## Facts

- A copyright registration issued in 1928 for written rules and a board drawing for “Acy-Ducy,” a variation of backgammon that had been played for years before registration.
- The plaintiff held the copyright by assignment from the original registrant.
- The copyrighted material consisted of (1) a written description of how to play and (2) a drawing of the game board.
- The board drawing was copied from a traditional backgammon board; the only differences were minor, inadvertent shading defects.
- The defendant assembled and sold Acy-Ducy games using substantively similar gameplay rules stated in different wording and used a board based on the same traditional backgammon design.
- The plaintiff alleged infringement of both the written rules (including claimed original features) and the board drawing.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff’s materials contained sufficient nontrivial originality to support a copyright claim consistent with constitutional limits.
2. Whether the defendant infringed the copyrighted written rules by publishing substantively similar gameplay instructions expressed in different language.
3. Whether the board drawing had protectable originality despite being copied from a traditional design with only inadvertent, trivial deviations, and whether the defendant infringed it.

## Decision

- The court affirmed dismissal of the infringement action.
- The plaintiff could not prevail without showing substantial (not trivial) original elements and copying of those elements.
- The defendant did not infringe the written rules because it did not copy the plaintiff’s literary expression and instead restated conventional gameplay in its own language.
- The board drawing lacked protectable originality where it was essentially a copy of a traditional board and any deviations were inadvertent, minute, and added no discernible value.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright protection requires at least some substantial, nontrivial originality; a monopoly cannot rest on purely conventional or mechanically copied material.
- For game rules, copyright (if any) lies in original expression (the wording and presentation), not the underlying ideas, procedures, or conventional gameplay.
- Independent restatement of conventional rules in materially different language does not infringe, even if the substantive instructions are similar due to a common source.
- Copying a public-domain or traditional design with only imperceptible or accidental variations does not create protectable originality sufficient to support an infringement claim.

## Conclusion

The court held that the plaintiff failed to identify substantial original expression that the defendant copied: the defendant independently worded conventional game rules, and the board art was an unoriginal copy of a traditional design with only trivial, inadvertent differences, so dismissal was proper.


Chamberlin v. Uris Sales Corp., 150 F.2d 512 (2d Cir. 1945)