Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc.

Last updated

Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc.
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Full case nameMidway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc.
ArguedNovember 29, 1982
DecidedApril 11, 1983
Citation(s)704 F.2d 1009
Case history
Prior history547 F. Supp. 999 (N.D. Ill. 1982)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Walter J. Cummings Jr., Richard Posner, Luther Merritt Swygert
Case opinions
MajorityCummings, joined by a unanimous court

Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc., 704 F.2d 1009 (7th Cir. 1983), 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.

Contents

Both Galaxian and Pac-Man were bestselling games in the early 1980s, with Pac-Man generating over $1 billion in revenues, as well as sequels, merchandising, and a cartoon. The dispute arose when Artic began to distribute an alleged clone of Pac-Man, and a circuit board that could speed-up the gameplay of Galaxian. While Midway registered their copyrights as audiovisual works by submitting video recordings of their games being played, Artic argued that this did not protect the games themselves, as the game's graphics were not fixed like a conventional video. The district court disagreed, finding that both games were protected as audiovisual works, and enjoined Artic from distributing their infringing hardware. The decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The case was among several early decisions finding that video games qualify for copyright protection as audiovisual works, despite their graphics varying between game sessions. Since Artic's version of Pac-Man was nearly identical to Midway's, the real issue was whether Pac-Man qualified for protection as an audiovisual work, which it did. This helped establish that an unauthorized clone of a game will be considered a copyright violation. In finding that the Galaxian speed-up kit was a copyright violation, the decision also established that a copyright holder has the exclusive right to modify their game and produce derivative works. This issue was revisited in Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. , where courts found that it was not a copyright violation for the Game Genie to modify the gameplay of popular Nintendo games. The issue of derivative works has provoked further discussion from legal theorists, arguing whether Artic's modifications of Galaxian actually copied anything from the original game.

Background

Pac-Man interactive exposition at The Art of Video Games The Art of Video Games 2012 (6848237506).jpg
Pac-Man interactive exposition at The Art of Video Games

In the late 1970s, arcade game industry was growing in Japan, leading Namco to enter the market. [1] [2] In 1979, Namco published the hit video game Galaxian , one of the first arcade games to incorporate RGB color graphics, score bonuses, and a tile-based graphical layout. [3] [4] That year, Galaxian became the second highest-earning arcade game in Japan. [5] It was re-released in North America by Midway Manufacturing, where it became one of its bestselling titles, and started a lucrative relationship between Namco and Midway. [6]

Namco built on this success with the release of Pac-Man in 1980, which was once again licensed to Midway Manufacturing for a North American re-release. [7] The year ended with Pac-Man as the highest earning game in Japan, with Galaxian close behind. [8] The game generated $150 million in sales between October 1980 and December 1981, [9] and overtook Atari's Asteroids as the bestselling arcade game in the United States in 1981. [10] Pac-Man was also the U.S.' highest-grossing arcade game of 1981, [11] [12] eventually earning more than $1 billion in revenue, surpassing even the revenues of the film Star Wars: A New Hope . [13] [14] Pac-Man became a mass market success, leading to game sequels, merchandising, and a cartoon. [7]

Artic International began selling circuit boards that could be used inside other game machines, including an alleged clone of Pac-Man, as well as a "speed-up kit" that accelerates the gameplay for Galaxian. [15] [16] Midway filed suit against Artic for copyright infringement in both games. [16] Artic responded by filing a motion for summary judgment against Midway, on the basis that Midway did not hold a valid copyright, [16] and that Artic had neither copied nor induced others to copy Midway's work. [17] Although Midway registered their copyrights submitting video recordings of their games being played, [18] Artic argued that the games themselves are transitory and not fixed. [15]

Ruling

Chief Judge Walter J. Cummings Jr. affirmed the lower court decision, granting an injunction against Artic for copyright infringement. Cummings-large.jpg
Chief Judge Walter J. Cummings Jr. affirmed the lower court decision, granting an injunction against Artic for copyright infringement.

