Ahn v. Midway Manufacturing Co.

965 F. Supp. 1134 (1997)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Ahn v. Midway Manufacturing Co.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
965 F. Supp. 1134 (1997)

  • Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD


Philip Ahn, Elizabeth Malecki, and Katalin Zamiar (models) (defendants) provided their images, names, and performances for various characters in the coin-operated arcade format of the Mortal Kombat and Mortal Kombat II video games. Midway Manufacturing Company (Midway) (defendant) sold coin-operated amusement games and licensed home video games, including the Mortal Kombat titles. Williams Electronics Games, Inc. (Williams) (defendant) worked with Midway to design, manufacture, and sell coin-operated video games. The models signed release forms with Midway before videotaping and authorized Midway to film their martial-arts choreography for use in the manufacturing, design, promotion, and use of the coin-operated Mortal Kombat games. The agreement made Midway the sole owner of all models’ copyrightable expressions as works for hire and permitted Midway to use the models’ likenesses in any copyright connected to the coin-operated games. Because arcade games were successful, Acclaim Entertainment, Inc. (Acclaim), Nintendo of America, Inc. (Nintendo), and Sega of America, Inc. (Sega) (collectively, companies) (defendants) worked with Midway and released the home video-game version of the Mortal Kombat games, both of which were based on the source code of the arcade games. The companies filed and secured exclusive copyrights to the exclusion of the models. Midway and Williams met with the models and offered a second release agreement because various companies were interested in using the models’ images. The models refused to sign and filed suit against the game companies. The models’ complaint was based on alleged violations of their right to publicity and the Copyright Act of 1976. The court found that the Copyright Act preempted any right-of-publicity claims because the works were original works of authorship and fixed in a tangible, videotaped form. The court also found that the works were the subject matter of copyright and that the right of publicity was equivalent to rights under the Copyright Act. The court then addressed the Copyright Act claim, in which the models argued that the software for the games was a joint work.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Gettleman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 735,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership