Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Up until 2012, U.S. courts were reluctant to find for copyright infringement of clones. Driving case law in the United States was principally through the case Atari, Inc. v. Amusement World, Inc. (547 F. Supp. 222, 1982). Atari had sued Amusement World claiming that its video game Meteors violated their copyright on Asteroids.
Xio Interactive, Inc., 863 F.Supp.2d 394 (D.N.J. 2012), was a 2012 American legal case related to copyright of video games, confirming that a game's look and feel can be protected under copyright law. Tetris Holding is a company that holds the copyright to the original Tetris game from 1985
The court said that in the case of copyright infringement, the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law – certain exclusive rights – is invaded, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights ...
A U.S. district court has awarded Tencent nearly $85 million in compensation after finding that Taiwan-based TV box firm Unblock Tech and other distributors violated copyrights of video content ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Pages for logged out editors learn more
Video game piracy is the unauthorized copying and distributing of video game software, and is a form of copyright infringement. It is often cited as a major problem that video game publishers face when distributing their products, due to the ease of being able to distribute games for free, via torrenting or websites offering direct download ...
The lawsuit was part of a trend of "knock-off" video games in the early 1980s, with courts recognizing that a video game can qualify for protection as a copyrighted audiovisual work. Both Galaxian and Pac-Man were bestselling games in the early 1980s, with Pac-Man generating over $1 billion in revenues, as well as sequels, merchandising, and a ...
[5] [6] In the ruling, the summary judgment against MDY for contributory copyright infringement was reversed. The court ruled that "for a licensee's violation of a contract to constitute copyright infringement, there must be a nexus between the condition and the licensor's exclusive rights of copyright.