Category Archives: Copyright Act

May The Look and Feel of the Tetris Video Game be Protected by The Copyright Act?

Is the look and feel of the Tetris video game distinguishable from the ideas of the game and therefore protectable? In Tetris Holding, LLC v. XIO Interactive, Inc., No. 09-6115 (D.N.J. May 30, 2012), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey answered this question in the affirmative.

In that case, Plaintiff, Tetris Holdings, LLC sued XIO Interactive, Inc. (“Defendant”) for the Defendant’s marketing of the game called “Mino.”  Plaintiff alleged among other things, copyright infringement and trade dress infringement because the game copied many copyrightable aspects of its Tetris game.  Tetris identified the following fourteen (14) elements that were allegedly copied:

  1. Seven Tetrimino playing pieces made up of four  equally-sized square joined at their sides;
  2. The visual delineation of individual blocks that comprise each Tetrimino piece and the display of their borders;
  3. The bright, distinct colors used for each of the Tetrimino pieces;
  4. A tall, rectangular playfield (or matrix), 10 blocks wide and 20 blocks tall;
  5. The appearance of Tetriminos moving from the top of the playfield to its bottom;
  6. The way the Tetrimino pieces appear to move and rotate in the playfield;
  7. The small display near the playfield that shows the next playing piece to appear in the playfield;
  8. The particular starting orientation of the Tetriminos, both at the top of the screen and as shown in the “next piece” display;
  9. The display of a “shadow” piece beneath the Tetriminos as they fall;
  10. The color change when the Tetriminos enter lock-down mode;
  11. When a horizontal line fills across the playfield with blocks, the line disappears, and the remaining pieces appear to consolidate downward;
  12. The appearance of individual blocks automatically filling in the playfield from the bottom to the top when the game is over;
  13. The display of “garbage lines” with at least one missing block in random order; and
  14. The screen layout in multiplayer versions with the player’s matrix appearing most prominently on the screen and the opponents’ matrixes appearing smaller than the player’s matrix and to the
    side of the player’s matrix.

Id. at 5.

Defendant conceded that it blatantly copied the look and feel of Tetris so that it could make a similar game for the iPhone.  However, Defendant alleged that it was careful not to copy protectable aspects of the game.  Instead, it copied unprotectable elements such as the “rules, function, and expression essential to the game play.” Id. at 7.  Defendant argued that “not only are the ideas of Tetris (or the rules of the game) not protectable, but neither re the ‘functional aspects’ of the game or expressive elements relating to the game’s function or play.” Id. at 17.  However, the Court disagreed and stated that Defendant “cannot protect expression inseparable from either game rules or game function.” Id.

In its holding, the Court noted that the Plaintiff was conflating the doctrine of merger and the related doctrine known as “scenes à faire.”  The Court explained that merger exists when an idea and the expression of that idea become inseparable. Id. at 14.  In that situation, copying is allowed to prevent a copyright holder from obtaining a monopoly over that idea.  The Court went on to discuss how expressions that are so associated with a particular idea (scenes à faire) are also unprotectable by copyright law.  Id. at 15.  In Tetris, the Court felt that neither doctrine applied.

Evaluating screenshots of both games side by side revealed just how similar the two games appeared.
The Court stated:

Without being told which is which, a common user could not decipher between the two games.  Any differences between the two are slight and insignificant.  If one has to find
distinctions only at a granular level, then the works are likely to be substantially similar.
Reviewing the videos of the game play bolsters this conclusion as it is apparent that the overall look and feel of the two games is identical. There is such similarity between the visual expression of Tetris and Mino that it is akin to literal copying.

Id. at 26-27.

Ultimately, the Court granted summary judgment for Tetris Holding, LLC, as to the copyright infringement and trade dress infringement claims.   

Where does the injury occur when books copyrighted by a New York publisher are uploaded onto the Internet by an out-of-state entity?

