Articles Posted in Copyright

Posted

by

Copying within the games industry is prevalent. Some people attribute this to the fact that this is just the way it is and has always been within the industry. This is often premised on the notion that the “idea” for a game is not protectable. But as the game market grows, so to do the losses from copying suffered by the game innovators.

One of the biggest factors contributing to this is that many game developers do not develop comprehensive strategies for protecting the valuable intellectual property that they create. This is generally due to several reasons. One is that historically, intellectual property has just not been a big focus for many in the industry. The other is that many people are not aware of the range of options available for protecting IP in the game space and what aspects of games are protectable. This is often due to some common misunderstandings about intellectual property, particularly with respect to the patentability of game features.

While it is true that one can not protect the “idea”
for a game, this does not end the inquiry. Many aspects of games are protectable by patents, copyright and trademarks. Of these, patents are probably the most overlooked and least understood. While this applies to all types of games, there are particularly compelling opportunities to patent many of the innovative aspects of social and online games. This is due in part to the many recent developments in the relevant technology and business models for these games. Prudent developers and publishers will seize these opportunities to develop a comprehensive IP protection strategy.

Posted

by

In the fast and furious world of app development, time is of the essence. So claims the Plaintiff YoHolla in a lawsuit against an app developer Pinwheel Designs Corp. and its subcontractor Burton Design Group (BDG). Allegedly the defendants’ inability to produce a bug-free app in a timely manner delayed YoHolla’s launch of its social network.

This case involves a classic fact pattern of a development contract gone awry. YoHolla claims that BDG missed several deadlines for completion of an Iphone and Android app, that what BDG produced was riddled with bugs and required additional payments well beyond the initial estimates. YoHolla further alleges that the contract stated that TIME WAS OF THE ESSENCE and that these delays caused delay of YoHolla’s planned launch of its social network and over $550, 000 in delay damages.

After things escalated, YoHolla went elsewhere to get the development finished and formally terminated the development contract.

BDG demanded final payments and ordered YoHolla to cease and desist from use of any source code developed by BDG, alleging that such use would constitute copyright infringement (despite an apparent assignment of all rights to YoHolla in the contract).

Where this gets more interesting is that BDG contacted Apple and alleged that YoHolla’s iphone app infringes BDG’s copyrights. After 3 or so rounds of “he said, she said” regarding copyright ownership, to no avail, YoHolla filed suit.

The Yohalla Complaint raises claims for declaration of ownership of copyright and non-infringement, breach of contract, tortious interference with a business relationship (for BDG’s allegedly false notices to Apple), defamation and a claim for indemnification against Pinwheel.

This will be an interesting case to watch.

 

 

Posted

by

In Amaretto Ranch Breedables v. Ozimals, Inc., Case No. 10-05696, the Northern District of California granted a temporary restraining order enjoining Second Life from honoring Defendant’s take down notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). Defendant sells “ozimals” which are breadable “living” bunnies that users can purchase and take care of in the Second Life virtual world. Defendant sent Second Life a take down notice under Section 512(c)(3) of the DMCA, requesting that Second Life remove Plaintiff’s virtual horses based on the allegation that such horses infringed Defendant’s copyrights in its virtual bunnies. Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that it did not violate Defendant’s copyrights. Plaintiff also filed a request for a temporary restraining order, seeking to enjoin Second Life from removing its virtual horses from the virtual world, rather than enjoining Defendant from sending allegedly improper DMCA take down notices.

The court granted Plaintiff’s request for an injunction under Section 512(f) of the DMCA, which permits an injunction against complying with a take down notice if a party knowingly misrepresents that the material is infringing. Defendant’s take down notice alleged that the act of having a “live” virtual animal that needed food to “live” was protected by its copyright and was thereby infringed by Plaintiff’s virtual horses which needed virtual food to live. The court reasoned that Defendant was likely trying to protect the functionality of the virtual animal via copyright. However, copyright does not protect functionality. Because Plaintiff submitted declarations supporting that it did not copy Defendant’s code, which would have been a valid copyright violation, the court held that Plaintiff had “raised serious questions” as to whether Defendant materially misrepresented the likelihood of an actual infringement in the take down notice sent to Second Life. Thus, the court held that Plaintiff would likely be irreparably harmed if Second Life did take down its virtual horses, as Plaintiff would lose customers and income.

What is interesting about this case is the fact that the court enjoined Second Life, who was not a party and did not have a chance to litigate on behalf of itself in the proceedings. Thus, Second Life is apparently subject to an order to which it did not have a chance to weigh in on. The preliminary injunction hearing, to decide whether to maintain the injunction, is set for January 11, 2011.

This case also highlights the need for companies to understand the limits of the DMCA. Making overreaching statements in a DMCA takedown notice can lead to the copyright owner being liable.

