerprint” on the magnetic surface of the disk. After a user installed a program off a disk with PROLOK, the software would only function if the disk containing the fingerprint was inserted into a computer’s disk drive. As a result, the fingerprint on the disk combined with the software disk prevented the owner of a disk from making a functional copy of a program. Quaid Software Ltd. sold a disk containing a feature called RAMKEY. This program was designed to allow a user to by-pass Vault’s system. RAMKEY allowed copies of PROLOK disks to fool the PROLOK software into believing the copies contained the fingerprint of the original disks. A user could therefore make full copies of programs originally stored on PROLOK disks. Vault brought a copyright-infringement suit and sought an injunction against the use and sale of Quaid’s disks. The district found for Quaid, holding that the RAMKEY program was authorized under § 117 of the Copyright Act. Vault appealed.
The 5th Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. The Court held that under 17 U.S.C. § 117(1), the owner of a disk could make unauthorized copies of the program on the disk if the copies were necessary to use the program. This was determined to be a necessary exception because a computer program usually had to be copied into a computer’s memory before the program could be used. § 117(2) permits the owner of a software program to make unauthorized copies to protect against damage or destruction of the program by electrical or mechanical failure.
Vault argued that Quaid’s initial copying of PROLOK was not permitted under § 117(1), because Quaid copied the program for the sole purpose of bypassing PROLOK. However, the Computer Software Copyright Act does not require that a copy made by the owner of a disk be used for the copyright owner’s intended purpose. Copying the program to Quaid’s computer was necessary to use the PROLOK program and fell within the exception. Also, Quaid’s program allowed users to make archival copies of software. This is a use granted by § 117(2). Vault argued § 117(2) was aimed only to prevent loss due to mechanical or electrical failure and a program erased from a PROLOK disk can be restored without using RAMKEY. However, § 117(2) does not limit the making of archival copies to specific situations, and RAMKEY allowed a software owner to create archival copies on separate disks as well as protecting against loss or destruction of the original copy. Accordingly, no contributory infringement occurred. Similarly, RAMKEY did not constitute a derivative work of Vault’s program under § 106(2).
Over the years, as more advanced techniques have been developed to prevent consumers from making copies of software, programs to circumvent such copy protection have been developed at a similar rate. Programs designed for copyright protection have decreased in popularity over time. This is in part due to the fact that such programs inhibit the use of the program for legitimate purposes, such as sharing files from one device to another owned by the same company or family. The making of archival copies also becomes more difficult. While there are important reasons to develop protection software, such as guarding trade secrets, ultimately more creative solutions are needed in an industry where there are constantly new programs being developed to dismantle protection programs.
SCOTUS issues ruling in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC
2019 WL 1005829
Decided: March 4, 2019
On March 4, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, holding that a copyright owner cannot sue for infringement before the Copyright Office has a made a determination on the work. The Court issued a unanimous opinion written by Justice Ginsburg. We had reported on the oral arguments earlier this year — to read our coverage click here.
The Court mainly focused on the text of the Copyright Act. The Copyright Act states “no civil action for infringement of [a] copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made . . . .” 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). The Court felt the only way to read “registration . . . has been made” consistently with the rest of the act is for it to mean the Copyright Office makes a decision. “Read together, § 411(a)’s opening sentences focus not on the claimant’s act of applying for registration, but on action by the Copyright Office—namely, its registration or refusal to register a copyright claim.” Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 2019 WL 1005829 *4 (Mar. 2019).
The requirement is only that the Copyright Office issues a decision on if a work can be copyrighted. If the Office issues a rejection, the owner can still sue to overturn the rejection. The Supreme Court’s decision changes the timing of when a copyright owner can file a lawsuit. It was common practice for owners to file a lawsuit then file an application with the Copyright Office. Now a copyright owner needs to file the application and receive a decision from the Copyright Office before filing a lawsuit. Overall, this decision will likely have minimum impact on copyright owners, because a registration can be obtained in a short amount of time. For regular registration, the wait time is about seven months, but the Copyright Office also has an expedited process which allows copyright owners to get a decision within five days. The expediting fee is about $800, but that pales in comparison to the legal fees the claimant is willing to incur to initiate a lawsuit.
