🎮 Tetris, Truth, and Copyright: Why Historical Facts Still Belong to Everyone

Posted on H-Lib Copyright & Fair Use Forum | March 2025
By Kyle K. Courtney, Director of Copyright and Information Policy, Harvard Library

In a recent decision with important implications for libraries, archives, museums, and educational institutions (collectively referred to here as LAMs), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York reaffirmed a central tenet of copyright law: historical facts, even those discovered through original research, are not copyrightable.

The ruling in Ackerman v. Pink, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40028 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2025), concerned allegations that the Apple TV+ film Tetris unlawfully copied protected content from a nonfiction book about the game’s Cold War–era origins. In dismissing the lawsuit, the court emphasized the distinction between protected expression and unprotected facts, relying on a foundational Supreme Court precedent: Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).

Background: The Tetris Case

Plaintiff Daniel Ackerman is the author of The Tetris Effect: The Game That Hypnotized the World, a nonfiction book published in 2016 that chronicles the creation and licensing of the Tetris video game. In 2023, Ackerman brought a lawsuit against the creators of the Apple TV+ film Tetris, asserting claims for copyright infringement, unfair competition, and tortious interference.

According to Ackerman, the film incorporated substantial elements from his book, including the same characters, timelines, and dramatic framing. He submitted a detailed comparison between the two works and alleged that the creators of the film used his copyrighted content without authorization.

In March 2024, the defendants—who included The Tetris Company, the film’s screenwriter, and multiple producers—moved to dismiss the case. They argued that Ackerman’s claims failed as a matter of law because the facts in question were not copyrightable, and any similarities reflected historical events, not protected expression.

The Legal Framework: Fact vs. Expression

The court began its analysis by reiterating the two elements of a copyright infringement claim:

The defendant actually copied the plaintiff’s work; and
The copying amounts to an unlawful appropriation because it involves substantial similarity between the protectable elements of the two works.

To assess these elements, the court drew a critical distinction between facts and expression. As the court noted, this distinction is particularly complex in works of history and historical fiction:

“Works of history and historical fiction present unique complexities for substantial similarity analysis.”
— Ackerman v. Pink, at *27, quoting Effie Film, LLC v. Pomerance, 909 F. Supp. 2d 273, 290–91 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

Feist Revisited: The Leading Supreme Court Case

To support its reasoning, the court cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Feist, a landmark 1991 case that clarified the limits of copyright protection for factual compilations.

In Feist, the Court held that a white pages telephone directory—a listing of names, phone numbers, and addresses—did not meet the originality requirement of copyright law. The Court rejected the “sweat of the brow” doctrine, which had previously allowed copyright based on the labor or investment involved in compiling facts. Instead, it held that copyright protection requires a minimal degree of creativity in the arrangement or presentation of information.

“The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”
— Feist, 499 U.S. at 349 (emphasis added)

As the Court explained, facts themselves—no matter how much effort goes into discovering or compiling them—are part of the public domain. What is protectable is the author’s creative arrangement or original expression of those facts.

Application to Ackerman’s Claims

In Ackerman v. Pink, the district court applied the Feist principle directly. While acknowledging that Ackerman had conducted extensive original research into the historical development of Tetris, the court emphasized that such research does not entitle the researcher to exclusive rights in the underlying facts:

“The Court recognizes the originality and depth of Plaintiff’s research. But copyright law protects expression, not discovery.”
— Ackerman v. Pink, at *29

Accordingly, the court held that the creators of the film were free to use the same factual material—such as the chronology of events, the identities of individuals involved, and geopolitical circumstances—so long as they did not copy Ackerman’s unique expression of those facts. The opinion observed meaningful differences between the two works in tone, structure, character portrayal, and dramatization.

“Defendants were entitled to use the facts contained in Plaintiff’s book so long as they did not copy Plaintiff’s unique expression of those facts.”
— Ackerman v. Pink, at *35

Implications for LAMs and Educational Institutions

This decision carries important implications for those working in libraries, archives, museums, and educational settings. It reaffirms that institutions can lawfully use, repurpose, and teach historical material—including content uncovered by others—so long as they do not copy the protected expressive elements of a particular source.

For example, educators may develop curricula based on historical research found in published books, museums may produce exhibitions featuring real events and individuals, and librarians may create digital collections that contextualize archival documents. In each case, the key is to contribute original interpretation, arrangement, or commentary rather than reproducing another author’s expressive choices.

Key Takeaways:

Historical events, facts, and real-world data are not protected by copyright, even if uncovered through original or unpublished research.
Only creative expression is protectable, such as narrative structure, tone, and literary or dramatic embellishment.
Independent use of the same facts does not constitute infringement, provided that the user avoids copying another’s unique presentation or analysis.
Educational and cultural institutions are free to reuse factual content in teaching, exhibitions, scholarship, and digital storytelling, so long as they apply their own voice and perspective.

Conclusion

Ackerman v. Pink provides a timely and important affirmation of the limits of copyright protection in the context of historical storytelling. By reiterating that facts are not property, the court upheld the legal and public policy principle that access to knowledge—particularly about past events—must remain open and unfettered.

For institutions dedicated to preserving and sharing cultural heritage, this ruling strengthens the foundation upon which their work rests. It confirms that original research may inspire new expression, but it does not close off the past to those who wish to tell its story anew.

For questions about copyright compliance, fair use, and the use of historical content in educational and cultural institutions, please consult your local Copyright First Responders!