 

Posted

by

The Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled on the Blizzard v. MDY case, largely affirming the district court’s finding that MDY’s bot (“Glider”) for playing World of Warcraft (WOW) violates the WOW Terms of Use and violates anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. However, the 9th Circuit found that the violation was breach of a contractual covenant not a breach of a condition of the license and applied a somewhat different analysis to the DMCA claims. The net result still largely favors Blizzard and a permanent injunction was affirmed.

We previously prepared an advisory on the District Court decision.

The Court found that the use of Glider violated the Terms of Use prohibition on bots. However, unlike the district court, the 9th Circuit ruled that this was a breach of a contractual covenant not a breach of a condition of the license. One significance of this is the different remedies available for breach of contract and copyright infringement.

The DMCA claims related to whether Glider violates DMCA sections 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1) by circumventing WOW’s Warden, which is intended to detect bots. The Court ruled in Blizzard’s favor with respect to “dynamic non-literal elements” of WOW.

In reaching its decision, the Court refused to follow a Federal Circuit decision (in the Chamberlain case) interpreting the DMCA. The 9th Circuit ruled that Section 1201 (a) creates a new anti-circumvention right distinct from copyright infringement while section (b) strengthens the traditional prohibition against copyright infringement.  In contrast, the Federal Circuit in Chamberlain found that the DMCA coverage is limited to a copyright owner’s rights under Section 106 of the Copyright Act, and required a “nexus” to infringement. The 9th Circuit refused to adopt any requirement for an infringement nexus. The tension between these appeals courts may set up a show down in the Supreme Court.

The Court went on to find that MDY did violate Section 1202 (a)(2) of the DMCA with respect to the dynamic non-literal elements of WOW.  But the Court found that Glider does not violate DMCA Section 1201(a)(2) with respect to WOW’s literal and individual non-literal elements, because Warden does not effectively control access to these WOW elements.

The Court also found that the tortious interference with contract claims were not preempted by the Copyright Act, but that factual issues prevented a proper summary judgment finding. As a result, it vacated the district court’s summary judgment ruling on this issue and remanded the issue of personal liability for MDY’s CEO.

Perhaps serendipitously, the decision was handed down just days after Blizzard’s release of Cataclysm the third expansion of WOW. More than 3.3 million
copies as of Cataclysm were sold in the first 24 hours of release, which according to Blizzard, makes it the
fastest-selling PC game of all time.

Here is a copy of the 9th Circuit decision.

Posted

by

In a very significant decision, the 9th circuit Court of Appeals ruled that software developers can legally prevent customers from owning the copies of software that they pay for. Instead, if the software license agreement is properly drafted, the software developer retains ownership in the copies they distribute and the customers merely have a license to use the software.

This is significant for many reasons. The first is that this means the “first sale doctrine” does not apply. Under this doctrine a copyright owners rights are extinguished in a particular copy of the software after an authorized first sale. As a result, the customer can rightfully sell the software if they no longer need/want it. In contrast, with a license that restricts transfer this is not permissible.

This ruling by analogy may be applicable to virtual goods as well. Many terms of service specify that virtual goods are merely licensed and not owned by customers.

Vernor 

Posted

by

Thumbnail image for blizzard.pngA California Court ruled last week in favor of Blizzard, finding that Scapegaming (a.k.a. Alyson Reeves) ran an unauthorized secondary market that handled microtransactions in violation of the World of Warcraft terms of service. Blizzard sued Scapegaming last October for copyright infringement. The court awarded about $88 million dollars, including about $64,000 in attorney’s fees and over $85 million in statutory damages.

Posted

by

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for logo1w.pngA federal court dismissed on summary judgment most of the copyright infringement claims against Google, ruling, in part, that Plaintiff’s notices were not compliant with the requirements of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). As a result, the court found that Google was entitled to “safe harbor” protection under various sections of the DMCA.

This is another in a string of DMCA rulings that favor online service providers, place the burden of policing infringement on content owners and demonstrate the courts’ inclination to strictly construe the DMCA requirements. We previously posted about the $1 billion damage claim that Google (and its YouTube subsidiary) avoided in its lawsuit with Viacom by reliance on the DMCA. These cases continue to highlight the business need for ensuring that companies have and comply with effective DMCA policies.

In framing some of the issues, the court stated:

In order to be eligible for any of these three safe harbors under the DMCA, a party must satisfy three threshold conditions. First, the party must be a service provider as defined under 17 U.S.C. § 512(k)(1)(B). Second, the party must have “adopted and reasonably implemented, and inform[] subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers.” 17 U.S.C. § 512(i)(1). Third, the party must “accommodate[] and . . . not interfere with standard technical measures” used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works. 17 U.S.C. §§ 512(i)(1)-(2).

