On 6/11/98, Kenneth L. Kunkle <kenneth[_at_]kunkle.com> wrote:
>
Generally, written instructions for a board game have very little, if any, copyright protection. The idea of the game and the ideas on how to play the game are not protected by copyright because copyright does not protect ideas. Therefore, only to the extent that the expression of the instructions is original enough (or there is a sufficient number of ways of expressing the idea such that merger doesn't take place), combined with the degree of literalness of the copying, might one find infringement.
One case dealing with the alleged copying of a Scrabble strategy handbook said:
"While we find similarities between the two works, we think there is no more than the similarity that must unavoidably be produced by anyone who wishes to use and restate the unpredictable ideas contained in Landsberg's [plaintiff's] work. If we were to hold S & R's [defendant's] work to be an infringement, we do not see how anyone could state Landsberg's ideas without also being held to have infringed. Landsberg would in effect have obtained a copyright on the ideas contained in his work."
Landsberg v. Scrabble Crossword Game Players, Inc., 736 F.2d 485, 489 (9th Cir. 1984).
Another 9th Circuit case, this time addressing academic games, said:
"This doctrine of merger is particularly applicable with respect to games 'since they consist of abstract rules and play ideas.' Midway Mfg. Co. v. Bandai-America, Inc., 546 F. Supp. 125, 148 (D.N.J. 1982); see also Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, 611 F.2d 296, 300 n.1. (9th Cir. 1979). A similar logic has been applied to rules of a contest where most subsequent expressions of an idea of a rule are likely to appear similar to the words of a related rule. See Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble Co., 379 F.2d 675, 678-79 (1st Cir. 1967); Affiliated Hospital Products, Inc. v. Merdel Game Mfg. Co., 513 F.2d 1183, 1188-89 (2nd Cir. 1975). Here, Allen has not shown that it is possible to distinguish the expression of the rules of his game manuals from the idea of the rules themselves. Thus, the doctrine of merger applies and although Allen may be entitled to copyright protection for the physical form of his games, he is not afforded protection for the premises or ideas underlying those games. To hold otherwise would give Allen a monopoly on such commonplace ideas as a simple rule on how youngsters should play their games."
Allen v. Academic Games League of America, Inc., 89 F.3d 614, 617-618 (9th Cir. 1996). (I left in all the internal cites in case you want to look at those cases. Morrissey, which deals with contest rules, is particularly well known.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:30 GMT