Atari Games Corp. v. Oman
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
888 F.2d 878 (1989)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Atari Games Corporation (Atari) (plaintiff) created the Breakout video game, in which a rectangular paddle moved along the bottom of the screen and bounced a ball to destroy the individual bricks of a wall at the top of the screen. Various tones played as the ball touched different objects or places on the screen, and the size of the paddle and speed of the ball changed as the game progressed. Atari attempted to copyright the game in anticipation of future copyright-infringement litigation, but the Copyright Office (defendant) declared Breakout uncopyrightable as an audiovisual work. Atari asked for reconsideration, but each reviewer came to the same conclusion. The Copyright Office found that the game did not contain copyrightable images or sounds because the sounds were too simple, the objects were common shapes and colors, and the images created by playing the game were created by the player, not the author of the video game. The decisions also noted that the game was not sufficiently creative and original to merit a copyright. Atari sought review of the decision in district court, but the district court found that the Copyright Office did not abuse its discretion in applying copyright law to deny the Breakout registration. Atari appealed to the District of Columbia Circuit for review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ginsburg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