The court found that Perfect 10 did not dispute that Google met the first and third prongs, but rather it argued that there were issues about whether Google implemented a suitable policy for repeat infringers. But for some of the technologies at issue (e.g., Google’s Web Search, Image Search and caching feature”), Google does not have account holders or subscribers. Even Perfect 10 did not contend that Google must, or even can, have a repeat infringer policy for those services. See 17 U.S.C. § 512(i)(1)(A) (requiring a repeat infringer policy for those services with “subscribers and account holders”). Thus, the court summarily found in Google’s favor on these issues.

The court also addressed issues relating to the “Information Location Tools” safe harbor under Section 512(d) of the DMCA. Here the court found that Google, in many cases, did not have “actual notice” of infringement, despite receiving numerous notices from Perfect 10. The court stated:

As the Ninth Circuit explained in CCBill, “The DMCA notification procedures place the burden of policing copyright infringement–identifying the potentially infringing material and adequately documenting infringement–squarely on the owners of the copyright.” CCBill, 488 F.3d at 1113. P10’s Group C notices do not “identif[y] . . . the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed . . . .” 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3). To refer Google to more than 15,000 images appearing on the entirety of P10’s website falls far short of identifying what may have been infringed. Nor is a reference to the totality of the P10 image collection “a representative list” of “multiple copyrighted works” appearing without authorization at a single infringing site. See 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3). Thus, all of P10’s Group C notices lack the identification of the copyrighted work required by section 512(c)(3)(A)(ii).

P10’s Group C notices are additionally defective because they do not contain all of the required information in a single written communication.

The court also addressed the Safe Harbor for caching under Section 512(b) of the DMCA and various other issues.

The case is Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc. Here is a  copy of the Decision

Posted

by

On July 23, 2010, Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered an order denying Facebook Inc.’s motion to dismiss a second amended complaint alleging that Facebook is guilty of contributing to the copyright infringement of a video game. Judge Alsup denied Facebook’s argument that, as the Plaintiff had failed to properly allege direct infringement by its Co-Defendant, no claim against Facebook for contributory infringement could be made. A copy of the decision can be found here: Miller v Facebook

Background

The pleadings allege that Plaintiff, Daniel Miller, created the video game Boomshine in 2007 and was granted a copyright registration by the U.S. Copyright Office. Boomshine is a game in which players click on floating circles which cause them to expand resulting in the expansion of any other circles which come into contact. Miller’s second amended complaint accuses Defendant,Yao Wei Yeo, of direct infringement by arguing a similar “look and feel” between his video game, ChainRxn, and Boomshine but provides no further evidence of copying. According to the allegations in Miller’s filings, “ChainRxn copies the look and feel of Boomshine by incorporating almost every visual element of the game”. Moreover, the second amended complaint accuses Facebook of contributing to the infringement of the video game by allowing Yeo’s game to remain on its website after being notified that it infringed the copyright of Boomshine.  Miller alleges that “[a]fter defendant Yeo published ChainRxn on defendant Facebook’s website, members of the public were deceived regarding the origin of ChainRxn.”

The Court’s Denial

Facebook filed a motion for dismissal of the suit on June 21, 2010. Its argument was founded on the position that, as Miller had not properly first pled direct infringement by Yeo, he could not sustain a claim for contributory infringement by Facebook. The basis for Facebook’s argument was that Miller’s mere allegation that ChainRxn “looks and feels” identical to Boomshine without further proof of copying was insufficient to allege direct copyright infringement of Boomshine’s source code. Moreover, Facebook argued that the copyright registration Miller had obtained for the source code was limited to its literal elements and not audiovisual elements of Boomshine. Judge Alsup denied the first element of Facebook’s motion as premature noting that a “plaintiff can rarely examine the underlying source code of an accused infringing software program without resorting to discovery.” Specifically, Judge Alsup said it would be “unreasonable, if not impossible” for Miller to know with “exacting detail” how Yeo copied the Boomshine source code so early in the case. Additionally, Judge Alsup denied the second portion of Facebook’s motion by clarifying that the Court’s earlier order “did not hold that copyright protection for source code was limited to the literal elements of the work” but rather that “plaintiff’s copyright appears to be limited to the source code rather than the audiovisual aspects” and further determination is necessary to decide if the audiovisual elements of the game were also protected.

Finally, the court reminded Miller to address the disputed service of the second amended complaint on Yeo by the July 30, 2010 deadline or suffer a “potentially fatal defect” to his case.

