Introduction

"The Tetris Effect: The Game That Hypnotized the World" is a fascinating non-fiction book by tech reporter Dan Ackerman that dives deep into the origins of the iconic video game Tetris. It provides a detailed journalistic account of how the game was developed in a Soviet government lab, along with the intense business negotiations and the race by Western moguls to secure the rights. Ackerman's storytelling is so engaging that it’s often described as an "unputdownable" non-fiction thriller, exploring themes of corporate espionage, international conspiracies, and even the psychological effects Tetris has had on players. On the other hand, the 2023 film "TETRIS," directed by Jon S. Baird, takes a fictionalized approach to the same story, focusing on Henk Rogers, played by Taron Egerton, as he risks everything to secure the game's rights for Nintendo. The film is structured like a video game, complete with stylized 8-bit graphics for transitions, and it heightens the tension of Cold War espionage with elements like car chases and KGB threats. While it takes some creative liberties for dramatic effect, the essence of the high-stakes journey captures the spirit of the time. Both the book and the film offer unique perspectives on Tetris, whether you prefer the meticulous detail of the book or the thrilling dramatization of the movie. There was quite a bit of buzz around the film when Dan Ackerman, the author of the book it was based on, decided to sue Apple, the movie's distributor. He claimed that the film had copied his work. However, the lawsuit didn't go very far; the judge ultimately dismissed the case, pointing out that the film's tone and the dramatic embellishments it included made it quite different from the original book. So, even though there were similarities, the court found the film had enough unique elements to stand on its own. Let’s discuss Daniel Ackerman v. Pink et al., 23 Civ. 6952 (KPF), herein.

The Court Way

In the case, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dealt with significant issues regarding copyright law, particularly in relation to the intersection of factual nonfiction works and creative expression in film adaptations. The plaintiff, Daniel Ackerman, initiated a lawsuit against a variety of defendants, including filmmaker Noah Pink and tech giant Apple Inc., among others. At the heart of Ackerman's allegations were claims of copyright infringement, unfair competition, and tortious interference with business relations. He asserted that his 2016 book, “The Tetris Effect: The Game That Hypnotized The World”, was improperly utilized as source material in the creation of the 2023 film “Tetris”, which dramatizes the narrative surrounding Henk Rogers' efforts to acquire the rights to the iconic video game.

Ackerman's book serves as a comprehensive account of the development and history of Tetris, delving into the pivotal figures instrumental in its rise to cultural prominence. He contended that the defendants gained unauthorized access to his work after he shared a pre-publication copy with the public relations representatives of The Tetris Company. Given the film's release on Apple TV+, and its distinct narrative that echoes elements of Ackerman's book, the plaintiff argued that substantial similarities existed between the two works in terms of both factual content and the creative expression employed.

Upon proceeding with the case, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6), thereby contesting the legal sufficiency of Ackerman's claims. District Judge Hon. Katherine Polk Failla presided over the decision to grant this motion, ultimately leading to the dismissal of Ackerman’s case. The court was tasked with determining several critical aspects: whether the creation of the film constituted unlawful copyright infringement, if the unfair competition claims were excludable under federal copyright law, and if the tortious interference claim held validity based on its timeliness and substantial factual backing.

In examining the claim of copyright infringement, the court was required to assess whether the film reproduced substantial portions of the original expression found within Ackerman's book. The evaluation included discerning the uniqueness of content and determining whether the defendants had produced an unauthorized work. The legal framework for resolving these copyright matters is intrinsically tied to the notion of "substantial similarity" between the two works, which serves as a pivotal benchmark in identifying potential infringement.

To elaborate on the court's rationale, it employed the "more discerning ordinary observer test." This test underscores the necessary differentiation between unprotectable historical facts and the protectable elements of creative expression. Although both Ackerman's book and the film chronicled the same sequence of real events and involved the same historical figures, the court concluded that the similarities were predominantly limited to information that resides in the public domain, rendering them unprotected under copyright law.

To know more about this, you can follow the below link:

Analysis of the Court

The film adopted a distinctly different tone and narrative structure compared to the book, emphasizing suspense and drama through its expression, sequencing, and the introduction of fictionalized subplots, such as a KGB narrative. In contrast, Ackerman’s work was characterized by an informative style that employed a non-linear approach. Given these substantive differences, the court determined that, as a matter of law, no significant similarity existed that would lead to a finding of copyright infringement.

Furthermore, the court addressed the unfair competition claim brought forth by Ackerman. This claim was found to be preempted by federal copyright law, as it did not demonstrate that it was qualitatively different from the copyright infringement claim. Essentially, it alleged misappropriation of protected expression, which fell squarely within the ambit of copyright issues. The court noted that Ackerman’s accusations of “bad faith” or “deception” on the part of the defendants did not elevate the unfair competition claim to a legally distinct matter compared to the copyright-based allegations.

Turning to the tortious interference with business relations claim, the court noted that it was barred by the statute of limitations, which mandates that such claims must be filed within a specified timeframe. Since the alleged wrongful acts occurred in 2016 but the suit was not filed until 2023, the claim was deemed time-barred. Additionally, the court analysed whether the cease-and-desist letter sent by Ackerman constituted evidence of wrongful or tortious conduct under New York law. Ultimately, the court found that such evidence was insufficient to support the tortious interference claim, further solidifying the basis for dismissal.

Ultimately, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, which resulted in all claims being dismissed with prejudice. The implications of this decision underscore not only the stringent standards associated with copyright infringement claims, especially those involving historical nonfiction works, but also highlight the limitations imposed by copyright law regarding factual and historical subjects. Moreover, the decission affirms the preemptive authority of the Copyright Act over related state law claims, thus reinforcing the protection of creative expression while delineating the boundaries of copyright protection.

Conclusion

This case serves as an important point of reference for authors and creatives navigating the often complex intersection of fact-based narratives and creative adaptation. It raises critical questions about the risks inherent in sharing unpublished works and the importance of understanding the boundaries of copyright protection, particularly in an era where storytelling transcends various mediums. The court's analysis ultimately reflects a careful balance between the individual rights of creators and the broader public interest in the sharing of factual information, setting a precedent for future cases that may grapple with similar issues.