District Judge Bernard Decker granted an injunction against Artic, [19] denying their motion for summary judgement, and preventing them manufacturing or distributing circuit boards that infringed both Pac-Man and Galaxian. [16] Artic appealed the injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, but Chief Judge Walter J. Cummings Jr. affirmed the lower court decision. [20]

Artic argued that the games cannot be protected as audiovisual works as they are not fixed. [15] The court acknowledged that the framers of the Copyright Act did not anticipate the issues raised by electronic games, [18] but rejected Artic's arguments. [17] According to the court, Midway's video games meet the Copyright Act's definition of an audiovisual work as a "series of related images", because there is sufficient repetition of images between playthroughs. [16] The court also accepted that the inventor of the game was the creator of the audiovisual work, and not the player, thus allowing Midway to register the copyright. [16]

Galaxian created further issues, as Artic argued that their hardware speeding the rate of play did not infringe Midway's copyright. [16] However, the court held that Artic violated Midway's exclusive right to create derivative works of Galaxian, as Artic's speed-up kit incorporated copyrighted material from the game, and supplanted demand for Midway's game. [21]

Having established that Midway owned a valid copyright in both games, [22] the court found that Artic infringed Pac-Man by producing a near identical copy, [18] and infringed Galaxian by creating an unauthorized derivative work. [22] The court denied Artic's motion for summary judgement against Midway, and instead enjoined Artic from infringing Pac-Man and Galaxian. [16]

Impact

The holding in Midway was distinguished in Lewis Galoob Toys v. Nintendo of America, when the Game Genie raised the copyright issue of using external hardware to modify a game's output. Game Genie.jpg
The holding in Midway was distinguished in Lewis Galoob Toys v. Nintendo of America, when the Game Genie raised the copyright issue of using external hardware to modify a game's output.

Midway v. Artic was one of several early video game lawsuits involving "knock-off" video games, along with Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman and Midway v. Dirkschneider. [18] Since a knock-off involves strong evidence of copying, these cases depended on whether video games were eligible for copyright at all. [23] Midway v. Artic helped establish that video games are indeed eligible for copyright protection as audiovisual works, [22] and that a copyright holder can register a video game as an audiovisual work by submitting a video tape of gameplay. [18] The judge's interpretation of Pac-Man helped establish that a near identical clone of a game will usually be considered copyright infringement. [18] The decision was also notable for going beyond an ordinary observer test for similarity, relying on expert testimony to parse similarities in source code between the games, including an identical error in the two circuit boards. [24]

This case also illustrates a challenge for understanding the concept of "fixation" in copyright law. Midway v. Artic is one of the first copyright decisions where a computer program stored in hardware memory was sufficient to qualify as a fixed creative work. [15] [21] Even though the combinations of images change between game sessions, most of the images are fixed in memory of the printed circuit boards. [21] Along with early cases Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman and Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp. , courts accepted that the image sequences were the creations of the author, and not an algorithm or a player. [15] In Play/Write, Scott Nelson argues that this has implications for copyright ownership in procedurally generated games such as Diablo , Dwarf Fortress , and Minecraft. [15]

Midway v. Artic was also one of the first cases about using hardware to modify a copyrighted game, with Midway's exclusive right to prepare derivative works violated by Artic's speed-up kit. [21] This interpretation was distinguished in 1992 with the ruling in Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. , [25] where the court decided that there was no copyright infringement in attaching Game Genie hardware to a Nintendo cartridge to alter a game's mechanics. [26] [27] The legal distinction was that Artic's hardware incorporated a portion of the original Galaxian, while the Game Genie did not incorporate any copyrighted content. [22] Another distinction was that the Galaxian speed-up kit was interpreted as a threat to the commercial demand for Galaxian, whereas another court found that the Game Genie would not have the same commercial impact. [22] [25] Thomas Hemnes criticized this opinion about commercial impact in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review , noting that the speed-up kit could not function without first owning a working version of the original game. [17] Pamela Samuelson made a similar criticism in the Georgetown Law Journal, that the injunction against the speed-up kit may have hindered competition in the video game industry. [26]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Namco</span> Defunct Japanese video game developer and publisher

Namco Limited was a Japanese multinational video game and entertainment company, headquartered in Ōta, Tokyo. It held several international branches, including Namco America in Santa Clara, California, Namco Europe in London, Namco Taiwan in Kaohsiung, and Shanghai Namco in mainland China.

<i>Ms. Pac-Man</i> 1982 video game

Ms. Pac-Man is a 1982 maze arcade game developed by General Computer Corporation and published by Midway. It is the first sequel to Pac-Man (1980) and the first entry in the series to not be made by Namco. Controlling the title character, Pac-Man's wife, the player is tasked with eating all of the pellets in an enclosed maze while avoiding four colored ghosts. Eating the larger "power pellets" lets the player eat the ghosts, who turn blue and flee.

<i>Galaxian</i> 1979 video game

Galaxian is a 1979 fixed shooter arcade video game developed and published by Namco. The player assumes control of the Galaxip starfighter in its mission to protect Earth from waves of aliens. Gameplay involves destroying each formation of aliens, who dive down towards the player in an attempt to hit them.

<i>Galaga</i> 1981 arcade game

Galaga is a 1981 fixed shooter arcade video game developed and published by Namco. In North America, it was released by Midway Manufacturing. It is the sequel to Galaxian (1979), Namco's first major video game hit in arcades. Controlling a starship, the player is tasked with destroying the Galaga forces in each stage while avoiding enemies and projectiles. Some enemies can capture a player's ship via a tractor beam, which can be rescued to transform the player into a "dual fighter" with additional firepower.

The golden age of arcade video games was the period of rapid growth, technological development and cultural influence of arcade video games, from the late 1970s to the early 1980s. The period began with the release of Space Invaders in 1978, which led to a wave of shoot 'em up games such as Galaxian and the vector graphics-based Asteroids in 1979, made possible by new computing technology that had greater power and lower costs. Arcade video games transitioned from black-and-white to color, with titles such as Frogger and Centipede taking advantage of the visual opportunities of bright palettes.

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

Munchkin is cartridge number 38 in the official Philips line of games for the Philips Videopac. In North America for the Magnavox Odyssey 2 it was called K.C. Munchkin!, an inside reference to then president of Philips Consumer Electronics Kenneth C. Menkin.

<i>Super Pac-Man</i> 1982 video game

Super Pac-Man is a 1982 maze chase arcade game developed and published by Namco. It was distributed in North America by Midway Games. Super Pac-Man is Namco's take on a sequel to the original Pac-Man; Midway had previously released Ms. Pac-Man, which Namco had little involvement with. Toru Iwatani returns as designer.

Though not a complete history, herein is a list of what many would consider most of the "game" changers that made arcade experiences so powerful and nostalgic.

<i>Rally-X</i> 1980 video game

Rally-X is a maze chase arcade video game developed Namco and released in 1980. Players drive a blue Formula One race car through a multidirectional scrolling maze to collect yellow flags. Boulders block some paths and must be avoided. Red enemy cars pursue the player in an attempt to collide with them. Red cars can be temporarily stunned by laying down smoke screens at the cost of fuel. Rally-X is one of the first games with bonus stages and continuously-playing background music.

<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>Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman</i> American legal case

Stern Electronics Inc. v. Kaufman, 669 F.2d 852, 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.

<i>Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.</i> Court case

Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. is a 1992 legal case where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 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 the Galoob 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.

