by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Summary

by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America…

We understand Nintendo’s argument; consumers clearly would not purchase the Game Genie if its display was not “sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived ... for a period of more than transitory duration.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. But, Nintendo’s reliance on the Act’s definition of “fixed” is misplaced. Nintendo’s argument also proves too much; the existence of a market does not, and cannot, determine conclusively whether a work is an infringing derivative work.
Source: Wikisource

by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America…

The district court concluded that, even if the audiovisual displays created by the Game Genie are derivative works, Galoob is not liable under 17 U.S.C. § 107 because the displays are a fair use of Nintendo’s copyrighted displays. “Whether a use of copyrighted material is a ‘fair use’ is a mixed question of law and fact. If the district court found sufficient facts to evaluate each of the statutory factors, the appellate court may decide whether defendants may claim the fair use defense as a matter of law.”
Source: Wikisource

by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America…

These applications, as well as countless others, could not be produced and marketed if courts were to conclude that the audiovisual display of a word processor and spell-checker combination is a derivative work based on the display of the word processor alone. The Game Genie is useless by itself; it can only enhance, and cannot duplicate, a Nintendo game’s output. Such innovations rarely will constitute derivative works under the Copyright Act.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature