Towards A More Balanced Approach to Addressing Game Adaptation Infringement in China

[1] China’s IP Adapted Mobile Game Market Hit 129.77 Billion Yuan in 2021 (2022). (2022, October 20). [Webpage]. Available from https://www.chyxx.com/industry/1109116.html. Search in Google Scholar

[2] Dean, D. S. (2016). Hitting Reset: Devising a New Video Game Copyright Regime. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 164, 1239-1243. Search in Google Scholar

[3] Article 12 of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Search in Google Scholar

[4] Section 106(2) & Section 101 of the US Copyright Act. Search in Google Scholar

[5] Article 10 of the PRC Copyright Law (2021 version). Search in Google Scholar

[6] Article 16(e) & Article 21(3) of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Search in Google Scholar

[7] Goold, P. R. (2014). Why the U.K. Adaptation Right Is Superior to the U.S. Derivative Work Right. Nebraska Law Review, 92(4), 843. Search in Google Scholar

[8] Wang, Q. (2016). Course of Intellectual Property Law (5th ed.). Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 222. Search in Google Scholar

[9] Wang, Q. (2016). Creating a Sequel without Permission Infringes the Copyright of the Original Author. State Copyright Administration. Available from http://www.ncac.gov.cn/chinacopyright/contents/4509/293330.html. Search in Google Scholar

[10] 2019 Analysis Report on China’s Game Market – Industry Competition Pattern and Future Trend Research (2019). Available from http://market.chinabaogao.com/it/042941Q1H019.html. Search in Google Scholar

[11] What is a “Game Reskin”? (2022, April 14). [Webpage]. Available from https://www.marketjs.com/reskin. Search in Google Scholar

[12] McArthur, S. C. (2013). Clone Wars: The Five Most Important Cases Every Game Developer Should Know. GAMASUTRA. Available from https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/187385/clone_wars_the_five_most_.php. Search in Google Scholar

[13] Glu Mobile Inc. v. Hothead Games Inc., No. 14-04917, (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2014). Search in Google Scholar

[14] Blizzard Entertainment Co., Ltd. & Shanghai NetEase Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Youyi Network Technology Co., Ltd., (2014) Hu Yi Zhong Civil Verdict Five (IP) No. 23. Search in Google Scholar

[15] Suzhou Snail Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v. Chengdu Tianxiang Interactive Technology Co., Ltd., (2015) Su Zhong IP Civil Verdict No. 00201. Search in Google Scholar

[16] Blizzard Entertainment Co., Ltd. & Shanghai NetEase Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. 4399 Network Co., Ltd., (2017) Hu 0115 Civil Verdict No. 77945. Search in Google Scholar

[17] Parkin, S. (2011). Clone Wars: Is Plagiarism Killing Creativity in the Games Industry? The Guardian. Available from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2011/dec/21/clone-wars-games-industry-plagiarism. Search in Google Scholar

[18] Article 2.14 & Article 2.15 of the Guidelines for the Trial of Copyright Infringement Cases (Beijing High People’s Court 2018). Available from http://www.prccopyright.org.cn/staticnews/2018-07-11/180711155731166/1.html. Search in Google Scholar

[19] Deng, Z., & Lee, J-A. (2022). Legalization of Live Game Streaming through Statutory License in China. Computer Law & Security Review, 46, 1-8. Search in Google Scholar

[20] Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 217 (1954). Search in Google Scholar

[21] Article 2 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty. Search in Google Scholar

[22] Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir. 1930), cert. denied, 282 U.S. 902 (1931). Search in Google Scholar

[23] Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 104 (1879). Search in Google Scholar

[24] Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc., 863 F. Supp.2d 394, 404, 394, 412 (D.N.J. 2012). Search in Google Scholar

[25] Shanghai Zhuangyou Information Technology Co. v. Guangdong Shuoxing Information Technology Co. and others, (2016) Hu 73 Civil final No. 190. Search in Google Scholar

[26] Atari, Inc. v. N. Am. Philips Consumer Electronics Corp., 672 F.2d 607, 615 (7th Cir. 1982). Search in Google Scholar

[27] Educ. Testing Servs. v. Katzman, 793 F.2d 533, 539 (3d Cir. 1986). Search in Google Scholar

[28] U.S. Constitution, art.I, §8. Search in Google Scholar

[29] Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble Co., 379 F. 2d 675 (1st Cir. 1967). Search in Google Scholar

[30] Lunsford, C. (2013). Drawing a Line Between Idea and Expression in Videogame Copyright: The Evolution of Substantial Similarity for Videogame Clones. Intellectual Property Law Bulletin, 18, 105. Search in Google Scholar

[31] DaVinci Editrice S.R.L. v. Ziko Games LLC, 183 F. Supp. 3d. 820 (S.D. Tex. 2016). Search in Google Scholar

[32] Capcom U.S.A., Inc. v. Data East Corp., No. 93-3259, 1994 WL 1751482, at 12(N.D.Cal.Mar.16,1994). Search in Google Scholar

[33] Data E. USA v. Epyx, Inc., 862 F.2d 204, 209-210 (9th Cir. 1988). Search in Google Scholar

[34] Apple Comput., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1444(9th Cir. 1994). Search in Google Scholar

[35] Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). RULES OF PLAY: GAME DESIGN FUNDAMENTALS (Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press), 13-21. Search in Google Scholar

[36] Corbett, S. (2016). Videogames and Their Clones: How Copyright Law Might Address the Problem. Computer Law& Security Review, 32(4), 615-622. Search in Google Scholar

[37] Ding, W. (2019). The Basic Connotation and Identification Rules of “Access” Element. Intellectual Property, 2, 24. Search in Google Scholar

[38] Cole, R. R. (1995). Substantial Similarity in the Ninth Circuit. Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal, 11, 417. Search in Google Scholar

[39] Sun, L., & Cao, L. (2017). JUDICIAL PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF ONLINE GAMES (China Legal Publishing House), 273-284. Search in Google Scholar

[40] Shanghai Shulong Technology Co., Ltd. v. Suzhou Mili Film & Television Culture Communication Co., Ltd, (2016) Hu 0115 Civil Verdict No.82169. Search in Google Scholar

[41] Shanghai Jumping Network Technology Co., Ltd. and others v. Shanghai Fine Arts Film Studio Co., Ltd., (2018) Hu 73 Civil Final No.300. Search in Google Scholar

[42] Gervais, D. (2013). The Derivative Right, or Why Copyright Law Protects Foxes Better than Hedgehogs. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 15, 785. Search in Google Scholar

[43] Guangdong Original Power Culture Communication Co., Ltd. v. Xiamen Shize Network Technology co., Ltd., (2015) Si Civil Verdict No. 4252-4254. Search in Google Scholar

[44] Wemade Entertainment Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Xinshuo Network Technology Co., Ltd., (2017) Hu 0107 Civil Verdict No. 19813. Search in Google Scholar

[45] Wemade Entertainment Co., Ltd. v. 37 Interactive Entertainment (Shanghai) Technology Co., Ltd. and others, (2016) Jing 73 Civil Verdict No.229. Search in Google Scholar

[46] Beijing Wangyuan Shengtang Entertainment Technology Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Xinlongmen Film & Television Co., Ltd., (2016) Hu 0115 Civil Verdict No.62371. Search in Google Scholar

[47] Latman, A. (1990). “Probative Similarity” as Proof of Copying: Toward Dispelling Some Myths in Copyright Infringement. Columbia Law Review, 90, 1187-1214. Search in Google Scholar

[48] WIPO. (2003). WIPO Guide to the Berne Convention, 81. Search in Google Scholar

[49] Samuelson, P. (2013). The Quest for a Sound Conception of Copyright’s Derivative Work Right. The Georgetown Law Journal, 101, 1528. Search in Google Scholar

[50] Goldstein, P. (1983). Derivative Rights and Derivative Works in Copyright. Journal of Copyright Society of USA, 30, 227. Search in Google Scholar

