Midway Mfg. Co. v. Artic International, Inc.
216 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 413, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14595, 547 F. Supp. 999 (1982)
Rule of Law:
Audiovisual displays generated by video games are copyrightable works fixed in a tangible medium of expression (ROMs), and third-party devices that replicate or modify these displays constitute copyright infringement as unauthorized copies or derivative works.
Facts:
- Midway Manufacturing acquired the U.S. rights to the 'Galaxian' and 'Pac-Man' video games from a Japanese developer, Namco.
- The games operate using printed circuit boards containing microprocessors and ROMs (Read Only Memory) which generate specific sounds and images on a screen.
- Midway registered copyrights for the audiovisual works of both games by submitting videotapes of the game play to the Copyright Office, as the Office had no specific regulation for game boards.
- Defendant Artie International began selling 'speed-up kits' consisting of circuit boards that, when plugged into a Galaxian machine, made the aliens move faster and increased the game's difficulty.
- Artie also sold 'Puckman' printed circuit boards that created a game virtually identical to Pac-Man, differing only in the name and trivial details.
- The 'speed-up kits' were designed specifically to modify the visual play of Galaxian, and the Puckman boards contained data substantially identical to Midway's Pac-Man ROMs.
- Artie argued that the games were not 'fixed' because the images changed based on player interaction and that Midway had only copyrighted the videotapes, not the games themselves.
Procedural Posture:
- Midway sued Artie in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition.
- Midway filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop Artie from selling the circuit boards.
- Artie filed a motion for summary judgment on the copyright issues, claiming the copyrights were invalid.
- The District Court held an evidentiary hearing regarding the preliminary injunction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are the audiovisual displays of coin-operated video games, which are generated by computer programs and interact with player input, considered 'fixed in a tangible medium' such that a competitor's sale of circuit boards that duplicate or accelerate the game constitutes copyright infringement?
Opinions:
Majority - District Judge Decker
Yes, the audiovisual displays of video games are sufficiently fixed to warrant copyright protection, and the defendant's devices infringe upon these rights. The court reasoned that the 'work' protected is the audiovisual display, not the specific videotape submitted for registration purposes. Under the Copyright Act, a work is 'fixed' if it can be perceived or reproduced with the aid of a machine. Although the specific sequence of images on the screen varies based on player input, the audiovisual elements repeat in a finite, predictable manner and are permanently stored in the game's ROM chips. Therefore, they are not 'purely evanescent.' Regarding the 'Puckman' boards, the court found they were 'copies' because the work could be perceived from the ROMs, rejecting the argument that ROMs are merely utilitarian objects incapable of being copyrighted. Regarding the 'speed-up kits,' the court held these created unauthorized 'derivative works' because they significantly altered the performance of the copyrighted Galaxian audiovisual display by changing the speed and character movements.
Analysis:
This is a seminal case in computer and entertainment law that helped establish the copyrightability of video games and software. By distinguishing the 'audiovisual work' (the sights and sounds) from the underlying computer code or the physical object (the ROM), the court closed a loophole that infringers were using to claim video games were merely functional machines or transient performances. The decision explicitly rejected the reasoning of the earlier Data Cash case, which had suggested ROMs were not 'copies.' The ruling regarding the 'speed-up kit' is particularly significant for establishing that unauthorized add-ons that modify the user experience of a software program can be liable as infringing derivative works.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Midway Mfg. Co. v. Artic International, Inc. (1982)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"