Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp., 1994 WL 1751482 (N.D. Cal, 1994) was a 1994 legal case related to the copyright of video games, where Capcom alleged that Data East's game Fighter's History infringed the copyright of Capcom's game Street Fighter II. It was revealed that the design documents for Fighter's History contained several references to Street Fighter II, leading Capcom to sue Data East for damages, as well as a preliminary injunction to stop the distribution of the infringing game. In spite of the intentional similarities between the two games, the court concluded that Data East did not infringe upon Capcom's copyright, as most of these similarities were not protected under copyright. Judge William H. Orrick Jr. applied a legal principle known as the merger doctrine, where co
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdfs:label
| - Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp. (en)
- カプコン対データイースト裁判 (ja)
|
rdfs:comment
| - カプコン対データイースト裁判(カプコンたいデータイーストさいばん、英: Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp.)は、1994年にカプコンとデータイーストがを争った裁判である。 カプコンUSAは、データイーストの制作したゲーム『ファイターズヒストリー』が『ストリートファイターII』の著作権を侵害したとして、損害賠償とゲームの販売差し止めの仮処分を求め、に提訴、そこで『ファイターズヒストリー』の企画書に『ストリートファイターII』への複数の言及が含まれることが明らかとなった。こうした意図的な模倣が行われていたにもかかわらず、裁判所は、類似点の大部分は著作権で保護されないため、著作権侵害にあたらないとの判断を下した。判事は、マージ理論と呼ばれる法原理を適用し、特定のアイデアの独占的な使用を実質的に与えてしまうような著作権の保護は認められないとの見解を示した。 (ja)
- Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp., 1994 WL 1751482 (N.D. Cal, 1994) was a 1994 legal case related to the copyright of video games, where Capcom alleged that Data East's game Fighter's History infringed the copyright of Capcom's game Street Fighter II. It was revealed that the design documents for Fighter's History contained several references to Street Fighter II, leading Capcom to sue Data East for damages, as well as a preliminary injunction to stop the distribution of the infringing game. In spite of the intentional similarities between the two games, the court concluded that Data East did not infringe upon Capcom's copyright, as most of these similarities were not protected under copyright. Judge William H. Orrick Jr. applied a legal principle known as the merger doctrine, where co (en)
|
name
| - Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp. (en)
|
foaf:depiction
| |
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
thumbnail
| |
align
| |
citations
| |
court
| |
judges
| |
quote
| - 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." (en)
|
source
| - — Claude Stern, trial counsel representing Data East (en)
|
width
| |
has abstract
| - Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp., 1994 WL 1751482 (N.D. Cal, 1994) was a 1994 legal case related to the copyright of video games, where Capcom alleged that Data East's game Fighter's History infringed the copyright of Capcom's game Street Fighter II. It was revealed that the design documents for Fighter's History contained several references to Street Fighter II, leading Capcom to sue Data East for damages, as well as a preliminary injunction to stop the distribution of the infringing game. In spite of the intentional similarities between the two games, the court concluded that Data East did not infringe upon Capcom's copyright, as most of these similarities were not protected under copyright. Judge William H. Orrick Jr. applied a legal principle known as the merger doctrine, where courts will not grant copyright protection where it would effectively give someone a monopoly over an idea. Although early cases such as Atari v. Philips ruled against a game for infringing on the copyright of Pac-Man, they also noted that any standard elements of a game could not be protected by copyright. Courts would later expand on this principle, establishing that copyright did not protect generic concepts, functional rules, and scènes à faire. This included an earlier legal dispute, where Data East lost their case against an alleged video game clone of their game Karate Champ because none of the similarities were protected under copyright. Now years later, Data East found themselves on the other side of a similar dispute, and the court determined that the contents of Fighter's History were legally permissible. This trend of a more permissive approach to copyright continued until 2012, when rulings such as Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc. and Spry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, Inc. ruled that more specific forms of copying are unlawful. (en)
- カプコン対データイースト裁判(カプコンたいデータイーストさいばん、英: Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp.)は、1994年にカプコンとデータイーストがを争った裁判である。 カプコンUSAは、データイーストの制作したゲーム『ファイターズヒストリー』が『ストリートファイターII』の著作権を侵害したとして、損害賠償とゲームの販売差し止めの仮処分を求め、に提訴、そこで『ファイターズヒストリー』の企画書に『ストリートファイターII』への複数の言及が含まれることが明らかとなった。こうした意図的な模倣が行われていたにもかかわらず、裁判所は、類似点の大部分は著作権で保護されないため、著作権侵害にあたらないとの判断を下した。判事は、マージ理論と呼ばれる法原理を適用し、特定のアイデアの独占的な使用を実質的に与えてしまうような著作権の保護は認められないとの見解を示した。 (ja)
|
date decided
| |
number of judges
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is rdfs:seeAlso
of | |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is Wikipage redirect
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |