This HTML5 document contains 112 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
yago-reshttp://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
n17http://dbpedia.org/resource/File:
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n15https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
yagohttp://dbpedia.org/class/yago/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
n20https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/704/1009/107395/
n11http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/
n18http://dbpedia.org/resource/Star_Wars:
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/
n21https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/547/999/1478912/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Lewis_Galoob_Toys,_Inc._v._Nintendo_of_America,_Inc.
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Midway_Manufacturing_Co._v._Artic_International,_Inc.
Subject Item
dbr:Midway_Manufacturing_Co._v._Artic_International,_Inc.
rdf:type
yago:Happening107283608 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity yago:Event100029378 yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Case107308889 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:WikicatUnitedStatesDistrictCourtCases
rdfs:label
Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc.
rdfs:comment
Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc., 704 F.2d 1009 (7th Cir. 1983), was a legal case where the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that Artic violated Midway's copyright in their arcade games Pac-Man and Galaxian. 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.
foaf:depiction
n11:Cummings-large.jpg n11:Seal_of_the_United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Seventh_Circuit.svg
dcterms:subject
dbc:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Seventh_Circuit_cases dbc:1983_in_video_gaming dbc:Video_game_copyright_law dbc:Midway_Games dbc:United_States_copyright_case_law dbc:1983_in_United_States_case_law
dbo:wikiPageID
7017060
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1124748919
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Copyright_Act dbc:1983_in_United_States_case_law dbr:Copyright dbr:Pac-Man_(TV_series) dbr:Galaxian dbr:Copyright_infringement dbc:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Seventh_Circuit_cases dbr:Summary_judgment dbr:Asteroids_(video_game) dbr:Injunction dbr:Video dbr:RGB dbr:Nintendo dbr:Tile-based_video_game dbr:Fixation_in_Canadian_copyright_law dbr:Video_game dbr:Procedural_generation dbr:University_of_Pennsylvania_Law_Review dbr:F.2d dbr:Lewis_Galoob_Toys,_Inc._v._Nintendo_of_America,_Inc. dbr:The_Georgetown_Law_Journal n17:Cummings-large.jpg dbr:Diablo_(series) dbr:Walter_J._Cummings_Jr. dbr:Midway_Games dbr:Game_Genie dbr:Luther_Merritt_Swygert dbr:Read-only_memory dbr:Atari,_Inc._v._North_American_Philips_Consumer_Electronics_Corp. dbr:Atari,_Inc. dbc:Video_game_copyright_law dbr:Legal_case dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Northern_District_of_Illinois dbc:1983_in_video_gaming n18:_A_New_Hope dbr:F._Supp. dbr:1981_in_video_games dbr:Minecraft dbr:Pac-Man dbr:Dwarf_Fortress dbr:Arcade_game dbr:Counterfeit_consumer_goods dbr:Sequel dbr:Bernard_Decker dbr:Richard_Posner dbr:Derivative_work dbr:Computer_hardware dbr:Merchandising dbr:Stern_Electronics,_Inc._v._Kaufman dbc:Midway_Games dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Seventh_Circuit dbr:Video_game_clone dbr:Audiovisual dbc:United_States_copyright_case_law dbr:Namco
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n20: n21:
owl:sameAs
n15:MiHm wikidata:Q13515763 freebase:m.0h0h6g yago-res:Midway_Manufacturing_Co._v._Artic_International,_Inc.
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Short_description dbt:USCopyrightActs dbt:Infobox_U.S._Courts_of_Appeals_case dbt:Video_game_copyright dbt:Reflist
dbo:thumbnail
n11:Seal_of_the_United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Seventh_Circuit.svg?width=300
dbp:joinmajority
a unanimous court
dbp:prior
547
dbp:arguedate
0001-11-29
dbp:argueyear
1982
dbp:citations
17280.0
dbp:court
dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Seventh_Circuit
dbp:courtseal
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.svg
dbp:decidedate
0001-04-11
dbp:decideyear
1983
dbp:fullname
Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc.
dbp:judges
dbr:Richard_Posner dbr:Walter_J._Cummings_Jr. dbr:Luther_Merritt_Swygert
dbp:litigants
Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc.
dbp:majority
Cummings
dbo:abstract
Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc., 704 F.2d 1009 (7th Cir. 1983), was a legal case where the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that Artic violated Midway's copyright in their arcade games Pac-Man and Galaxian. 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 best-selling games in the early 1980s, with Pac-Man generating over $1 billion in revenues, as well as sequels, merchandising, and a cartoon. The dispute arose when Artic began to distribute an alleged clone of Pac-Man, and a circuit board that could speed-up the gameplay of Galaxian. While Midway registered their copyrights as audiovisual works by submitting video recordings of their games being played, Artic argued that this did not protect the games themselves, as the game's graphics were not fixed like a conventional video. The district court disagreed, finding that both games were protected as audiovisual works, and enjoined Artic from distributing their infringing hardware. The decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The case was among several early decisions finding that video games qualify for copyright protection as audiovisual works, despite their graphics varying between game sessions. Since Artic's version of Pac-Man was nearly identical to Midway's, the real issue was whether Pac-Man qualified for protection as an audiovisual work, which it did. This helped establish that an unauthorized clone of a game will be considered a copyright violation. In finding that the Galaxian speed-up kit was a copyright violation, the decision also established that a copyright holder has the exclusive right to modify their game and produce derivative works. This issue was revisited in Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., where courts found that it was not a copyright violation for the Game Genie to modify the gameplay of popular Nintendo games. The issue of derivative works has provoked further discussion from legal theorists, arguing whether Artic's modifications of Galaxian actually copied anything from the original game.
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Midway_Manufacturing_Co._v._Artic_International,_Inc.?oldid=1124748919&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
20451
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Midway_Manufacturing_Co._v._Artic_International,_Inc.
Subject Item
dbr:Stern_Electronics,_Inc._v._Kaufman
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Midway_Manufacturing_Co._v._Artic_International,_Inc.
Subject Item
dbr:History_of_copyright_law_of_the_United_States
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Midway_Manufacturing_Co._v._Artic_International,_Inc.
Subject Item
dbr:Video_game_clone
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Midway_Manufacturing_Co._v._Artic_International,_Inc.
Subject Item
dbr:Atari_Games_Corp._v._Oman
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Midway_Manufacturing_Co._v._Artic_International,_Inc.
Subject Item
dbr:Fixation_in_Canadian_copyright_law
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Midway_Manufacturing_Co._v._Artic_International,_Inc.
Subject Item
wikipedia-en:Midway_Manufacturing_Co._v._Artic_International,_Inc.
foaf:primaryTopic
dbr:Midway_Manufacturing_Co._v._Artic_International,_Inc.