Ackerman v. Pink asks how much of a written history can be claimed as proprietary by the author of that history. The answer: Not much. It is black letter that the author of a non-fiction work cannot prevent others from using historical facts in some other work – even if those historical facts are known only because of the author’s independent research. Copyright covers only the author’s expression of the research, not the research itself. 

Ackerman is interesting because the analysis the court uses to separate the historical fact from the author’s expression is misplaced – even though the Court appears to have reached the right conclusion.

Daniel Ackerman, the author, sued several entities claiming that the film Tetris (the “Film”) infringed his copyright in a book he wrote about the video game Tetris – The Tetris Effect: The Game that Hypnotized the World (the “Book”). The Book purports to be a non-fiction history of the development of the video game Tetris. The Film also purports to tell the same story – albeit with some dramatic embellishments. 

The opinion by district judge Katherine Polk Failla recites the relatively vanilla proposition that historical facts cannot be claimed by an author of a non-fiction work of authorship. So far, so good. The problem, however, is where the court compares certain purportedly historic scenes in the Book with how they are portrayed fictionally in the Film in an effort to separate the facts from the expression. 

The court recounts several factual differences between the portrayal of historical scenes in the Book and the dramatization in the Film to hold that the expression of the former is not copied by the latter. For example, the Book describes one of the characters pitching Tetris to Sega in Japan. In the Movie, however, there are several differences including the fact the scene takes place in Seattle. Given that that historical facts described in the Book are not protected by copyright, whether the Film changed some of the facts should be immaterial to the court’s analysis. To the extent the author of the Book described certain scenes exactly as they happened, the Film was within its rights to portray those same facts as they happened. Nonetheless, the court’s analysis, to some degree, depends on these factual differences to hold that the Film does not copy the Book author’s expression. 

The Court went on to compare the “total concept and overall feel of the two works” by focusing on the organization and focus of the Book and Film. This framework does seem to separate Book author’s expression from the unprotected historical facts. For example, the court noted that “the Book jumps through time to provide as much background and context as possible for the people and events it portrays, the Film proceeds largely chronologically.” The court, however, could find no evidence that the Film somehow misappropriated the way the author “selected, coordinated, and arranged the facts in his Book.”

While Judge Polk Failla reached the right result (in our view), her focus on the difference in the facts unnecessarily muddies the water on separating protected expression from something underlying that expression that is in the public domain. A subsequent author who wishes to write a book or make a movie about an historical event should not be required to change the historical facts to avoid a finding that they copied the original author’s expression – even though the makers of the Film chose to do so here.