The Supreme Court’s decision has had an impact on other pending litigation though. The plaintiffs in the dance emote cases have withdrawn the current cases and plan to refile due to the outcome of Fourth Estate. The Copyright Office rejected rapper 2 Milly’s and Alfonso Ribeiro’s dances for being non-copyrightable. 2 Milly and Ribeiro have asked the Copyright Office to reconsider its decision, but until the Copyright Office issues a final decision they cannot file a lawsuit. Interestingly, the Copyright Office did register Backpack Kid’s “Flossin Dance” as a choreographic work. Orange Shirt Kid also received a registration, but for a motion picture and not a choreography. The true impact of the Fourth Estate case may be on marginal copyright cases that cannot easily get registered in the first place. In the meantime, we will continue to monitor the dance emote cases (particularly Backpack Kid’s case), and provide updates as warranted.
Take-Two & Epic file Motions to Dismiss
Ferguson v. Epic Games, Inc.
Filed Dec. 5, 2018, CACD-2-18-cv-10110
Ferguson v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
Filed Dec. 17, 2018, CACD-2:18-cv-10425
Ribeiro v. Epic Games, Inc.
Filed Dec. 17, 2018, CACD-2:18-cv-10412
Ribeiro v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
Filed Dec. 17, 2018, CACD-2:18-cv-10417
Epic Games and Take-Two Interactive have filed motions to dismiss the complaints of the rapper 2 Milly and Alfonso Ribeiro. Back in December 2018, 2 Milly filed complaints against Epic and Take-Two for using his dance, the “Milly Rock,” without permission. 2 Milly alleged the video game companies had infringed his copyright and right of publicity. Shortly after 2 Milly filed his complaint, several other people, including Alfonso Ribeiro, also filed complaints against the video game companies. For a more in-depth analysis, click here.
Epic and Take-Two argue the plaintiffs’ dances are simple dance moves which cannot be copyrighted. The Copyright Act affords protection to choreographic works, but the work has to be more than a simple dance move. For example, touchdown celebrations would be a simple dance move . On February 14, 2019, the Copyright Office refused registration for Ribeiro’s “Carlton Dance” on the basis the dance was a simple dance move. Also, the Copyright Office questioned if Riberio is the true and sole author of the dance since it was created for a TV show, possibly under a work made for hire agreement. As of this writing, the Copyright Office has not made a determination on 2 Milly’s dance or any of the other dances at issue.
The refusal does not automatically end the litigation against Epic or Take-Two. Ribeiro could appeal the rejection since the courts have the final word on what is copyrightable. However, more likely is that the issue of whether Ribeiro’s dance is copyrightable in the first place will now be decided by the court in this case. A copyright registration would have given him a presumption of validity of the copyright in his dance, but with the registration, he must now prove that anew in court. Thus, the Copyright Office’s decision means that the plaintiffs will inevitably have a more difficult time proving they own a protectable copyrighted work. Lastly, we note that the court also needs to weigh in on the right of publicity claim asserted by the plaintiffs.
Epic and Take-Two argue that copyright law preempts the right of publicity claims. Even if there is no preemption, the video game companies rely on Rogers v. Grimaldi to argue the dances are artistically relevant to the games and the use is not misleading. 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989). Furthermore, the companies claim the dance emotes only replicate physical movements and do not incorporate the plaintiffs’ likenesses. As discussed in our previous post, it is unsettled law if a person’s likeness can be attached to a movement. A person likeness can extend to a distinctive voice or a well-known catchphrase. However, extending protection to a dance might have far-reaching implications.
These cases are still ongoing, and we will provide updates when available.
Baker v. Epic Games, Inc.
Filed January 23, 2019, Case: 2:19-cv-00505
On January 23, 2019, James Baker, a.k.a. BlocBoy JB was the latest person to file a lawsuit against Epic games over Fortnite’s dance emotes. BlocBoy JB created the dance move “Shoot” where the dancer kicks their leg forward and moves their arm in a stabbing motion in synchronization. The allegedly infringing dance emote in Fortnite is called “Hype.” The same law firm representing the other dance plaintiffs is also representing BlocBoy JB. The complaint is relatively similar to the other complaints, only minor differences relating to specific facts about to BlocBoy JB.
BlocBoy JB is going to face the same hurdles as the other dance plaintiffs. Copyright protection only extends to choreographed dances like a ballet, but not to short dances which other people can easily replicate. BlocBoy JB will need to show that his dance is a choreographed worked like a ballet. Also, just like the other complaints, it is unclear if BlocBoy JB can establish a right of publicity claim. It is unsettled if a dance move can be associated with a person’s identity. To read a more in-depth analysis click here.