Comments

The above action is interesting for several reasons. Platform companies like Facebook generally rely on the “safe harbor” protections the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides when an infringement claim is made for the postings of a third-party. In fact,YouTube recently obtained a favorable decision providing it with DMCA protection in a potentially billion-dollar copyright infringement suit brought by Viacom. Moreover, while the Courts may differ on copyright protection for audiovisual “screen displays” in video games, the Copyright office’s consistent position is that “a single registration is sufficient to protect the copyright in a computer program and related screen displays, including videogames, without a separate registration for the screen displays or a specific reference to them on the application for the computer program.” For further discussion you can review the Copyright office’s Circular 61

That said, this case continues to demonstrate that social networking platforms and other websites displaying user generated content must be ever vigilant or potentially face suits arguing various copyright theories. As technology advances (as well as the means of infringement) it is likely the pleading requirements will remain relatively low and defer the need to demonstrate the how, when and why of the alleged infringement until the completion of discovery. Since this will likely increase the cost of litigating these matters, Platform operators and creators of user generated content need to understand and avail themselves of copyright (and other IP) protection, enforcement techniques and available defenses.

Posted

by

On April 8, 2010, Zynga sued Playerauctions.com for operating a website that provides an unauthorized “Secondary Market” for enabling Zynga game users to post and sell “Virtual Currency” and “Virtual Goods” allegedly in violation of Zynga’s Terms of Service. According to Zynga, its Terms of Service prohibits users from selling “Virtual Currency” or “Virtual Goods” for real-world money or anything of value outside of its games.

A recent version of the Zynga Terms of Service states:

The Service may include a virtual, in-game currency (“Virtual Currency”) including, but not limited to coins, cash, or points, that may be purchased from Zynga for “real world” money if you are a legal adult in your country of residence. The Service may also include virtual, in-game digital items (“Virtual Goods”) that may be purchased from Zynga for “real world” money or for Virtual Currency. Regardless of the terminology used, Virtual Currency and Virtual Goods may never be redeemed for “real world” money, goods or other items of monetary value from Zynga or any other party.

It further states:

Transfers of Virtual Currencies and Virtual Goods are strictly prohibited except where explicitly authorized within the Service. Outside of the game, you may not buy or sell any Virtual Currency or Virtual Goods for “real world” money or otherwise exchange items for value. Any attempt to do so is in violation of these Terms and may result in a lifetime ban from Zynga Service and possible legal action.

Zynga alleges that the Playerauctions.com has committed copyright and trademark infringement (along with false designation of origin, unfair competition and other claims) by displaying and/reproducing images and code from the games and using various Zynga trademarks with authorization.

The Complaint identifies unlawful sales in connection with Zynga’s Poker, Mafia Wars and FarmVille games. A recent review of the Playerauctions.com site showed over 750 Mafia Wars related items alone available for sale ranging in unit price from 25 cents to $900 and 84 entire “accounts” for sale ranging in asking price from $30 to $5,000 with one listed at a whopping $492,000!

Interestingly, Zynga does not specifically allege impropriety with or seek to prevent the outright sale of accounts.

Posted

by

On April 28, 2010, a social game developer Crowdstar sued Wonderhill for copyright infringement based on similarities between Wonderhill’s “Aquarium Life” and Crowdstar’s “Happy Aquarium”. While copyright does not protect ideas (such as the idea for a fish-based game) it does protect expression of the idea. If this case should make it to court, it will provide an interesting test case for game developers that have developed social games that have been “cloned,” which tends to be quite common in the space.

Happy Aquarium is generally acknowledged as one of the first, if not the original, fish care-based social games. Happy Aquarium and Aquarium Life are not the only aquarium games. But in its complaint, Crowdstar alleges an especially high level of correspondence in the user interface, game play and other features between Happy Aquarium and Aquarium Life as being the impetus for the suit.

Starting with a relatively obscure game from 1 year old Wonderhill may increase the potential for a quick settlement. But is this a one off lawsuit or is Crowdstar chasing a minnow while it waits for a bigger fish to fry? Check back and we will keep you updated.

One interesting aspect of the complaint relates to the relief sought – or more accurately what is not sought. In the U.S., statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringement, the potential for recovery of legal costs and attorneys’ fees, and certain legal presumptions regarding ownership and validity are available to a copyright holder for works that were timely registered with the Copyright Office. These benefits are typically available for works that were registered prior to infringement or within three months of first publication. It is notable that the Crowdstar copyright registration at issue was only recently registered (registration no. TX 7-117-794, registered March 25, 2010), while Happy Aquarium itself was published in September, 2009. Perhaps as a result of this, the relief sought by Crowdstar does not include statutory damages or recovery of legal costs and attorneys’ fees.

But, regardless of the result here, there can be no doubt that a game developer’s leverage over a clone can be increased significantly with a timely copyright registration For more on this topic see our advisory on the benefits of timely filing copyright registrations.