Penguin Group (USA) Inc. (“Penguin”), a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York City, sued American Buddha, a not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Arizona, for copyright infringement in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Penguin claimed that American Buddha infringed upon copyrights owned by Penguin for four books.  American Buddha allegedly published complete copies of those books on its two web sites, making them available free of charge to its 50,000 members and to anyone else with an Internet connection.  The electronic copying and uploading of the books by American Buddha took place in either Oregon or Arizona.  American Buddha claimed its right to copy and upload the books was protected by sections 107 and 108 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq., which govern fair use and reproduction by libraries and archives.  Penguin disputed that any exception to the Copyright Act applied to American Buddha’s activities.  Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha, CITATION

American Buddha moved to dismiss Penguin’s complaint on the ground that its ties to New York were too insubstantial for it to be subject to personal jurisdiction in that state.  Penguin countered that American Buddha was subject to personal jurisdiction in New York under CPLR 302 (a) (3) (ii) as it committed a tortious act outside of New York that resulted in injuries in New York.  American Buddha countered that CPLR 302 (a) (3) (ii) did not apply since Penguin did not suffer an injury within New York State.  The District Court granted American Buddha’s motion to dismiss holding that Penguin sustained injury in either Oregon or Arizona, which was where the copying and uploading of the books occurred.  The court reasoned that Penguin “suffered only a ‘purely derivative economic injury’ in New York based on its domicile here, which was insufficient to trigger CPLR 302 (a) (3) (ii).”  Id. at p.3.  Penguin appealed the decision of the District Court to New York’s Court of Appeals, which was asked to decide the following certified question:

“In copyright infringement cases involving the uploading of a copyrighted printed literary work onto the Internet, is the situs of injury for purposes of determining long-arm jurisdiction under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302 (a) (3) (ii) the location of the infringing action of the residence or location of the principal place of business of the copyright holder?”

The Court of Appeals determined that the location of the infringing action for purposes of New York’s long-arm jurisdiction was the location of the principal place of business of the copyright holder.  Under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302 (a) (3) (ii) long-arm jurisdiction may be exercised by a New York court when, 1) the defendant commits a tortious act outside New York; 2) the plaintiff’s cause of action arose from that tortious act; 3) the tortious act caused an injury to a person or property in New York; 4) the defendant expected or should reasonably have expected to act to have consequences in New York; and 5) the defendant derived substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce.  The only issue to be decided by the Court of Appeals was the third element – “whether an out-of-state act of copyright infringement has caused injury in New York.”  Id. at p.5-6.

While acknowledging that determining the location of the injury was more difficult when the alleged infringement involved the Internet, the court was persuaded by two factors to decide that “ a New York copyright owner alleging infringement sustains an in-state injury pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (3) (ii) when its printed literary work is uploaded without permission onto the Internet for public access.”  Id. at p.9.  First, the intended consequences of American Buddha’s activities – the instantaneous availability of works copyrighted by Penguin on American Buddha’s web site for anyone, in New York or elsewhere, with an Internet connection to download and read the works free of charge.

Second, the unique bundle of rights given to copyright owners tipped the balance in favor of determining New York as the situs of injury.  These five “exclusive rights” include, the right of reproduction; the right to prepare derivative works; the right to distribute copies by sale, rental, lease or lending; the right to perform the work publicly; and the right to display the work publicly.  17 U.S.C. §106.  As a result, a copyright owner has an “overarching ‘right to exclude others from using his property.’”  Id. citing eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 392 (2006).

Combining the aforementioned factors led the court to reason that a New York copyright holder “whose copyright is infringed suffers something more than … indirect financial loss.”  Id. at p.11.  For example, one potential harm of copyright infringement is the loss or diminishment of the incentive to publish or write.  Id. at p. 11.  A tort committed outside of New York that was likely to cause harm through the loss of business inside of New York was “sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction regardless of whether damages were likely recoverable or even ascertainable.”  Id. at p.12.

Further, there was no dispute that American Buddha’s web sites were accessible by any New Yorker with an Internet connection.  Therefore, “an injury allegedly inflicted by digital piracy is felt throughout the United States, which necessarily includes New York.”  Id. at p.12.  The court also distinguished the uploading of copyrighted books to the Internet from traditional commercial tort cases where the injury was generally linked to the place where sales or customers were lost.  The location of the infringement in such cases was unimportant since the goal was to make the copyrighted works available to anyone with an Internet connection, including those in New York.  Thus, “the concurrence of these two elements – the function and nature of the Internet and the diverse ownership rights enjoyed by copyright holders situated in New York – leads us to … conclude that the alleged injury in this case occurred in New York.” Id. at p.13.

Comments/Questions: gdn@gdnlaw.com

© 2011 Nissenbaum Law Group, LLC