We will continue to monitor these cases and provide updates when available.
Orange Shirt Kid is the latest viral dancer to sue Epic
Rachel McCumbers v. Epic Games, Inc. et al
Filed January 11, 2019, CACD-2-19-cv-00260
Yet another person has filed a lawsuit against Epic Games over a dance emote in Fortnite, this time the mother on behalf of the child known as “Orange Shirt Kid.” This is the fourth lawsuit filed against Epic claiming a Fortnite dance emote constitutes infringement. You can read our earlier coverage here. The same law firm that filed the previous lawsuits also filed this new complaint. However, there are a few key differences between the Orange Shirt Kid’s case and the other cases.
A significant difference is the fact that Orange Shirt Kid submitted his dance, the Random, to a contest run by Epic, specifically for inclusion in the game. Epic held the BoogieDown contest in March 2018, in which Epic would select a player submitted dance routine to put into Fortnite. One of the rules for the competition is a contestant grants Epic a royalty-free, perpetual, and irrevocable license to use the dance routine. Orange Shirt Kid submitted his dance to the contest, but Epic did not select his dance . One possible reason Epic did not select Orange Shirt Kid’s dance is because he was a minor at the time and the contest was only open to adults. A group of Fortnite players upset that the Random was not selected petitioned Epic to include the dance in the game. Epic eventually relented and added Orange Shirt Kid’s dance, which he celebrated by tweeting. Those celebratory tweets have now been deleted. Orange Shirt Kid’s complaint does not mention the dance contest or tweets but instead alleges Epic did not seek permission to use the routine.
Orange Shirt Kid’s claims appear to be in a more difficult position than the other similar lawsuits. Each plaintiff has to show their routine is protectable under copyright law, which could be difficult to prove on its own. However, Orange Shirt Kid must also show he did not grant Epic a license to use his dance. Epic will likely argue there is an express license created by the rules of the contest or an implied license created from the child’s behavior. Orange Shirt Kid will likely argue that, as a minor, he is unable to grant such a license.
The complaint also claims Epic has unlawfully used Orange Shirt Kid’s catchphrase, “It’s also a great exercise move!” The other lawsuits only involve a dance routine. The complaint alleges Epic violated Orange Shirt Kid’s right of publicity and trademark by using the phrase. A defendant can violate a person’s right of publicity even if the defendant does not use the person’s name or image. See Carson v. Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., 698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir. 1983). A defendant’s use of a catchphrase which is closely associated with a person is enough to violate the right of publicity. See, e.g., Id. It is questionable how closely associated the plaintiff is with the phrase “It’s also a great exercise move!” The phrase itself is not unique, but considering the way in which Epic included the dance into Fortnite, there is a connection between Epic’s use and Orange Shirt Kid. Again, there is also the question of whether Epic was licensed to use the material submitted by Orange Shirt Kid.
Under trademark law, the trademark owner must use the mark as a source identifier for a good or service within interstate commerce. See 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a); see also Id. § 1127. It is unclear at this point if Orange Shirt Kid is using his catchphrase as a source identifier for any goods or services. The complaint only alleges how Epic is using the catchphrase and how that will cause confusion as to its origin. Also, there are questions regarding the strength of the mark. The complaint claims the catchphrase has reached secondary meaning, but that is a factual question that the plaintiff will need to prove in court.Epic may also be covered by the contest rules again regarding the catchphrase. The contest rules state Epic has the right to use the contestant’s publicity during or after the contest. Also, the catchphrase appears in the Orange Shirt Kid’s video submission, which may mean Epic has a non-exclusive license to use the catchphrase based on terms of the contest rules.
While there is intellectual property involved, this case could also turn on contract law due to the contest rules. We will continue to monitor all the Epic dancing cases and provide updates when available.
Law Review: A History of US Video Game Litigation
Under : Analysis
We’re proud to announce that the Patent Arcade’s own, Ross Dannenberg & Josh Davenport, have published a new law review article on the history of US video game litigation, including analysis of how litigation has changed over the years, what we might expect going forward, and even a case or two that courts might have got wrong:
Top 10 video game cases (US): how video game litigation in the US has evolved since the advent of Pong, by Ross Dannenberg and Josh Davenport
Abstract: Video game litigation in the United States is neither new nor infrequent, and video game developers can learn valuable lessons from cases won, and lost, by others before them. This article examines the evolution of United States intellectual property law from historically narrow roots to classifying video games as an art form deserving broad free speech protection. This article examines seminal cases in a variety of IP areas, including not only copyrights, but also reverse engineering, derivative works, patents, trademarks, rights of publicity, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, contracts, and freedom of speech. These cases explore the factual and legal limits of American jurisprudence in video game law, including how one’s own expression can be limited by the rights of others, permissible and fair use and of others’ IP, and the impact these cases have had in the industry. As video games have leveled up into a multi-billion dollar industry, the law has leveled up, too, and this article is the primer you need to level up with it.
