Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Lilith Games (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.
3:15-cv-04084
N.D. Cal.May 16, 2017Background
- Warcraft III included a World Editor enabling users to create and share "mods" (custom maps/games); Blizzard's EULA prohibited using mods for commercial purposes but did not assign mod copyrights to Blizzard.
- Kyle "Eul" Sommer created the original DotA mod (2002); he later posted the mod as "open source" in 2004 but did not register copyright.
- Multiple contributors produced successive, locked/unlocked versions; Stephen "Guinsoo" Feak and Abdul "Icefrog" Ismail developed DotA Allstars through many iterations, exercising creative control and incorporating others' suggestions.
- Icefrog assigned rights to Valve in 2010; Eul also assigned rights to Valve later; Guinsoo assigned to Riot and those rights passed to Blizzard. Valve developed Dota 2 and registered copyrights in some versions.
- Lilith and uCool released smartphone games (DotA Legends; Heroes Charge). Blizzard and Valve sued; uCool moved for partial summary judgment that Valve lacks copyright ownership of the original DotA/mods and moved for Rule 11 sanctions. The Court heard the motion after limited discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What constitutes the "work(s)" at issue (joint vs. separate works)? | Valve: Individual versions are protectable and Valve owns assigned versions. | uCool: DotA/Allstars are collective or single works assembled from contributions. | Each discrete version is a separate unitary derivative work; not a single collective work. |
| Who are the authors (masterminds) of versions of DotA/Allstars? | Valve: Eul, Guinsoo, Icefrog (and sometimes Neichus) exercised creative control and are authors. | uCool: Many contributors undermine single-author/mastermind claims. | A reasonable jury could find Eul, Guinsoo, and Icefrog were the authors/masterminds of their versions. |
| Can Valve recover for heroes/elements first posted by third parties or integrated from other versions? | Valve: Owner of a derivative work may sue for copying of the derivative work as a whole. | uCool: Valve lacks rights in specific heroes/elements not authored by assignors. | Owner of a derivative work can recover for the derivative’s original expression; copying of others’ independently owned elements may limit recovery to the assignor’s contributed material. |
| Were assignments to Valve invalid because of (a) Blizzard's EULA, (b) Eul's abandonment, or (c) Icefrog's assignment to S2? | Valve: Assignments are valid; EULA does not preclude assignment; Icefrog retained DotA rights; Eul's intent ambiguous. | uCool: EULA barred commercial transfers; Eul abandoned rights by open-sourcing; S2 owned Icefrog's DotA-related rights. | Court rejected EULA argument as waived by uCool; factual disputes over Eul's abandonment and any S2 impact preclude summary judgment — assignments validity is for the jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Micro Star v. Formgen Inc., 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998) (mods and derivative works analysis for video games)
- Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2000) (author = mastermind; creative control requirement)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment/genuine dispute standard)
- Corbello v. DeVito, 777 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir.) (co-owner standing to sue third-party infringers)
- Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990) (nonexclusive/implied license and transfer principles)
- Garcia v. Google, 786 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. en banc) (limits on treating integrated contributions as separately copyrightable)
- Jarvis v. K2 Inc., 486 F.3d 526 (9th Cir. 2007) (derivative/unitary works from integrated components)
- Richlin v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Inc., 531 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2008) (motion picture as unitary work; contributions merge)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (originality threshold for compilations)
- Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson Sales & Mktg., 547 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2008) (character protection and derivative infringement context)
- DC Comics v. Towle, 802 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2015) (copyright protection for distinctive character elements)