Nope, layouts aren't covered by copyrights.

Another thread on this same topic: https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/copyright-and-pinball-what-can-you-copyright

I wouldn't make that assumption.....As the owner of a Graphic Design Studio for 26 years now I Copyright ALL of my "Layouts" for Brochures, Catalogs, Advertising, Media Kits, Post Cards, Direct Mail, Etc., It's in all of my contracts, specifically so that a client can't take "my" layouts and have another designer work with them ( call it job security ).....It may not be printed on the playfield that the "Layout" is copyrighted, but it "might" be,....

Before doing anything do your homework don't just ask questions on a public forum and expect a Lawful Answer......

Not sure if this was covered in the other thread, but my guess would be that a playfield layout would almost certainly not get any copyright protection because it has an intrinsic functionality (i.e. to give a particular experience when being played).

A possible exception would be if the layout itself was some sort of quasi-artistic thing (the shape of the lower playfield on AC/DC Prem/LE comes to mind), but even then, that aspect would have to be separable from the utility (i.e. not effect play at all) to receive protection.

Lookup "copyright useful article" for a quick explanation.

In short, I guess it's possible, but I certainly wouldn't want to be the one arguing it to a court...

Sounds like if you copywright yourself, it's just a $35-$55 fee. Fairly reasonable fee to protect your hard work.
https://www.wellsiplaw.com/how-much-does-a-u-s-copyright-registration-cost

I think history has shown they aren't. DE had a habit of copying older Williams layouts. Stern still recycles from time to time.
Tommy - FH
JP - WW
BF - STTNG

No, you can't copyright a layout. Elements of the design could certainly be copyrightable, but not the specific layout itself.

You could apply for a design patent instead maybe, but I'm not aware that anyone has ever tried that for an actual full layout. I doubt it would work.

We're talking purely the position of posts and slings etc here. Imagine if a company tried to say they owned the Italian bottom, and no one else could set up their slings/flippers/outlanes in that manner?

You could maybe try using trade dress to argue some layout aspects should be protected, but I think that would be a long shot too.

You can say anything is copyrighted, whether or not it would hold up legally is a different story.

Apple tried to claim rectangular shape of the iPhone is proprietary, but that was shot down pretty quickly.

Heard a story once from a co-worker who said they had to buy a license from a guy who had a patent on a certain way to fold a brochure. I never saw the example of the brochure, but he said that they found this brochure, did a design that used that same method, and then the company was hit with a cease and desist with information about his patent. They ended up purchasing a license to use it from him.

I thought that was crazy that you could patent the way paper was folded.

Yeah, likely not. Design patents are kind of an odd area of law whose purpose has some overlap with that of copyright, so it would be a stretch for a lot of the same reasons. Perhaps if you hired Apple's attorneys? They seem to keep getting design patents granted on things that probably should be rejected by the USPTO...

Possibly, but trademark law has functionality limitations somewhat similar to copyright law, so whatever was protected would probably have to be very limited.

Can't say for sure, but that sounds an awful lot like patent trolling.

It's kind of interesting that the patent was even awarded for a particular way to fold paper. I would almost think the application would've been rejected because of obviousness--patents need to be inventive in some way to be approved.

Yes typically, but a lot of bad ones get through. Design patent maybe (though probably still a bad one)?

I thought i read that b/w sued data east because of the lw3/t2 similarities?

Did they win (or force a settlement)? Suit also may not have been due to IP infringement.

I really wish I would have seen this design. They tried to explain it to me, about how it fanned out. But everything I was picturing in my mind just seemed like a kids kindergarten craft project.

Love if you can find that, never heard of it, and a Google search doesn't bring anything up. That would have been real news, would think it would be something that came up in a search.

B/W brought legal action against Data East over the word multiball, for a little while DE games used other terms, like tri-ball.

Or say last action hero, it was simply abbreviated "M-ball", which could be multiple balls, many balls..
Funny how Gary Stern ran Data East, then SEGA, and now Stern which freely uses the term "multiball"

The only WMS / DE suits I'm aware of were for the System 11 board design and multiball.

The problem is "obviousness" and "inventive" are subjective, and often the patent issuer doesn't have the right people to judge. There's so many trivial patents it's a joke.

Companies patent anything and everything nowadays just so they can retaliate if they're ever hit with a patent-related suit. It's not so much about being inventive unfortunately.

The multiball trademark was abandoned and became genericized...or possibly became genericized and was then abandoned.

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=73256078&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=76122003&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

Yeah, I just googled and couldn't find anything either. I heard it when I first got into the hobby, and I've been unknowingly spreading the bs since then.

On a side note, i recently owned a t2 and a lw3 side by side......and lw3 is a better game.......by a mile