<i>Micro Star v. FormGen Inc.</i> Court case in the United States

The case 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>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 1984 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>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. ↑ Kurokawa, Fumio (March 17, 2018). "ビデオゲームの語り部たち 第4部：石村繁一氏が語るナムコの歴史と創業者・中村雅哉氏の魅力" [Video game storytellers Part 4: The history of Namco and the charm of its founder, Masaya Nakamura, talked about by Shigekazu Ishimura]. 4Gamer (in Japanese). Archived from the original on August 1, 2019. Retrieved August 2, 2019.
  2. ↑ Koyama, Nobuyuki (June 9, 2005). 遊びのチカラ ナムコの高付加価値戦略[The Power of Play: Namco's High Value-Added Strategy] (in Japanese). Tokyo: Nikkei BP Planning. ISBN   978-4-8613-0101-8.
  3. ↑ "Arcade Games". JoyStik. Vol. 1, no. 1. Publications International. September 1982. p.  10 . Retrieved July 14, 2019.
  4. ↑ Mark J. P. Wolf (June 15, 2012). Before the Crash: Early Video Game History. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. p. 173. ISBN   978-0-8143-3722-6.
  5. ↑ "ベストスリー 本紙調査" [Best 3 Paper Survey](PDF). Game Machine (in Japanese). No. 136. Amusement Press, Inc. February 1980. p. 2.
  6. ↑ Kent, Steven L. (2002). The Ultimate History of Video Games: The Story Behind the Craze that Touched our Lives and Changed the World. New York: Random House International. pp. 137–138. ISBN   978-0-7615-3643-7.
  7. 1 2 Graham, Lawrence D. (1999). Legal Battles that Shaped the Computer Industry. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN   978-1-56720-178-9.
  8. ↑ "ベストスリー 本紙調査 (調査対象1980年) 〜 アーケードゲーム機" [Best Three Book Survey (Survey Target 1980) ~ Arcade Game Machines](PDF). Game Machine (in Japanese). No. 159. Amusement Press, Inc. February 15, 1981. p. 2.
  9. ↑ 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.
  10. ↑ Mark J. P. Wolf (2001). The medium of the video game. University of Texas Press. p. 44. ISBN   0-292-79150-X. Archived from the original on April 18, 2016. Retrieved April 9, 2011.
  11. ↑ "1981 Jukebox/Games Route Survey". Cash Box . Cash Box Pub. Co. October 31, 1981. p. C-18.
  12. ↑ "Authoritative Industry Sources Acclaim: Pac-Man Top Video Game of the Year". Cash Box . Cash Box Pub. Co. December 26, 1981. p. 91.
  13. ↑ Haddon, L. (1988). "Electronic and Computer Games: The History of an Interactive Medium". Screen . 29 (2): 52–73 [53]. doi:10.1093/screen/29.2.52. Revenue from the game Pac-Man alone was estimated to exceed that from the cinema box-office success Star Wars.
  14. ↑ Kevin "Fragmaster" Bowen (2001). "Game of the Week: Pac-Man". GameSpy. Archived from the original on October 1, 2011. Retrieved April 9, 2011.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Eyman, Douglas; Davis, Andréa D. (April 6, 2016). Play/Write: Digital Rhetoric, Writing Games. Parlor Press LLC. ISBN   978-1-60235-734-1.
  16. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Caretto, Barbara B. (January 1985). "Copyright Infringement of Video Games: When the Chips Are Down". Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review. 5 (1): 132–147.
  17. 1 2 3 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.
  18. 1 2 3 4 5 6 McKnight, Steven G. (October 1983). "Substantial Similarity Between Video Games: An Old Copyright Problem in a New Medium". Vanderbilt Law Review. 6 (5): 1277–1312.
  19. ↑ Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc., 547F. Supp.999 ( N.D. Ill. 1982).
  20. ↑ Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc., 704F.2d1009 ( 7th Cir. 1983).
  21. 1 2 3 4 Jensen, Mary Brandt (May 1984). "Softright: A Legislative Solution to the Problem of Users' and Producers' Rights in Computer Software". Louisiana Law Review. 44 (5): 1413–1483.
  22. 1 2 3 4 5 Schlinsog, Melinda J. (2013). "Endermen, Creepers, and Copyright". Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property. 16: 185–206.
  23. ↑ Grabowski, Theodore J. Jr. (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): 139–162.
  24. ↑ Sundholm, Carl (January 1987). "Computer Copyright Infringement: Beyond the Limits of the Iterative Test" (PDF). Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal. 3 (2): 378.
  25. 1 2 Rothberg, Joseph. "Cheating In Gaming: Will Copyright Laws Level Up?". Forbes. Retrieved July 17, 2022.
  26. 1 2 Samuelson, Pamela (October 2013). "The quest for a sound conception of copyright's derivative work right" (PDF). Georgetown Law Journal. 101 (6): 1–77.
  27. ↑ Woo, Jisuk (June 3, 2014). Copyright Law and Computer Programs: The Role of Communication in Legal Structure. Routledge. p. 107. ISBN   978-1-135-69482-1.
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.