| 词条 | Atari Games Corp. v. Oman |
| 释义 |
|name = Atari Games Corp. v. Oman |court = United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit |image = |imagesize = |imagelink = |imagealt = |caption = |full name = Atari Games Corporation v Ralph OMAN, Register of Copyrights |date decided = |citations = {{cite court |litigants=Atari Games Corp. v. Oman |vol=979 |reporter=F. (2d) |opinion=242 |court=Cir DC |date=1992}} |transcripts = |judges = Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg |number of judges = 1 |decision by = |concurring = |dissenting = |concur/dissent = |prior actions = |appealed from = {{cite court |litigants=Atari Games Corp. v. Oman |vol=693 |reporter=F. Supp. |opinion=1204 |court=Dist Ct DC |date=1988}} |appealed to = |subsequent actions = |related actions = |opinions = |keywords = |italic title = }}Atari Games Corp. v. Oman is court case dealing with the copyright status of a video game. Breakout is a paddle and ball video game created by the plaintiff, Atari Games Corporation, which was released in 1976. Eleven years later, in 1987, the plaintiff sought registration for the work with the US Copyright Office. On February 13, 1987 and again on May 22, 1987, Copyright Registrar Ralph Oman refused to register the work because it "did not contain at least a minimum amount of original pictorial or graphic authorship, or authorship in sounds".[1] Atari challenged Oman's use of discretion not to award the game copyright protection.[1] Prior historyJustice John H. Pratt of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, deferred to the Registrar and granted summary judgment for the defendant. He noted that "It is simply not the case, in short, that video games are per se copyrightable, or by definition more expressive and creative than other mediums."[1] Opinion of the courtJustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, sitting on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, reversed the decision of the trial court and held that Breakout was a copyrightable work.[2] In order for a work to be copyrightable, it must be fixed.[3] It also must possess a requisite level of creativity. The standard for creativity that was applied is outlined in Feist v. Rural as "extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice". Because breakout consists of a series of shapes and images in a particular sequence alongside audio, the court found it met the requisite level of copyright.[2] Importance of the caseThis case stands as a precedent that a video game can attract the protection of copyright. Although Breakout is a simple game considering modern standards, the law remains applicable to today's highly advanced titles. References1. ^1 2 {{cite court |litigants=Atari Games Corp. v. Oman |vol=693 |reporter=F. Supp. |opinion=1204 |court=Dist Ct DC |date=1988}} {{Authority control}}2. ^1 {{cite court |litigants=Atari Games Corp. v. Oman |vol=979 |reporter=F. (2d) |opinion=242 |court=Cir DC |date=1992}} 3. ^{{usc|17|102}} 5 : Video game law|United States copyright case law|1992 in United States case law|United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit cases|Atari |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。