ATARI GAMES CORP. v. OMAN Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The court found the Register of Copyrights abused his discretion by refusing to register the video game BREAKOUT. The game’s combination of simple shapes, sounds, and non-physical motion met the low “modicum of creativity” standard for copyright protection required by precedent.
Legal Significance: This case applies the Feist “modicum of creativity” standard to audiovisual works, establishing that a video game’s copyrightability lies in the creative selection and arrangement of its elements—including graphics, sounds, and sequence of play—viewed as a whole.
ATARI GAMES CORP. v. OMAN Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Atari Games Corp. sought to register its video game BREAKOUT as an audiovisual work. The game consists of a player-controlled paddle used to hit a square “ball” against a wall of colored rectangular “bricks.” When the ball hits a brick, the brick disappears, and a sound is produced. The ball’s speed, the paddle’s size, and the sounds change during gameplay. Notably, the ball’s trajectory does not follow the laws of physics; its rebound angle is determined by where it strikes the paddle. The Register of Copyrights twice refused registration, asserting that the work’s components—simple geometric shapes and basic colors—were uncopyrightable per se. The Register concluded that the work, viewed as a whole, lacked the sufficient creativity required for a “work of authorship” under the Copyright Act. Atari challenged the Register’s final refusal as an abuse of discretion.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the Register of Copyrights abuse his discretion by determining that the video game BREAKOUT, as an audiovisual work, lacked the minimal degree of creativity required for copyright protection?
Yes. The Register’s refusal to register BREAKOUT was an abuse of discretion. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fug
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the Register of Copyrights abuse his discretion by determining that the video game BREAKOUT, as an audiovisual work, lacked the minimal degree of creativity required for copyright protection?
Conclusion
This decision solidifies that the low creativity threshold from Feist applies to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Legal Rule
To be copyrightable, a work of authorship must possess at least a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat
Legal Analysis
The court, applying the standard from Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserun
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Register of Copyrights abused its discretion by refusing to register