Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman

Last updated

Stern Electronics, Inc. v Kaufman
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case nameSTERN ELECTRONICS, INC v. Harold KAUFMAN d/b/a Bay Coin, et al; Omni Video Games, Inc., et al.
ArguedJuly 15 1981
DecidedJanuary 20 1982
Citation(s)669 F.2d 852 (1982)
Case history
Procedural historyPreliminary injunction issued against defendants, 523 F. Supp. 635 (E.D.N.Y. 1981)
Holding
An electronics company can copyright the sounds and images in a video game, not just the source code.
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingCircuit Judges Jon O. Newman, Ellsworth Van Graafeiland District Judge Edward Dumbauld
Case opinions
MajorityNewman
Laws applied
Copyright Act of 1976

Stern Electronics Inc. v. Kaufman, 669 F.2d 852 (2d Cir. 1982), [1] is a legal case in which the United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit held that Omni Video Games violated the copyright and trademark of Scramble, an arcade game marketed by Stern Electronics . The lawsuit was due to a trend of "knock-off" video games in the early 1980s, leading to one of the earliest findings of copyright infringement for a video game, and the first federal appellate court to recognize a video game as a copyrighted audiovisual work.

Contents

Scramble was created by Japanese video game developer Konami in 1981, and marketed in the Americas by Stern Electronics. The game was first sold in March 1981, and became a breakthrough hit for Konami, reaching the top of the sales charts in June 1981, and becoming the first side-scrolling shooter game. A month after the debut of Konami's Scramble, Omni began marketing a nearly identical game with the same name on their arcade cabinets, leading Stern to sue Omni for copyright and trademark infringement. Omni counter-sued for trademark infringement, showing that they had ordered arcade nameplates for their version of Scramble in December 1980. Omni argued that they did not copy Konami's underlying code. Despite similarities in the audiovisual display, Omni also argued that Konami could not register any copyright in their game as an audiovisual work, as the display for a video game varies each time that it is played, and is not fixed.

The court rejected Omni's argument, saying that Scramble's audiovisual display was sufficiently fixed due to the repeated use of certain images and sounds. The court found that the games were nearly identical in their audiovisual display, and granted an injunction against Omni's game. This also led the court to reject Omni's trademark argument, since any use of the "Scramble" mark was made in bad faith, in anticipation of creating a knock-off game under the same name. The principle that a video game is copyrightable as an audiovisual work was affirmed in Atari v. Amusement World and Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc. , and followed parallel developments for computer software in Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp .

Background

Facts

Screenshot of Konami's Scramble game Scramble.gif
Screenshot of Konami's Scramble game

Konami was a Japanese jukebox repair company that began developing arcade games in the early 1980s. [2] One of Konami's first titles was their game Scramble , a side-scrolling shooter in which the player pilots an aircraft and fires weapons at enemies. [3] The player wins the game by completing six different levels, before running out of fuel or crashing into an obstacle. [4] [5] Scramble was first sold on March 17, 1981, [1] distributed in North and South America by Stern Electronics, who secured an exclusive license from Konami. [6]

As Konami's first breakthrough hit, [3] Scramble was part of a wave of Konami titles that brought them success both in their native Japan and around the world. [2] In the United States, Konami's Scramble sold 15,000 units, [3] generating $20 million (equivalent to $64 million in 2022) in two months alone. [7] The game topped the American RePlay arcade charts in June 1981, [8] and became the 14th highest-grossing arcade video game of 1981 in Japan. [2] The home adaptation for the Vectrex became one of the most popular cartridges on the console. [3] Scramble is also credited with being the first game with distinct levels, and the first game that automatically scrolls the screen from left-to-right. [9] [10] [11] [12]

In November 1980, Stern Electronics sued Omni Video Games for violating their copyright over Astro Invaders, and Omni consented to a preliminary injunction to stop selling their virtually identical game called Zygon. [6] During this time, Omni Video Games began developing an interchangeable arcade game machine to be marketed under the name "Scramble", and ordered several name plates for the machines in December 1980. [1] Between that date and the first sale of Konami's Scramble game, Omni sold several arcade machines with the "Scramble" name on the headboard. [1] One month after Stern introduced Scramble, Omni began marketing a visually similar game with the same title on the machine. [13] Stern responded by suing Omni for violating their Scramble trademark as well as their copyright in the game, and Omni responded by suing Stern for violating their common law trademark rights for the mark "Scramble." [6] By that time, Omni was marketing their product as Scramble 2, [13] and had sold a total of five units. [1]

