Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman (original) (raw)
Stern Electronics Inc. v. Kaufman, 669 F.2d 852 (2d Cir. 1982), is a legal case in which the United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit held that Omni Video Games violated the copyright and trademark in Scramble, an arcade game marketed by Stern Electronics. The lawsuit was due to a trend of "knock-off" video games in the early 1980s, leading to one of the earliest findings of copyright infringement for a video game, and the first federal appellate court to recognize a video game as a copyrighted audiovisual work.
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| dbo:abstract | Stern Electronics Inc. v. Kaufman, 669 F.2d 852 (2d Cir. 1982), is a legal case in which the United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit held that Omni Video Games violated the copyright and trademark in Scramble, an arcade game marketed by Stern Electronics. The lawsuit was due to a trend of "knock-off" video games in the early 1980s, leading to one of the earliest findings of copyright infringement for a video game, and the first federal appellate court to recognize a video game as a copyrighted audiovisual work. Scramble was created by Japanese video game developer Konami in 1981, and marketed in the Americas by Stern Electronics. The game was first sold in March 1981, and became a breakthrough hit for Konami, reaching the top of the sales charts in June 1981, and becoming the first side-scrolling shooter game. A month after the debut of Konami's Scramble, Omni began marketing a nearly identical game with the same name on their arcade cabinets, leading Stern to sue Omni for copyright and trademark infringement. Omni counter-sued for trademark infringement, showing that they had ordered arcade nameplates for their version of Scramble in December 1980. Omni argued that they did not copy Konami's underlying code. Despite similarities in the audiovisual display, Omni also argued that Konami could not register any copyright in their game as an audiovisual work, as the display for a video game varies each time that it is played, and is not fixed. The court rejected Omni's argument, saying that Scramble's audiovisual display was sufficiently fixed due to the repeated use of certain images and sounds. The court found that the games were nearly identical in their audiovisual display, and granted an injunction against Omni's game. This also led the court to reject Omni's trademark argument, since any use of the "Scramble" mark was made in bad faith, in anticipation of creating a knock-off game under the same name. The principle that a video game is copyrightable as an audiovisual work was affirmed in Atari v. Amusement World and Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc., and followed parallel developments for computer software in Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. (en) |
| dbo:thumbnail | wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Seal_of_the_United_St..._for_the_Second_Circuit.svg?width=300 |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink | http://openjurist.org/669/f2d/852 |
| dbo:wikiPageID | 3266003 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageInterLanguageLink | dbpedia-fr:Stern_Electronics |
| dbo:wikiPageLength | 21467 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger) |
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID | 1124804280 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink | dbr:Scramble_(video_game) dbr:Shoot_'em_up dbr:Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Franklin_Computer_Corp. dbr:Arcade_game dbr:Jon_O._Newman dbr:United_States_Copyright_Office dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Second_Circuit dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Maryland dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_New_York dbr:Vectrex dbr:Injunction dbc:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Second_Circuit_cases dbc:United_States_lawsuits dbr:Copyright_Act_of_1976 dbr:Counterfeit_consumer_goods dbr:Midway_Manufacturing_Co._v._Artic_International,_Inc. dbr:Edward_Dumbauld dbr:Ellsworth_Van_Graafeiland dbr:Copyright dbr:1981_in_video_games dbc:1982_in_video_gaming dbr:Appeal dbr:Appellate_court dbr:Stern_(game_company) dbr:File:Scramble.gif dbr:Trademark dbc:1982_in_United_States_case_law dbr:Jukebox dbc:United_States_copyright_case_law dbr:Federal_Supplement dbr:Good_faith dbr:Legal_case dbr:Video_game_clone dbr:Atari_v._Amusement_World dbc:Video_game_copyright_law dbr:Counterfeit dbr:Tetris_Holding,_LLC_v._Xio_Interactive,_Inc. dbr:Astro_Invader dbr:Jurisprudence dbr:Unregistered_trademark dbr:Audiovisual dbr:Spry_Fox,_LLC_v._Lolapps,_Inc. dbr:Konami dbr:Look_and_feel dbr:Software dbr:University_of_Pennsylvania_Law_Review dbr:Fixation_in_Canadian_copyright_law dbr:Stern_Electronics dbr:Loyola_of_Los_Angeles_Law_Review dbr:OpenJurist |
| dbp:arguedate | 0001-07-15 (xsd:gMonthDay) |
| dbp:argueyear | 1981 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:citations | 17280.0 |
| dbp:court | dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Second_Circuit |
| dbp:courtseal | Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.svg (en) |
| dbp:decidedate | 0001-01-20 (xsd:gMonthDay) |
| dbp:decideyear | 1982 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:fullname | STERN ELECTRONICS, INC v. Harold KAUFMAN d/b/a Bay Coin, et al; Omni Video Games, Inc., et al. (en) |
| dbp:holding | An electronics company can copyright the sounds and images in a video game, not just the source code. (en) |
| dbp:judges | Circuit Judges Jon O. Newman, Ellsworth Van Graafeiland District Judge Edward Dumbauld (en) |
| dbp:lawsapplied | dbr:Copyright_Act_of_1976 |
| dbp:litigants | Stern Electronics, Inc. v Kaufman (en) |
| dbp:majority | Newman (en) |
| dbp:procedural | Preliminary injunction issued against defendants, 523 F. Supp. 635 (en) |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate | dbt:Good_article dbt:Infobox_COA_case dbt:Reflist dbt:Short_description dbt:Wikisource dbt:Video_game_copyright |
| dcterms:subject | dbc:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Second_Circuit_cases dbc:United_States_lawsuits dbc:1982_in_video_gaming dbc:1982_in_United_States_case_law dbc:United_States_copyright_case_law dbc:Video_game_copyright_law |
| rdf:type | yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Case107308889 yago:Event100029378 yago:Happening107283608 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity |
| rdfs:comment | Stern Electronics Inc. v. Kaufman, 669 F.2d 852 (2d Cir. 1982), is a legal case in which the United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit held that Omni Video Games violated the copyright and trademark in Scramble, an arcade game marketed by Stern Electronics. The lawsuit was due to a trend of "knock-off" video games in the early 1980s, leading to one of the earliest findings of copyright infringement for a video game, and the first federal appellate court to recognize a video game as a copyrighted audiovisual work. (en) |
| rdfs:label | Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman (en) |
| owl:sameAs | freebase:Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman yago-res:Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman wikidata:Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman https://global.dbpedia.org/id/NUXf |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom | wikipedia-en:Stern_Electronics,_Inc._v._Kaufman?oldid=1124804280&ns=0 |
| foaf:depiction | wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Seal_of_the_United_St...of_Appeals_for_the_Second_Circuit.svg wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Scramble.gif |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf | wikipedia-en:Stern_Electronics,_Inc._v._Kaufman |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of | dbr:Stern_Electronics_Inc._v._Kaufman |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of | dbr:Scramble_(video_game) dbr:List_of_copyright_case_law dbr:Intellectual_property_protection_of_video_games dbr:Midway_Manufacturing_Co._v._Artic_International,_Inc. dbr:Video_game_clone dbr:Atari_Games_Corp._v._Oman dbr:Stern_Electronics_Inc._v._Kaufman |
| is foaf:primaryTopic of | wikipedia-en:Stern_Electronics,_Inc._v._Kaufman |