Interactive Entertainment Law Review, vol. 1, iss. 2, Dec. 2018
Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com LLC et al.
On January 8th, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, Case number 17-571. The court was asked to consider what “registration” means in “no civil action for infringement of [a] copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made . . . .” 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). Fourth Estate, the petitioner, argued registration means an author of a work only needs to submit a registration application. Wall-Street.com, the respondent, believes registration means that the U.S. Copyright Office makes a final determination on the application, either to register or refuse registration of a work.
The case originated when Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation filed a copyright infringement claim against Wall-Street.com in the Southern District of Florida. Fourth Estate had licensed news articles to Wall-Street.com, but, according to the complaint, the website broke the terms of the agreement. At the time the complaint was filed, Fourth Estate had submitted applications to register the articles with the Copyright Office, but the Office had not made a final determination. Wall-Street.com moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim because the Copyright Act requires the work to be registered to initiate an infringement claim. 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). Both the Southern District of Florida and the Eleventh Circuit agreed with Wall-Street.com and dismissed the complaint. Fourth Estate then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Part of the reason the Supreme Court took this case is that there is a circuit split regarding the definition of “registration” in the Copyright Act. The Ninth and Fifth Circuits only require a plaintiff to apply for registration to have standing, while the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits require that the Copyright Office make a final determination before there is standing. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case should resolve the split by defining the term “registration” in the Copyright Act and what is required of a copyright owner prior to filing a lawsuit.
During Oral Arguments, both sides focused heavily on the text of the Copyright Act. The debate centered on whom the active actor is doing the registration in section 411(a). Fourth Estate maintained it is the author who must register by submitting the application. Wall-Street.com countered by arguing the Copyright Act as a whole only makes sense if “registration” means the Copyright Office makes a final determination. Generally, the justices seemed to agree with Wall-Street.com but acknowledged there was room for interpretation.
At one point Justice Sotomayor did ask the attorney for Wall-Steet.com to explain the difference between pre-registration and registration. Pre-registration is a special process to give protection to a copyrighted work which falls within a category of work that historically has been stolen before first commercial publication, such as movies, television shows, or books. See 15 U.S.C. § 408(f)(2). However, a pre-registered work must still apply for registration either within one month after receiving notice of infringement or three months after publication. See 15 U.S.C. § 408(f)(3). During oral arguments, the lawyer for Wall-Street.com used the language of section 408(f) to demonstrate “Congress knew how to make clear that they wanted to peg something to an application.” Due to the limited circumstances where pre-registration applies, both sides were quick to redirect the Court’s attention back to the main arguments surrounding the term “registration.”
Fourth Estate did raise the practical implications of the final determination approach. Currently, it takes about six to seven months for the Copyright Office to complete an application, which Fourth Estate argues puts smaller artists at a disadvantage when trying to initiate litigation quickly. The justices recognized some copyright owners might be at a disadvantage under the final determination approach, especially Justice Kavanaugh, who asked several times if the delays were a problem. Nonetheless, the argument kept returning to the statutory language of section 411(a).
At one point Justice Kagan said to the Fourth Estate attorney, “I understand some of the policy arguments that you have on your side, but, I mean, the question is whether the text can be looked at that way . . . . [I]t seems . . . the only way to read [411(a)] is that the ‘registration has been made’ is by the Registrar . . . .”
This case dives into weeds of the Copyright Act, but there are many parties who are interested in the outcome of this case, including large and small video game developers alike. The Copyright Office provides an option for special handling of copyright applications, through which a copyright applicant can receive a registration in less than 1 week, but at a cost of about $800 (normal registration is presently ~$55). We recognize that this increased cost could be considered a burden on small copyright owners. However, if that small copyright owner intends to litigate, then this increased cost is insignificant compared to the total cost of litigation that a small copyright owner (or its attorneys) would incur.
Reading the tea leaves of the Court, we believe it likely that Wall-Street.com will prevail, but we will provide an update once the Court has issued its opinion.
Lawsuits filed against Epic and Take-Two over dance emotes
Reed et al v. Epic Games, Inc. et al
Filed Dec. 17, 2018, CACD-2:18-cv-10444
Reed et al v. Take-Two Interactive, Inc. et al
Filed Dec. 17, 2018, CACD-2:18-cv-10441
(Credit YouTube Channel TY_)
On December 5th, rapper 2 Milly, aka Terrence Ferguson, filed a lawsuit in the Central District of California against Epic Games claiming the video game company stole his dance. 2 Milly created a music video which features a dance called the “Milly Rock” back in 2014. According to the Complaint, Epic’s “Swipe It” dance emote in Fortnite is copyright infringement of the Milly Rock and violates 2 Milly’s right of publicity. Then on December 17, 2018, actor Alfonso Ribeiro and Russell Horning, a.k.a. Backpack Kid, filed their own lawsuits against Take-Two Interactive and Epic Games claiming the companies had infringed upon their dances as well. 2 Milly also filed a lawsuit against Take-Two Interactive on December 17. The claims against Take-Two relate to NBA 2k’s use of dance emotes.
2 Milly is a rapper who created the “Milly Rock,” which was featured in a music video titled Milly Rock x 2 Milly. According to the complaint, celebrities such as Rihanna have performed the Milly Rock. Alfonso Ribeiro was the actor who portrayed Carlton Banks on The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. During the episode titled Will’s Christmas Show, Carlton dances to Tom Jones’s It’s Not Unusual. A video clip featuring the “Carlton Dance” eventually made its way to YouTube where it became very popular. Ribeiro would be on Dancing with the Stars where he performed the “Carlton Dance” in a routine. Backpack Kid is a 16-year-old teenager who created the “Floss Dance.” “Flossing” took off after Backpack Kid performed on stage with Katy Perry on Saturday Night Live. The complaints allege Epic and Take-Two created dance emotes featuring the three dances. A dance emote is an in-game celebration which can be purchased using real-world currency.
Copyright law protects choreographic work, but not simple dance moves. A choreographic work is “a related series of dance movements and patterns organized into a coherent whole.” Horgan v. Macmillan, Inc., 789 F.2d 157, 161 (2d Cir. 1986) (quoting U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium II: Compendium of Copyright Office Practices § 450.03(a) (1984)). According to the U.S. Copyright Office, a choreographic work is meant to protect complex dance performances such as ballets, but not simple dances which anyone could easily replicate. For example, the Copyright Office takes the position that a football player’s end zone dance is not protectable because it can be easily replicated. See U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 52 at 3. The plaintiffs will need to show that their dances are more like a ballet than a touchdown celebration if they wish to succeed on the Copyright claims, or otherwise convince a court that the Copyright Office’s position on this issue is too narrow. Considering how easily people can replicate these dances, the plaintiff’s likely have an uphill battle on the copyright infringement front.
In addition to copyright infringement, all of the plaintiffs claim the video game companies violated their rights of publicity. A right of publicity claim concerns the unauthorized use of a person’s identity or likeness to the advantage of the defendant. Identity or likeness includes not only a person’s image or name but can also include a person’s voice. For a voice misappropriation, the plaintiff needs to have a “distinctive voice which is widely known and deliberately used to sell a product.” See Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460, 463 (9th Cir. 1988). It will be interesting to see if the court extends the right of publicity to movement. Extending right of publicity claims to dance moves may be a slippery slope though because it could afford broad protection to simple movements.
If a court is willing to extend the right of publicity to movement, then one option would be to apply a standard similar to misappropriated voices. If that happens, the standard might be a distinctive movement which is widely known and deliberately used to sell a product. All the dances in the lawsuits have distinctive characteristics that would be easily recognizable. It is also likely that the defendants are replicating these specific dances because they are popular. The question is then how well known each plaintiff is for their unique dances. Stated differently, is each dance move associated with its respective plaintiff such that the consuming public associates the two together? Ribeiro has performed his dance on television shows like Fresh Prince and Dancing with the Stars, while clips and gifs of his dance have been shared countless times. Backpack Kid’s floss dance has been performed on stage with Katy Perry on Saturday Night Live and he is really only known for doing the floss dance. 2 Milly’s original music video has over 18 million views, but probably has not reached the same level of mainstream recognition as the other two plaintiffs. The degree of recognition will need to be addressed by the courts for the plaintiffs to win.