Law

Before the Copyright Act was updated in 1985 to specifically include computer software, game developers typically looked for copyright protection by treating the code as a literary work. [11] Since it is possible to produce the same sound and images with several different computer programs, Konami decided to register Scramble as an audiovisual work instead of a literary work. [14] Stern sent a video tape recording of the game to the United States Copyright Office, [13] to protect themselves from video game clones where an identical display is created using different computer code. [14] When Stern accused Omni of violating their copyright, Omni responded that the audiovisual display is different for each player, and did not meet the fixation requirement for a valid copyright. [14] Omni argued that Stern was only entitled to copyright protection in the written computer code stored in the machine's memory, a legal argument that had been successful in the past. [13] Both parties claimed that they owned common law trademark rights to the word "Scramble", with Omni noting that they were the first ones to sell arcade machines bearing the mark. [6]

Ruling

The case was first argued in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, with Stern as the plaintiff and Omni as the defendant. [6] Omni had argued that the audiovisual display could not be copyrighted as it was created by a program, and not an author. [13] The court rejected Omni's argument as "senseless", and noted that "an author's work does not become any less original after he has found a means to replicate it." [6] The court further found that Omni's first use of the "Scramble" mark was not in good faith, and was solely in anticipation of imitating the audiovisual display of Stern's game. [6] Based on Stern's considerable investment in Scramble and the large number of units already sold, the court determined that Stern was more likely to experience hardship, treating Omni's game as counterfeit. [6] The court granted a preliminary injunction against Omni, preventing them from selling their game or using the "Scramble" mark. [6]

Omni tried to appeal the injunction to the United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit, but Judge Jon O. Newman agreed with the district court's decision. [1] Omni once again argued that Scramble does not meet the originality requirement for copyright, as the sequence of images was not an original work of a game developer, but an underlying computer program. [13] Omni further argued that each play of the game produced a new, original audiovisual work, and was not a fixed work as required by copyright law. [14] The appeal court rejected both these arguments. [13] Despite the variations in each play through of the game, the audiovisual display was sufficiently fixed due to the repeated use of certain images and sounds. [14] The court also found that there was originality in the creation of these images and sounds, and the audiovisual display was copyrightable, independent of copyright in the underlying code. [15] The appellate court also agreed with the lower court's ruling that Omni's use of the "Scramble" mark was not in good faith, and that they did this anticipate both the debut of Stern's game and Omni's imitation. [6] The preliminary injunction was affirmed, and Omni was stopped from selling their version of Scramble. [1]

Impact

Stern Electronics, Inc v. Kaufman was one of the first lawsuits prompted by the increase in "knock-off" video games in the early 1980s. [13] The University of Pennsylvania Law Review has noted the ruling as one of the earliest and leading cases where the court found copyright infringement in a video game. [7] Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review also cites it as the first federal appellate court to conclude that a video game qualified for copyright as an audiovisual work. [13] The decision also influenced case law for other types of computer software, granting copyright to the software's look-and-feel, separate from copyright in the underlying code. [14] This case established that video games may qualify for multiple types of copyright protection at the same time – as audiovisual, graphical, and/or literary works – and corresponded with legal developments in computer software with Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. [16] By 1988, the trend of copyright jurisprudence expanded from "protect[ing] entertainment software involving fanciful creatures and characters to allowing this protection to extend to the user interface of productivity ... software containing little or no artistic or creative originality." [17]

