01
The beginning of the lawsuit
Tetris Holding (Tetris Holding Co., Ltd.) is the copyright holder of the "Tetris" game. The game has been launched in 1984 and has accumulated a large number of market users.
Xio Interactive is a new game developer that released a mobile game Mino based on Tetris gameplay in 2009. Mino has been downloaded millions of times and its fame has gradually increased.
Tetris believes that Mino completely plagiarized Tetris' game design, and in a rage, filed a lawsuit against developer Xio Interactive in December 2009 in the New Jersey District Court of the United States [1].
—This is also the beginning of the whole story.
Interface of two games
"Can you tell which one is Tetris and which one is Mino?"
For game designers, it is easy for them to tell which elements they designed and whether others copy. But in litigation, it is much more difficult to prove and determine the copyright of the game. The reason is that - copyright law usually does not protect the basic concepts and basic rules of the game, but only protects the "expression" of the game rules. For example, game characters, music and other content.
Before this case, the above rules resulted in the plagiarism of the game, and legal sanctions can be circumvented as long as it is changed at the expressive level.
02
Mino lawyer's defense opinion: The entire content of Tetris is the game "rules"
Mino's lawyer did not deny that Mino's game design was deeply influenced by Tetris, and admitted that the game copied almost all the basic elements of the game. But the core of its defense is: the game elements it copied, including the shape and color of the building blocks, how they rotate to the bottom of the screen - the above are all part of the basic rules of the game and are not protected by copyright. They even think:
"Tetris is so simple and abstract, it can be said that every part of the game is a rule that can be legally copied"
03
Focus of dispute: How to define Tetris' "rules and "expression"
The judge unceremoniously denied the defendant's defense, "All game elements are related to the rules of the game. But this broad explanation will result in any game creator's game being unprotected. "The plaintiff enjoys copyright protection for the way he chooses to express the rules of the game or gameplay, just like the way people choose to express their ideas.
The court held that copyright law only protects the expression of ideas, not the idea itself, so unprotected ideas need to be distinguished from the expression of computer software. Thus, it is necessary to evaluate whether there is a substantial similarity between expression and expression. - It is particularly important to understand the ideas and concepts of Tetris itself.
Tetris' game rules:
" Tetris' game interface consists of a horizontal motion surface. A colorful chain flag consisting of seven square tiles of different colors appears from above and falls below. Colored tiles can rotate in the air to form figures with seven different formations, thus falling into available space on the site. The ground consists of debris that have previously landed at the bottom. Forming a complete line can bring scores to the player and make the line disappear, freeing up space to accommodate more fragments. Until the fragment reaches the top of the screen, the game ends. ”
According to this definition, falling characteristics and rotatable deformable elements cannot be protected - Super Mario also has such a design.However, the court also proposed that Tetris should be protected by copyright law:
1. The size of the competition venue (20 grids in height, 10 grids in width)
2. The bottom garbage line (the garbage line that appears randomly after the game starts)
3. The "shadow" fragment (the location where the fragment will land)
4. The fragments that will appear next step
5. The color changes of fragments
6. At the end of the game, the blocks will automatically fill the game layout
. The judge admitted that looking at each of the above elements alone may not be enough to prove copyright infringement, but in the Mino case, these elements appear at the same time, which is equivalent to "wholesale copying". Although the idea of designing the game is not protected, the components are designed to be protected, the overall appearance and feel of the game are almost the same, and any difference between the two is "slight and insignificant". Although the Mino game has added energy boosts and various modes, etc., it is still inevitable that its infringement facts are inseparable.
04
Referee results
The court concluded that the visual expression of Tetris has such similarities with Mino, similar to "copy and paste". While there may not be a "copy-paste" in fact, as Mino does not copy source code and precise images from Tetris, Mino does not deny that it copies almost all of Tetris' visual appearance.
05
Successor academic discussions in the academic community
Scholars who oppose the court's judgment believe that the court's ruling that separates game details from game rules indicates that the stronger copyright protection and stricter review standards for games means that it is not conducive to game innovation?
supporters believe that although the court has provided protection for relatively basic elements, Mino can still avoid these details through simple operations, such as changing the game venue size and changing the tiles to five pieces.
06
Game compliance enlightenment
Online games are a collection of multiple elements such as text, graphics, music, video, computer software, etc., and risk prevention and control can be carried out by dismantling the "ideology" elements and "expression" elements of the game.
1. The "thinking" elements of online games - game rules
The rules and instructions of the game are all ideological elements that are not protected by copyright law. The layout of the game screen, such as the placement of props, is also tended to be considered as ideas, and there is usually no risk of copyright infringement.
2. The "expression" elements of online games - text, graphics, music, videos, etc.
The above categories may have risks of copyright infringement, such as text elements (game plots and lines, game skills introduction, etc.) may infringe on the copyright of text works; the game animation department may infringe on the right to adapt text or the copyright of audio-visual works; in addition, for different types of works, the criteria for identification of "substantive similarities" are also different in judicial practice. It can be seen that the importance and difficulty of game compliance investigation cannot be underestimated.
[1]Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc., 863 F.Supp.2d 394