[51] Abramowicz, M. (2005). A Theory of Copyright’s Derivative Right and Related Doctrine. Minnesota Law Review, 90, 319-320. Search in Google Scholar

[52] Zybert, S. E. (2013). The Derivative Work Right: Incentive or Hindrance for New Literature. Connecticut Law Review, 45, 1089. Search in Google Scholar

[53] Rachum-Twaig, O. (2017). Recreating Copyright: The Cognitive Process of Creation and Copyright Law. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 27(2), 287-348. Search in Google Scholar

[54] Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F. 2d 464, 473 (2d Cir. 1946), cert. denied, 330 U.S. 851 (1947). Search in Google Scholar

[55] Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F. 3d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 2002). Search in Google Scholar

[56] Shanghai No.1 Intermedia People’s Court (2012) Hu Yi Zhong Civil Five (IP) Final No. 112. Search in Google Scholar

[57] Lu, H. (2014). Copyright Object. Intellectual Property Publishing House, 94. Search in Google Scholar

[58] Hangzhou NetEase Leihuo Technology Co., Ltd v. Guangzhou Yuelang Network Technology Co. Ltd. and others, (2016) Yue 0106 Civil Verdict No. 5333. Search in Google Scholar

[59] Guangzhou Chuangyu Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Yishi Network Technology Co., Ltd. and others, (2017) Yue 0106 Civil Verdict No.10491. Search in Google Scholar

[60] Hata, M. (1996). An Overview of Copyright Law. Tokyo Ichigo, 148. Search in Google Scholar

[61] Adams, E., & Dormans, J. (2012). Game Mechanics: Advanced Game Design. New Riders, 156-165. Search in Google Scholar

[62] Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman, 660 F. 2d 852 (2d Cir. 1982). Search in Google Scholar

[63] Atari, Inc. v. Amusement World, Inc., 547 F. Supp. 229 (D. Md. 1981). Search in Google Scholar

[64] Spry Fox v. Lolapps, Inc., Case No. C12-147RAJ (W.D. Wash. 2012). Search in Google Scholar

[65] Positive Black Talk Inc. v. Cash Money Records Inc., 394 F.3d 357, 368 (5th Cir. 2004). Search in Google Scholar

[66] Li, M. (2014). U.S. Intellectual Property. Law Press China, 358. Search in Google Scholar

[67] Ty, Inc. v. GMA Accessories, Inc., 13 F. 3d 1167, 1170 (7th Cir. 1997). Search in Google Scholar

[68] Newman, J. O. (1999). New Lyrics for an Old Melody: The Idea/Expression Dichotomy in the Computer Age. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 17, 698. Search in Google Scholar

[69] Warner Bros, Inc. v. Am. Broad. Cos., 720 F.2d 231, 241 (2d Cir. 1983). Search in Google Scholar

[70] Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 358-59 (1991). Search in Google Scholar

[71] Shanghai Xuanting Entertainment Information Technolgy Co. v. Beijing Tianhang Huitong Information Technology Co., (2015) Yuezhi Fazhu Civil Final No. 30. Search in Google Scholar

[72] Macatee, S. B. (1993). Total Concept and Feel or Dissection: Approaches to the Misappropriation Test of Substantial Similarity. Chi-Kent Law Review, 68, 935. Search in Google Scholar

[73] Shanghai Xuanting Entertainment Information Technology Co. v. Chengdu Jiqian Technology Co. and others, (2016) Su 03 Civil Verdict No.369. Search in Google Scholar

[74] Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F. 2d 1352, 1356 (9th Cir. 1984). Search in Google Scholar

[75] Meyer, K. R. (2010). Doctrine of the Dead: How Capcom v. MKR Exposes the Decreasing Fit between Modern Copyright Infringement Analysis and Modern Video Games. Chi-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property, 9, 141. Search in Google Scholar

[76] Zhang, Z. (2005). Copyright Law. Law Press China, 259. Search in Google Scholar

[77] Deneau, K. (2013). The Historical Development and Misplaced Justification for the Derivative Work Right. Boston University Journal of Science & Technology Law, 19, 77. Search in Google Scholar