Nintendo sued Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc with the belief that its Game Genie device infringes on Nintendo's copyrighted games, by creating derivative works each time it is used in conjunction with both the Nintendo console and corresponding games. The District Court however, did not agree with Nintendo on this matter. Upon examination of the way in which the Game Genie interacts with both the Nintendo games and the Nintendo system, it was found that the device only serves to temporarily "enhance" said games, and therefore does not infringe upon Nintendo's existing copyrighted material. Not only was there no permanence, but the Game Genie was found to merely interfere with the signal between the Nintendo system and the game itself, which would not allow it to alter the source code of the game being played.
Nintendo appealed with the argument that the Court should focus on the visual elements produced, which they claimed to be derivative works. The court discusses the fact that improvement is laudable, while replacement is not. The spell checker for a word processing program is used as an example of a positive improvement/enhancement. And with that, the subject of fair use was taken into account, and the functions of the Game Genie were scrutinized in relation to the four factors that allow for fair use to be claimed. If in fact the Game Genie was determined to create derivative works, then the question was, would they be allowed under the factors of fair use?
The out come was a positive one for Galoob. The Game Genie's temporary derivative works were determined to be non-commercial, and they were not found to cost Nintendo any loss of profit. Therefore, no injunction was granted to Nintendo.
This case is an interesting one because of the fact that the Court discussed the coding of the games, which proves that there is a growing understanding of such technology among court officials. In addition, it shows a progression of Copyright law which allows it to accommodate new technologies.

Another monumental case in which Williams Electronics sues the company Artic International for making a video game that was nearly identical to Williams Electronics Inc's popular game, Defender.
The game Defense Command was determined to be nearly identical to Defender in both the "play mode" in which the player gains control of the character, and the "attract mode" which is defined by the screen that displays before the coins are inserted. Artic's defense was that there was no "fixation" as far as the audio and visual effects presented on screen were concerned. When a person plays "Defense Command" whether in attract mode, or play mode, the person changes what is occurring on the screen, and so there is an element of transience to the images and sounds presented to the player (even though said changes are infinitesimal). Essentially, Artic made the argument that each player is a co-author of his individual game. The Courts however, did not accept Artic's argument of transience.
It was concluded that Artic's claims were not sufficient, considering that within the play mode, there was enough repetition of audio and visual material that the little difference made by the interference of the player was insignificant, and within the attract mode, there was basically no player manipulation.
The most important aspect of this case, which relates significantly to my paper is fact that this case brought into question whether or not ROM was copyrightable. Artic claimed that by initiating the case, Williams was arguing that ROM was in fact not only a machine part, but intellectual property. Still, the Court dismissed this claim as the ROM was said to merely prove fixation, and that it was not copyrightable. Artic also argued that it copied object code, rather than source code, making this case groundbreaking on another level. Copy of object code would not have infringed upon copyright, considering it was un-copyrightable. It is important to note that in order for a decision to be reached, the Court had to deliberate and almost translate existing copyright law in order to reach a conclusion and counter argument to match Artic's claim. The case ended in favor of Williams, because the Court was able to study existing Copyright law in order to accommodate the technology.

Serving as a focal point to my paper, this work entitled "The Adaptation of Copyright Law to Video Games" discusses the growth of competition that is a result of growth within the video game market, and the desperate need for copyright law that will accurately protect video games against infringement. Hemnes considers how copyright law may not accurately represent the creativity that goes into creating video games, as the Copyright Act does not protect games, method of operation, ideas, and so on. All in all, there were at the time of this publication, definite limits to copyright in terms of software protection. Hemnes goes on to describe each "blackletter law" of the copyright act in relation to video games, starting with the law that games are not protected under copyright provision. There is a certain problem in that a game can be considered "unoriginal" in that it has certain "obvious" elements to its game play, such as a car in a racing game, or lasers within a space game. However, Hemnes notes that the programming behind such aspects is of utmost importance, and should be regarded as copyrightable material in that it required hard work and skill on the behalf of the programmer.
Hemnes used several cases to illustrate his point that in most early cases, video games are either over or under-protected. Cases such as the Pac Man or Galaxian cases are used as examples in which copyright law applies differently to video games than it would to another medium, such as literature. Although not mentioned within the text, the novel "The Wind Done Gone" is an example of a derivative work that could be considered to have undergone a similar case. However, while the novel was considered fair use, the speeding up of the game Galaxian was not.
What is most important, Hemnes argues, is the preservation of originality and expression of ideas, which in his conclusion he believes could be better achieved through more careful analysis of the effects that video games have upon elements of the fair use doctrine. Considering my paper focuses on the ever growing complexities of video game and computer game software, it is important to take into account early video game cases and the obvious flaws in their litigation.

Atari v. North American Phillips Consumer Electronics is a primary case in determining video game copyright law. Atari/Midway sued North America Phillips Consumer Electronics on the ground that their game, K C Munchkin directly infringed upon Atari's original, copyrighted game, Pac Man. Pac Man was copyrighted as an audio visual work, and so the very fact that KC Munchkin possessed similar visual and aural elements, not to mention near identical game play , was the basis for the lawsuit. The case beings by describing in meticulous detail, the copyrighted work of Pac Man, from the shape of the pixilated creatures, the position of the "gobbler", right down to the number of "power pellets" on the maze-like playing field. Conversely, aural and visual elements of the accused KC Munchkin game were also painstakingly reviewed down to the smallest detail. Minute differences, such as the number of dots/power pellets, and the position of the "gobbler" at the initiation of game play, are heavily scrutinized. While there were found to be evident similarities in so far as both games display the same basic element (such as a mina, "gobbler" character, ghostlike enemies, pellets, maze structure, etc.) the court concluded that there were enough differences between the games that an injunction was not necessary. The court maintained that differing elements such as the personification of the KC Munchkin character, the different sounds and even the fact that the KC Munchkin ghosts were "spookier" were enough to make the games significantly different. The factor that games are not protected under copyright law was a rather large issue, and so there was credit given to the artistic visual aspects of the game. In addition, the question of how much of the elements of the game were original and artistic, and how much of them were common sense, was also a big factor. The graphics also came into discussion, with the belief that the technology simply could not allow for drastic distinction between characters.
However, with an appeal, Atari was in fact able to take KC Munchkin off the market. The court employed the "ordinary observer test" and concluded that even though there were differences between the games, to the average player there would really be no distinction (nor care) for differences between the games "artistic expression".
This case is extremely important to my paper because within it are various examples of the way in which video games can be misinterpreted, and the complications that can arise from such interpretations. Labeling Pac Man as an audio visual work, along with the fact that source code is not mentioned at all within the case are very important factors to my paper. How can copyright define a video game? Also, visually, the court determines the similarities between both games as a fault of the graphics, and this is certainly something that can not be said of later games, as technology advances.

belongs to The Influence of Video Games on Copyright Decisions project
tagged K_C_Munchkin atari copyright copyright_protection graphic pac_man video_games by mymorg ...on 27-NOV-06