Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp.
US DC NorCal.svg
CourtUnited States District Court for the Northern District of California
DecidedMarch 16, 1994 (1994-03-16)
Citation(s)1994 WL 1751482 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 1994)
Court membership
Judge sittingWilliam H. Orrick Jr.

Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp. is a court case between two video game developers, where Capcom alleged that Data East's game Fighter's History infringed the copyright of Capcom's game Street Fighter II.

Background[]

Facts[]

In 1991, Game developer Capcom released Street Fighter II. Its popularity led to an explosion of interest in the fighting game genre.[1] Other companies rushed to capitalize, and Data East released their own one-on-one fighting game called Fighter's History in 1994.[2] Even compared to other fighting games, there were many similarities between Fighter's History and Street Fighter II, with both games having similar character designs and artwork, as well as similar special moves and controls.[1] As it was later revealed, Data East created design documents that referred to Street Fighter II several times.[1] Several people noticed the similarities and raised the issue with Capcom, reaching the president, Kenzo Tsujimoto.[3] Capcom soon sued Data East for copyright infringements, in both America and Japan.[4] Capcom also sought a preliminary injunction to stop Data East from distributing Fighter's History.[5]

There was some terrible evidence. I mean, the fact of the matter is the Data East artists were copying Street Fighter. The ultimate work wasn't a slavish copy — a pixel-by-pixel copy — but they had evidence that we were copying things. And our response was, well, what we were copying wasn't protectable. So for example, we might make a copy of one of their images, but then we'd change the image, change the background, change the fighter's stance, change the type of kick. But even then, there was a lot of similarity in the kicks and the moves. But of course our response was, "Well wait a minute. Those are conventional moves within the martial arts field. You can't own that."

— Claude Stern, Trial Counsel representing Data East[3]

Law[]

This dispute would depend on whether the copied elements of Street Fighter II was actually protected by copyright.[6] Data East called on expert witness Bill Kunkel, a game journalist who testified in Atari v. Philips that not all copying is infringing, such as the similarity between K.C. Munchkin! and Pac-Man.[1] The court still ruled that K.C. Munchkin! did infringe the copyright of Pac-Man, as the games had substantial similarities.[7] However, courts began to rule differently on later cases, deciding that many elements of creativity are not protectable, such as functional rules, generic concepts, and scènes à faire. One of these rulings was the 1980s case Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc., where courts ruled that Epyx's game World Karate Championship did not infringe Data East's game Karate Champ, because none of the similarities were protectable under copyright.[6] Now years later, Data East began to argue that their 1984 arcade game Karate Champ was the true originator of the competitive fighting game genre, preceding the Street Fighter series by several years.[8]

Ruling[]

The trial took place on October 31, 1994. Judge Orrick stated that there was strong evidence that Data East set out to imitate the success of Street Fighter II, noting similarities such as a "Chun-Li clone" (referring to Feilin) and several comparable special moves.[4] The court noted that "of the eight pairs of characters and twenty-seven special moves at issue, three characters and five special moves in Fighter’s History are similar to protectable characters and special moves in Street Fighter II".[9] Even noting the similarities between several moves, the court also noted that "Street Fighter II has a total universe of twelve characters and six hundred and fifty moves. Capcom concedes, as it must, that the vast majority of the moves are unprotectable because they are commonplace kicks and punches."[9] Capcom U.S.A. lost the case on grounds that the copied elements were excluded from copyright protection, as generic scènes à faire.[10]

Judge Orrick applied a legal principle known as the merger doctrine, where courts will not extend copyright protection if it effectively gives someone a monopoly over an idea. The court affirmed that "copyright protection does not encompass games as such, since they consist of abstract rules and play ideas. It follows, therefore, that audiovisual works like the two presently before the Court are largely unprotectable games."[9]

Legacy[]

The case affirms a skeptical view towards copyright protection for video games, though later cases such as Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive would find copyright violations under more specific forms of copying.[9] John Quagliariello argues that this was one of several cases that made it near impossible for a video game copyright holder to win a lawsuit against a potential infringer, especially considering the cost of a lawsuit versus the risk of an unfavorable ruling.[11] Chris Kohler of Kotaku argues that this ruling prevented a chilling effect on game creation, allowing imitation and iteration for video game genres to develop.[1] Attorney Stephen C. McArthur mentioned it among other rulings that were permissive of "clones", such as Atari v. Amusement World and Data East v. Epyx, a pattern which would change in 2012 (with Tetris Holding v. Xio and Spry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, Inc.).[12]

References[]

  1. ^ a b c d e "The Fighting Game Capcom Tried To Get Pulled From Arcades". Kotaku. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  2. ^ "Virtually Overlooked: Fighter's History". Engadget. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  3. ^ a b "Street Fighter 2: An Oral History". Polygon. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  4. ^ a b "Capcom, Data East in Fighter's Fight". GamePro (59). IDG. June 1994. p. 182.
  5. ^ Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp., 1994 WL 1751482 (N.D. Cal. 1994)
  6. ^ a b "Clone Wars: The Five Most Important Cases Every Game Developer Should Know". www.gamasutra.com. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  7. ^ Lampros, Nicholas M. (2013). "Leveling Pains: Clone Gaming And The Changing Dynamics Of An Industry" (PDF). Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 28: 743–774. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 28, 2020. Retrieved January 19, 2021.
  8. ^ Gamest. 134. December 30, 1994. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  9. ^ a b c d Dean, Drew S. (215). "Hitting reset: Devising a new video game copyright regime". University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 164: 1239–1280. Archived from the original on August 7, 2019. Retrieved January 19, 2021.
  10. ^ Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp. 1994 WL 1751482 (N.D. Cal. 1994). Analysis at Patent Arcade accessed June 18, 2009.
  11. ^ Quagliariello, John (2019). "Applying Copyright Law to Videogames: Litigation Strategies for Lawyers" (PDF). Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law. 10: 263.
  12. ^ McArthur, Stephen (2013-02-27). "Clone Wars: The Six Most Important Cases Every Game Developer Should Know". Gamasutra. Retrieved 2013-02-27.
Retrieved from ""