However, extending protection to simple dance moves through the right of publicity raises interesting legal questions about the scope of protection. Specifically, if every dance move were associated with a particular person, then eventually ALL dance moves might be protected, and no one could dance without infringing someone’s rights. While perhaps a far-fetched result, it’s nonetheless possible. As such, a court might choose to apply the merger doctrine to dance moves as a protected feature of one’s right of publicity, holding that no individual dance moves are protectable through a right of publicity claim based on their more limited number.
Despite the interesting legal questions, there’s a good chance these cases will settle. The public perception that video game companies are “stealing” dances may push the companies to settle even if a court would likely rule in the game publishers’ favor. However, the fact that there are more of these cases now might make the defendants more likely to fight them, because if they settle one, then they’re establishing business precedent for paying for dance moves, which they might like to avoid. If the cases do move forward, it will be interesting to see if the courts decide to combine the cases, or addressed them individually, as Ribeiro and 2 Milly are represented by the same law firm. We will continue to monitor these cases and present updates when available.
Epic Games, Inc. v. Lucas et al
Civil Docket Number: 5:18-cv-00484-BO
Epic Games is suing more individuals for cheating in Fortnite, this time the defendants are two streamers, Brandon Lucas and Colton Conter. The complaint alleges that the defendants’ use of cheat tools constitutes copyright infringements and is a breach of contract. Epic asserts that the defendants created an unauthorized derivative work by using the cheat tools. Also, the complaint alleges the defendant’s YouTube videos showing them using the cheat tools in the game constitutes an unauthorized public performance. Beyond just directly infringing the Fortnite copyright, Epic claims the defendants have also committed contributory infringement by selling the cheat tools. Along with the copyright claims, Epic is also asserting a breach of contract claim by arguing the defendants violated the End User License Agreement by using the cheat tools.
The cheat tools work by injecting new code into Fortnite during execution which modifies the game. For example, a user could insert code that causes the character to be invincible. Epic alleges that this modified version of Fortnite constitutes a derivative work. Generally, a derivative work is one that “incorporates a protected work in some concrete or permanent ‘form.’” Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 964 F.2d 965, 967 (9th Cir. 1992). It could be argued that injecting code into the game does not incorporate the protected work in a permanent form because the changes are only temporarily altering the game during execution. However, since Lewis Galoob Toys, some courts have ruled that creating a cheat tool for use with a video game counts as a derivative work.
Besides the right to prepare derivatives, the only other exclusive right Epic claims the Defendants infringed is the right of public performance. The Defendants are streamers who often post videos of themselves playing Fortnite. In some videos, the Defendants use the cheat tools while they play Fortnite. According to the complaint, the YouTube videos infringe on Epic’s exclusive right to publically perform Fortnite. Video games are considered an audiovisual work so to perform a video game means to show its images in any sequence. While it might seem obvious that videos on YouTube would constitute a performance, earlier this year, in a default judgment, the Northern District of California questioned what it means to publically perform a video game. The court declined to answer the question because it was only a default judgment and the parties had not adequately briefed the issue. For more in-depth analysis click here to read our earlier post. But at least that one court is suspicious of such a claim, and we suspect a court addressing the issue square on would also consider fair use as a possible defense.
Epic is also claiming the Defendants breached the End User License Agreement (EULA) by using the cheat tools. According to the complaint, Fortnite’s EULA bans players from creating, developing, or distributing programs that give a player an unfair advantage in the game. If the Defendants were selling cheat tools, then Epic seems to be a good position regarding the breach of contract claims.
Epic’s goal in these cheating lawsuits is to remove access to the cheat tools, which in legal terms means getting injunctions against the tool’s distributors. The Copyright Act grants injunctions as a possible remedy for infringement, in addition to monetary damages. The default remedy for a breach of contract claim is money damages, and injunctions are saved for certain cases. Winning on the breach of contract claims will earn Epic money damages but will not necessarily prevent the Defendants from continuing to sell the cheat tools. If Epic can win on the copyright claims, then it will probably be able to get injunctions against the defendants, forcing them to stop distributing the cheat tools.
All of the Fortnite cheating cases are ongoing, and we will provide updates when available. To review our previous coverage click here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Mathias et al.
Final Judgement issued November 9, 2018
On November 9, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona issued a Final Judgement in Nintendo of America v. Mathias et al., aka, “the Nintendo ROM case.” The defendants are a married couple who operated the websites LoveROMs.com and LoveRETRO.co. The two sites allowed users to download ROMs for classic Nintendo games. Nintendo filed a lawsuit against the defendants back in July, claiming the sites infringed upon their copyrights and trademarks. At the time we speculated about the possible legal defenses that defendants might raise if the case went to trial. Click here to read our previous coverage. Instead of going to trial, the two parties entered into an agreement which stipulated the court would issue a final judgment and grant a permanent injunction against the defendants. The court awarded Nintendo $12,230,000 and ordered the defendants to cease distributing any more Nintendo ROMs. The defendants now have 30 days to transfer their ROM websites, every Nintendo video game, and every video game system emulator in their control to Nintendo. Nintendo will pay for destroying the infringing products. One of the stipulations in the judgment is the defendants waive their rights to appeal, which means this is the end of this case. The conclusion of this case does not answer any legal questions surrounding ROMs or emulation, but it does act as a deterrent to anyone else distributing Nintendo ROMs. If Nintendo decides to sue any other ROM sites, we will provide coverage. The monetary award is interesting. Either the defendants made a TON of money from their sites, or its a deferred payment acting as a carrot for them to never do something like this again. If anyone knows, please let US know!
863 F.Supp.2d 394
We were recently talking among ourselves about copyright protection for expressive choices in implementing functional rules of a game, and Tetris v. Xio immediately came to mind. Much to our own surprise we hadn’t written it up yet. So today we write about the Tetris Holding v. Xio Interactive case that captured the industry’s attention in 2012 by providing expansive protection for Tetris – a holding that some have found controversial.
The Copyright Act protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself or its functionality. In the United States, patent law governs functionality, whereas copyright protects original creative expression. This underlying principal allows for clones of a popular video game to exist, so long as the clone only uses the ideas or functional features. Functional aspects of a game could be the rules or user interface. There are certain games where the rules are so intrinsically tied to the expression of the game that it becomes difficult to separate, which was the exact scenario that the court faced in Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc.
Tetris is one of the most popular video games of all time, and as a result, there are many clones of Tetris available. Tetris Holding, LLC, the company that owns the Tetris rights, has a history of issuing takedown notices to copy-cat games. One such company to receive a takedown notice was Xio Interactive. Desiree Golden formed Xio Interactive with the intent to design a game for the iPhone. Ms. Golden admitted she intended to create a game which replicates Tetris’s gameplay but claimed to have only copied non-protected functionality. Tetris Holding disagreed with Xio’s assertion and instigated litigation in December 2009.
Xio argued it only copied the rules and game mechanics of Tetris, which would be functional features and therefore could not be protected by copyright. The district court, however, held that expressive elements incorporated into the functional features could be protected. According to the court, just because game mechanics and rules are not entitled to protection, “does not mean . . . that any and all expression related to a game rule or game function is unprotectable.” 863 F.Supp.2d at 404-405. Even though the game mechanics and expression might appear closely tied, the court felt the defendant had other options to express the same mechanics, therefore the merger doctrine did not apply. The merger doctrine states if there is a single or limited number of ways to express an idea, then no copyright protection will be given to any of those ways. Because the court found there was protectable expression that did not merge with the idea, it ruled in Tetris Holding’s favor due to the fact that both games were identical.
Tetris Holding also sued Xio under a theory of trade dress infringement. On the trade dress claim, the district court again ruled in Tetris Holding’s favor, finding there was a likelihood of confusion due to the similarities of the two games.
This case has been controversial because many commenters believe the decision expands the scope of copyright protection to protect functional aspects of a game. For many people, a video game’s mechanics and rules are purely functional, so those elements should not be protected by copyright. Video games walk a tight line between functionality and expression due to the interactive nature of the medium, so it is not always clear where one begins and the other ends. The distinction between functionality and expression in video games is thus an ongoing issue of debate.
For example, PUBG Corp., the developer of Playerunknown’s Battlegrounds, is currently suing several copycat games in a case that seems somewhat similar to Tetris Holding v. Xio Interactive. For more in-depth coverage, click here. Many of the elements PUBG Corp. claims the copycats infringe might be of a functional nature, or ideas not subject to copyright protection, when considered in isolation, but PUBG argues that in combination they are deserving of copyright protection. It will be interesting to see if the court in the PUBG Corp. cases follows a similar analysis as Tetris Holding v. Xio Interactive.
This is an issue we’re keeping an eye on. Stay tuned…