## Facts

- Williams Electronics, Inc. manufactured the coin-operated video game DEFENDER, consisting of a cabinet with a CRT display, sound system, controls, and circuit boards containing a microprocessor and ROM chips holding the program that generates the game’s sights and sounds.
- Williams obtained copyright registrations for (1) the computer program embodied in ROM, (2) the attract-mode audiovisual display, and (3) the play-mode audiovisual display and interactive sequence.
- Williams placed copyright notices on the cabinet and screen displays, on ROM labels, and embedded a coded copyright notice within the ROM program.
- Artic International, Inc. sold circuit-board “kits” containing ROM-based software that, when installed, produced a game called DEFENSE COMMAND.
- DEFENSE COMMAND’s attract and play modes were found to be almost identical to DEFENDER’s audiovisual output, with minor changes such as substituting names and omitting Williams’s name.
- The district court severed injunctive relief from damages and other claims and entered a permanent injunction barring Artic from infringing Williams’s copyrights in DEFENDER’s audiovisual works and program.
- Artic appealed the injunction; the court of appeals treated the order as appealable because it addressed the merits and carried serious consequences.

## Issues

1. Whether the attract-mode and play-mode audiovisual displays of an interactive video game satisfy the Copyright Act’s fixation requirement.
2. Whether player input defeats copyright protection by preventing a fixed work or by making players co-authors.
3. Whether deposit of videotapes of the audiovisual displays substantially satisfies statutory deposit requirements for registering the audiovisual works.
4. Whether a computer program fixed in ROM object code is copyrightable and whether copying may be inferred from close similarity and embedded identifiers.
5. Whether the district court properly found Artic’s infringement “willful and deliberate” in the injunction phase.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the permanent injunction against Artic for infringement of Williams’s copyrights in the audiovisual works and the computer program.
- The court held that the audiovisual works were sufficiently fixed because original features repeat in a stable, repeatable sequence generated by the ROM-stored program and hardware.
- The court rejected the argument that player participation negates fixation or authorship; players influence the display but do not author the underlying work.
- The court held Williams substantially complied with deposit requirements for the audiovisual works by depositing videotapes capturing the protected displays.
- The court held the ROM-embodied program (object code) is protectable and that evidence supported an inference of copying, including near-identical audiovisual output and the presence of Williams’s embedded copyright notice in Artic’s program.
- The court remanded for further proceedings on whether infringement was “willful and deliberate,” because the finding could affect damages and Artic lacked a full chance to litigate that issue in the severed injunction proceeding.

## Legal Principles

- A video game’s audiovisual display can be “fixed” if original sights and sounds are embodied in a stable medium (such as ROM-controlled output) and recur in a repeatable sequence for more than transitory duration, even if particular playthroughs vary.
- Interactivity does not bar copyright protection where substantial audiovisual elements remain constant and derive from preprogrammed expression; players do not become co-authors merely by making in-game choices.
- Substantial compliance with deposit requirements may be satisfied for audiovisual works by depositing accurate recordings that capture the protected displays.
- Computer programs embodied in ROM (including object code) are protected expression; fixation in ROM does not remove a program from copyright coverage.
- Copying may be inferred from striking similarity in output and other indicia such as replication of embedded copyright notices.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit upheld injunctive relief against a seller of video game circuit boards that produced an almost identical game, holding that repeating audiovisual sequences and ROM-encoded object code are protectable and that interactivity does not defeat fixation or authorship, while remanding only the willfulness finding for further litigation tied to damages.


Williams Elecs., Inc. v. Artic Int'l, Inc., 685 F.2d 870 (3d Cir. 1982)