- Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.
Infobox Court Case
name = Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.
court =United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
date_decided =May 21 ,1992
full_name = Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.
citations = 964 F.2d 965
judges = , , and David V. Kenyon
prior_actions = 780 F. Supp. 1283 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (granting judgment for Galoob following two-week bench trial)
subsequent_actions = "cert. denied", 507 U.S. 985, 113 S. Ct. 1582, 123 L. Ed. 2d 149 (1993)
opinions = manufacturer of product that allowed users to alter codes transmitted between video gaming console and game cartridge did not infringe console manufacturer’s exclusive right, under federal copyright law, to create derivative works"Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc." (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
1992 ) was a court case which established the rights of users to modify copyrighted works for their own use.Galoob manufactured an add-on product calledGame Genie , which allowed users to modifyvideo game s by entering in certain codes; for example, a code might make the player invincible by negating the programming that updates the player's health amount.Nintendo , which sold a video game system and video games that could be modified by Game Genie, sued Galoob forcopyright infringement , arguing that Game Genie made aderivative work , violating Nintendo'scopyright in their video game.The Court denied Nintendo's motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that Game Genie did not create a derivative work and also suggesting that even if it did, it might well be
fair use . As the district court wrote, "Having paid Nintendo a fair return, the consumer may experiment with the product and create new variations of play, for personal enjoyment, without creating a derivative work."See also "
Foresight v. Pfortmiller ", 719 F. Supp 1006 (D. Kan. 1989). An earlier appellate case on similar facts came out the other way, favoring the original copyright holder in "Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc. ".Legacy
A 2002 case involving the
ClearPlay technology, raised a similar issue in the context of home viewing of DVDs. At no point was a copy of the DVD made, rather, offensive parts of the movie were automatically skipped. Hollywood studios and the Director's Guild of America sued ClearPlay alleging copyright infringement and trademark infringement. The case, however, was made moot by the passage of the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, a law that because of its narrow applicability did not abrogate "Midway" or affirm "Galoob". (There was no judicial opinion issued in the case because it became moot in light of the new law.)SonicBlue was sued over the commercial-skipping feature of ReplayTV on similar grounds. "Your contract when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots [advertisements] . … Any time you skip a commercial … you're actually stealing the programming," asserts Turner Broadcasting CEO Jamie Kellner. He admits that "there's a certain amount of tolerance" for going to the bathroom during commercials. [cite news| last = Hesseldahl | first = Arik | title = SonicBlue Forced To Spy | work = | pages = | publisher = Forbes Magazine | date = May 3, 2002 | url = http://web.archive.org/web/20040109123147/http://forbesbest.com/2002/05/03/0503sonicblue_print.html
accessdate = 2007] Due largely to the lawsuit, SonicBlue went bankrupt before the court reached a decision on the merits of the case.References
External links
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.