In the 1982 essay "The Adaptation of Copyright Law to Video Games", Thomas Hemnes noted that it is common "for defendants in video game cases to include in their pleadings the argument that 'the original work of authorship is the computer program' ... and not the game itself. This argument has been uniformly unsuccessful." [7] [18] Hemnes summarized the court's position on Scramble, that the audiovisual display is plainly original enough to be copyrightable, even though the underlying code exists independently and is itself eligible for copyright. [7] [1] Hemnes also summarized the efforts of defendants to say that video games lack the fixation to qualify for copyright, saying "this defense is also unavailing." [7] The 1997 book Ownership of Rights in Audiovisual Productions explains how this case established that video games are audiovisual works, because the audiovisual data is fixed in "memory devices" that can be displayed via hardware. [19] The principle that video games are fixed, audiovisual works would be affirmed in Atari v. Amusement World , [7] as well as Williams Electronics v. Artic. [16] The principle would continue through the decision Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc. , after which the U.S. Copyright Office asked copyright registrants to decide whether to register the display as an audiovisual work and the computer program as a literary work, not both. [20] The University of Pennsylvania Law Review cites this as an early case that enforced the plaintiff's copyright protection, before limiting the scope of this protection in the cases that followed – a trend that continued until the 2013 copyright cases of Spry Fox v. Lolapps and Tetris Holding v. Xio Interactive. [21]

Related Research Articles

<i>Scramble</i> (video game) 1981 video game

Scramble is a horizontally scrolling shooter arcade video game released in 1981. It was developed by Konami and manufactured and distributed by Leijac in Japan and Stern in North America. It was the first side-scrolling shooter with forced scrolling and multiple distinct levels, and it established the foundation for a new genre.

Software copyright is the application of copyright in law to machine-readable software. While many of the legal principles and policy debates concerning software copyright have close parallels in other domains of copyright law, there are a number of distinctive issues that arise with software. This article primarily focuses on topics particular to software.

<i>K.C. Munchkin!</i> 1981 video game

K.C. Munchkin!, released in Europe as Munchkin, is a maze game for the Magnavox Odyssey 2. Its North American title is an inside reference to then president of Philips Consumer Electronics, Kenneth C. Menkin.

Fueled by the previous year's release of the colorful and appealing Pac-Man, the audience for arcade video games in 1981 became much wider. Pac-Man influenced maze games began appearing in arcades and on home systems. Pac-Man was the highest-grossing video game for the second year in a row. Nintendo's Donkey Kong defined the unnamed platform game genre, while Konami's Scramble established forced-scrolling shooters. The lesser known Jump Bug combined the two concepts into both the first scrolling platform game and the first platform shooter. Other arcade hits released in 1981 include Defender, Frogger, and the Galaxian sequel Galaga.

<i>International Karate</i> 1985 video game

International Karate is a fighting game developed and published by System 3 for the ZX Spectrum in 1985 and ported to various home computers over the following years. In the United States it was published by Epyx in 1986 as World Karate Championship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Video game clone</span> Video game that resembles another video game

A video game clone is either a video game or a video game console very similar to, or heavily inspired by, a previous popular game or console. Clones are typically made to take financial advantage of the popularity of the cloned game or system, but clones may also result from earnest attempts to create homages or expand on game mechanics from the original game. An additional motivation unique to the medium of games as software with limited compatibility, is the desire to port a simulacrum of a game to platforms that the original is unavailable for or unsatisfactorily implemented on.

<i>Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc.</i> U.S. Court of Appeals case

Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc., 704 F.2d 1009, was a legal case where the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that Artic violated Midway's copyright in their arcade games Pac-Man and Galaxian. The lawsuit was part of a trend of "knock-off" video games in the early 1980s, with courts recognizing that a video game can qualify for protection as a copyrighted audiovisual work.

<i>Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.</i> 1992 American court case on copyright

Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. is a 1992 legal case where the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that there was no copyright infringement made by the Game Genie, a video game accessory that could alter the output of games for the Nintendo Entertainment System. The court determined that Galoob's Game Genie did not violate Nintendo's exclusive right to make derivative works of their games, because the Game Genie did not create a new permanent work. The court also found that the alterations produced by the Game Genie qualified as non-commercial fair use, and none of the alterations were supplanting demand for Nintendo's games.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</span> United States copyright law

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

<i>Sega v. Accolade</i> 1992 American court case

Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit applied American intellectual property law to the reverse engineering of computer software. Stemming from the publishing of several Sega Genesis games by video game publisher Accolade, which had disassembled Genesis software in order to publish games without being licensed by Sega, the case involved several overlapping issues, including the scope of copyright, permissible uses for trademarks, and the scope of the fair use doctrine for computer code.

<i>Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc.</i> 1988 legal case

Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc. 862 F.2d 204, 9 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1322 was a court case between two video game manufacturers, where Data East claimed that their copyright in Karate Champ was infringed by World Karate Championship, a game created by Epyx. Data East released Karate Champ in arcades in 1984, and the game became a best-seller and pioneered the fighting game genre. The next year, Epyx published World Karate Championship for home computers, which sold 1.5 million copies. Data East sued Epyx, alleging that the game infringed on their copyright and trademark.

<i>Micro Star v. FormGen Inc.</i> 1998 American court case on copyright

Micro Star v. FormGen Inc. 154 F.3d 1107 is a legal case applying copyright law to video games, stopping the sales of a compilation of user-generated levels that infringed the copyright of Duke Nukem 3D. Micro Star downloaded the Duke Nukem 3D levels and re-packaged them as Nuke It, after seeing their popularity on the internet. Micro Star filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, asking for declaratory judgment that they had not infringed any copyright. Game publisher FormGen counter-sued, claiming that Micro Star created a derivative work based on Duke Nukem 3D and infringed their copyright.

<i>Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corp.</i> Decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corporation, 203 F.3d 596 (2000), is a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that the copying of a copyrighted BIOS software during the development of an emulator software does not constitute copyright infringement, but is covered by fair use. The court also ruled that Sony's PlayStation trademark had not been tarnished by Connectix Corp.'s sale of its emulator software, the Virtual Game Station.

<i>Atari Games Corp. v. Oman</i> 1992 court case regarding video game copyright law

Atari Games Corp. v. Oman was a series of court cases where Atari, a video game developer, challenged the United States Copyright Office for refusing copyright registration for their arcade game Breakout. The Register of Copyrights first rejected Atari's registration in 1987, determining that Breakout lacked sufficient creativity to qualify as an audiovisual work. Atari twice appealed the register's decision before their copyright was granted. Decided in 1992, the case affirmed that video games are protected from clone developers who mimic a game's audiovisual aspects.

The protection of intellectual property (IP) of video games through copyright, patents, and trademarks, shares similar issues with the copyrightability of software as a relatively new area of IP law. The video game industry itself is built on the nature of reusing game concepts from prior games to create new gameplay styles but bounded by illegally direct cloning of existing games, and has made defining intellectual property protections difficult since it is not a fixed medium.

<i>Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc.</i> 2012 legal case

Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc., 863 F.Supp.2d 394, was a 2012 American legal case related to copyright of video games, confirming that a game's look and feel can be protected under copyright law. Tetris Holding is a company that holds the copyright to the original Tetris game from 1985 and licenses those rights to game developers. Xio Interactive is a game developer that released Mino in 2009, a mobile game based on the gameplay of Tetris. Mino was downloaded millions of times, and Tetris Holding filed a DMCA notice and eventually a lawsuit against Xio for copyright infringement.

<i>Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp.</i> 1994 legal case

Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp., 1994 WL 1751482 was a 1994 legal case related to the copyright of video games, where Capcom alleged that Data East's game Fighter's History infringed the copyright of Capcom's game Street Fighter II. It was revealed that the design documents for Fighter's History contained several references to Street Fighter II, leading Capcom to sue Data East for damages, as well as a preliminary injunction to stop the distribution of the infringing game. In spite of the intentional similarities between the two games, the court concluded that Data East did not infringe upon Capcom's copyright, as most of these similarities were not protected under copyright. Judge William H. Orrick Jr. applied a legal principle known as the merger doctrine, where courts will not grant copyright protection where it would effectively give someone a monopoly over an idea.

<i>Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp.</i> 1982 legal case

Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp., 672 F.2d 607, is one of the first legal cases applying copyright law to video games, barring sales of the game K.C. Munchkin! for its similarities to Pac-Man. Atari had licensed the commercially successful arcade game Pac-Man from Namco and Midway, to produce a version for their Atari 2600 console. Around the same time, Philips created Munchkin as a similar maze-chase game, leading Atari to sue them for copyright infringement.

<i>Atari v. Amusement World</i> 1981 legal case

Atari Inc. v. Amusement World Inc., 547 F.Supp. 222 is a legal case in which the United States District Court for the District of Maryland held that Amusement World's arcade game Meteors did not violate Atari's copyright in their game Asteroids.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman , 669 F.2d 852 (2nd Cir. 1982)
  2. 1 2 3 ""Donkey Kong" No.1 Of '81 — Game Machine's Survey Of "The Year's Best Three AM Machines" —" (PDF). Game Machine . No. 182. Amusement Press, Inc. February 15, 1982. p. 30.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Lendino, Jamie (September 27, 2020). Attract Mode: The Rise and Fall of Coin-Op Arcade Games. Steel Gear Press. pp. 137–139.
  4. ↑ Reed, Kristan (September 18, 2006). "Scramble". Eurogamer.net. Retrieved June 26, 2022.
  5. ↑ Brudvig, Erik (September 13, 2006). "Scramble Review". IGN. Retrieved November 27, 2022.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman , 523 F.Supp 635 (E.D.N.Y. 1982)
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hemnes, Thomas M. S. (1982). "The Adaptation of Copyright Law to Video Games". University of Pennsylvania Law Review . 131 (1): 171–233. doi:10.2307/3311832. JSTOR   3311832.
  8. ↑ Kubey, Craig (1982). The Winners' Book of Video Games. New York: Warner Books. p. 118. ISBN   978-0-446-37115-5.
  9. ↑ Martin, Garrett (May 25, 2021). "The Best Games of 1981". Paste Magazine. Retrieved June 26, 2022.
  10. ↑ Moyse, Chris (September 29, 2019). "One of the very first shmups, Scramble, returns on Nintendo Switch". Destructoid. Retrieved June 26, 2022.
  11. 1 2 "After Pong". ACE . No. 6 (March 1988). February 4, 1988. pp. 29–32.
  12. ↑ Santos, Wayne; Lip, Khang (October 2006). "Twitch on Live: Xbox Live Arcade Games". GameAxis Unwired. No. 38. SPH Magazines. pp. 30–1.
  13. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Grabowski Jr., Theodore J (1983). "Copyright Protection for Video Game Programs and Audiovisual Displays; and - Substantial Similarity and the Scope of Audiovisual Copyrights for Video Game". Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review. 3 (1): 140–146.
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hunter, Daniel A.D. (January 1991). "Protecting the Look and Feel of Computer Software in the United States and Australia". Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal. 7 (1): 95–155.
  15. ↑ McKenna, Pamela (1982). "Copyrightability of Video Games: Stern and Atari". Loyola University Chicago Law Journal. 14 (2): 391–413. Retrieved March 21, 2012.
  16. 1 2 Gaon, Aviv H. (September 7, 2021). The Future of Copyright in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN   978-1-83910-315-5.
  17. ↑ Justice, United States Congress House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Administration of (1991). Computers and Intellectual Property: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Administration of Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred First Congress, First and Second Sessions, November 8, 1989, and March 7, 1990. U.S. Government Printing Office.
  18. ↑ Hemnes, Thomas (March 2, 2021). How Law Works: Collected Articles and New Essays. Vernon Press. pp. 77–87. ISBN   978-1-64889-161-8.
  19. ↑ Salokannel, Marjut (May 28, 1997). Ownership of Rights in Audiovisual Productions: A Comparative Study. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN   978-90-411-0415-1.
  20. ↑ Craig Joyce et al., Copyright Law 77 (7th ed. 2006). See also Copyright Office Notice of Registration Decision, Docket No. 87-4, 53 Fed. Reg. 21817, June 10, 1988.
  21. ↑ Dean, Drew S. (2016). "Hitting reset: Devising a new video game copyright regime". University of Pennsylvania Law Review . 164 (5): 1239–1280. JSTOR   24753539. Archived from the original on August 7, 2019. Retrieved January 19, 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.