Nintendo won with the previous arguement that Universal did not have exclusive rights to the idea of a giant ape. The similarities were too general to qualify as copyright infringement. Universal’s previous claim that King Kong was public domain also heavily weakened their own case, leaning favour on Nintendo’s story.
The court found no substantial similarity in protectable expression. They agreed that although generally similar, the specifcs were visually and narratively different. Universal had acted unprofessionally by attempting to claim bigger rights than they even started with. After the case, Universal was ordered to pay Nintendo’s legal fees, putting even more humiliation on their case.
This case strengthened legal protection for video game creators and companies, and helped clarify the limits of character copyright. It also showed that courts would not automatically favour large film studios just because they make movies or TV in comparison to video game companies. It changed the way creators worked as they learnt you’re legally allowed to draw inspiration from general ideas, since large companies are not allowed to monopolize basic creative concepts. This case is still cited in video game copyright disputes, character protection cases, and substantial similarity analysis.
The Universal City Studios v. Nintendo has helped shape copyright interpretation laws in interactive media among the video game industry.
