Lewis v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149784 (2013)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Amanda Lewis (plaintiff) was employed by Activision Blizzard, Inc. and Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. (collectively, Blizzard) (defendants) as a game master for World of Warcraft, one of Blizzard’s most popular multiplayer role-playing video games. Game masters appeared as characters in the game and provided customer service to players. Game masters also assisted with content creation during the ongoing development of the game. Lewis received this job description in her training manual. A Blizzard game writer invited all game masters to audition for voice-over work related to World of Warcraft. Lewis was invited to record a voice for a new game character called the baby murloc. Lewis was told that the character would be unveiled at a Blizzard fan convention and used in videos to promote World of Warcraft. Lewis was compensated at her normal hourly rate, and the voice work was done at Blizzard offices during the normal workweek. Lewis did not ask whether the voice would be used outside of promotion work or request any copies of the recordings. Blizzard decided to use the voice to create a baby murloc character in the game itself. Lewis filed suit against Blizzard, alleging that the company infringed her copyright in the baby murloc recordings by using them in the World of Warcraft game without her consent. Blizzard filed for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilken, 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.