Legal · April 1, 2024

AI and Copyright

Summary

The paper advocates a balanced approach to artificial‑intelligence deployment in the European video‑games sector, emphasizing that AI should be nurtured as a driver of creativity and economic growth while preserving the core objectives of the existing copyright framework. It argues that the industry’s reliance on technological innovation and a robust copyright regime is essential for long‑term investment, and that any regulatory response must protect creators, respect trade secrets and avoid unnecessary burdens on developers and players. AI has been embedded in games for more than a decade, from procedural terrain generation to advanced moderation tools, and generative models now promise to accelerate content creation, reduce production costs and enrich player experiences. The paper notes that most AI applications remain non‑generative, but where generative tools are used—whether for code, narrative or visual assets—they should be treated as ordinary creative aids: works that reflect a human author’s original choices retain copyright protection. It endorses the text‑and‑data‑mining exceptions of the EU’s DSM Copyright Directive as a suitable legal basis for training models, warning against additional EU legislation that could create uncertainty and distort competition. Risk‑based regulation is recommended, with low‑risk uses such as internal foundation models for short dialogue exempt from mandatory transparency or labeling. Mandatory disclosure should be limited to cases where it does not jeopardize trade secrets or impose disproportionate costs, and labeling obligations are deemed unnecessary in contexts where players already expect AI‑assisted content. The paper also highlights the need for international cooperation to harmonize standards and protect creators globally. The position reflects the perspective of a pan‑European industry body representing 19 game companies and 13 national trade associations, a sector valued at €24.5 billion with 53 % of Europeans identified as players. It calls on policymakers to engage continuously with stakeholders, to proceed cautiously with any legal changes, and to preserve the balance between innovation and creator rights that underpins the European video‑games ecosystem.

From the report

AI and Copyright AI and Copyright April 2024 Executive summary Executive summary 1. Video Games Europe supports the responsible development of AI technologies and a thriving and robust AI economy. As with many technological advances, the opportunities presented by the continuing development of AI systems are tremendous for consumers of video games products and services, but come with challenges and new legal questions surrounding both the copyrightability of works produced with assistance from AI systems and the use of copyrighted works as inputs. 2. The video games industry and its overall value chain rely inherently on both advances in technology and an effective copyright regime to allow creativity and investment in new works to be sustained over the longer term. Copyright law has been carefully scoped to achieve this balance and includes exceptions and limitations to permit rightsholders to prevent the copying of their works while allowing new ideas and concepts to develop. We believe that it is critical that the underlying goals, purposes and balance of the existing copyright regime are upheld to support innovation and to protect the rights of creators. This balance is, we believe, reflected in Articles 3 and 4

works while allowing new ideas and concepts to develop. We believe that it is critical that the underlying goals, purposes and balance of the existing copyright regime are upheld to support innovation and to protect the rights of creators. This balance is, we believe, reflected in Articles 3 and 4 3. AI applications in video games do not encroach on fundamental rights or the safety of individuals. We believe that the regulation of both generative and non-generative (i.e., analytic) AI should take a risk-based approach, where the sorts of uses in video games should be considered the lowest risk and subject to the least restrictive transparency, disclosure and reporting requirements. We also believe that transparency obligations must be reasonable and proportionate, and should take into account the protection of trade secrets. 4. We also believe that where foundation models (i.e., large AI models trained on enormous quantities of unlabeled data) are developed and used exclusively in internal, non-high-risk settings (i.e., not available to the public nor placed on the market), used for example to generate short pieces of dialogue in an open-world game, transparency and disclosure obligations should definitely not apply.

of unlabeled data) are developed and used exclusively in internal, non-high-risk settings (i.e., not available to the public nor placed on the market), used for example to generate short pieces of dialogue in an open-world game, transparency and disclosure obligations should definitely not apply. 5. We do not believe that creative works should be burdened with labelling obligations in contexts where users already expect to interact with AI-assisted and AI-generated content, such as in video games. To demand otherwise could be highly disruptive to the user’s in-game experience. Concerns over synthetic media and fraud, misinformation, invasion of privacy and other harms are not present in expressive works for entertainment that depict fictional worlds, such as video games. 6. AI technologies and how video games companies use them are still evolving, and until the surrounding issues have come into much clearer focus, we would encourage policy makers to continue to engage with industry stakeholders and to proceed with caution before making or recommending changes to either law, regulations or policy.

Pages: 6
Words: 2,800
Format: PDF
Type: Legal

Topics

View this document on Game Industry Library.

Related Documents

Report

How Developers Are Using Generative AI to Create a New Generation of Games

This research, conducted by Google Cloud and The Harris Poll in mid-2025, examines the transformative role of generative AI within the global games industry. Based on a survey of 615 developers across the United States, South Korea, Norway, Finland, and Sweden, the study finds that 97% of professionals believe generative AI is actively reshaping the sector. The primary thesis suggests that while the industry faces rising development costs and market saturation, AI serves as a critical tool for innovation, democratization, and operational efficiency. Key findings indicate that 90% of developers have already integrated AI into their workflows, primarily to automate repetitive tasks and accelerate playtesting, localization, and coding. A significant trend is the rise of AI agents—autonomous systems capable of reasoning and planning—which 44% of respondents use for content optimization and 34% for advanced NPC behavior. These technologies are shifting player expectations, with 89% of developers noting that gamers now demand more lifelike, responsive, and personalized experiences. Furthermore, 94% of developers anticipate that AI will lead to long-term reductions in development costs over the next three years. Despite this optimism, the industry faces notable hurdles regarding legal and ethical standards. Approximately 63% of developers expressed concerns over data ownership and intellectual property, while 35% cited worries regarding player data privacy. To navigate these challenges, the study recommends that studios start with small-scale pilots, align AI use with their core creative visions, and invest in staff upskilling. Ultimately, the data portrays AI not just as a productivity booster, but as a fundamental shift in game design that enables smaller studios to compete more effectively while fostering new levels of player immersion.

ai game-development market-analysis+1

Google CloudJan 2025

Legal

Call for Contributions - Competition in ‘Virtual Worlds’ and Generative Artificial Intelligence

Video Games Europe submits a focused perspective on competition in virtual worlds and generative artificial intelligence, emphasizing that both technologies are central to the European video‑games sector’s ongoing innovation and consumer value. The contribution argues that regulatory interventions should be proportionate, evidence‑based, and designed to preserve the sector’s dynamism, warning that premature or overly prescriptive rules could impede the development of diverse business models and emerging services. The analysis traces the evolution of virtual worlds from early networked games such as Mazewar (1974) through the rise of MMORPGs in the late 1990s and the recent popularity of platforms like Roblox, Fortnite and Animal Crossing, highlighting the sector’s historic reliance on immersive, persistent environments. Competition is described as vibrant, driven by talent, proprietary technologies, intellectual‑property access, data, AI advances, connectivity and net‑neutrality. Over 5,500 companies operated in the EU in 2021, with roughly 500 new developers entering the market that year, illustrating a high level of market entry and diversification. The response notes a shift toward open standards and interoperability, urging support for multilateral standard‑setting bodies while cautioning against mandatory interoperability mandates that could stifle innovation. Regarding generative AI, the text observes that the technology is still nascent in game production but promises substantial productivity gains by enabling rapid creation of assets such as 3D models, dialogue and sound effects. It identifies key competitive factors—algorithms, data, training infrastructure, bias mitigation, skilled labour and regulatory guardrails—and stresses that existing frameworks for text‑and‑data mining and the forthcoming AI Act should remain the basis for policy, avoiding additional legislative changes without thorough impact assessment. Overall, the contribution underscores that the EU’s existing antitrust tools, including the DMA, are sufficient to address competition concerns in these fast‑moving domains, provided they are applied with continued stakeholder engagement.

ai regulation europe+1

Video Games EuropeMar 2024

Report

AEVI Guides- Videogames and intellectual and industrial property

The guide aims to equip video‑game developers and publishers with practical knowledge for building a robust intellectual‑property (IP) portfolio that safeguards creative assets and minimizes infringement risk. It clarifies the legal distinction between copyright‑related rights, which protect artistic and literary expressions, and industrial‑property rights such as patents, trademarks, industrial designs and trade secrets, emphasizing that trademarks and designs are the most relevant instruments for the sector. Key points outline how each component of a game—script, dialogue, soundtrack, character graphics, user‑interface, source code, middleware and databases—can be protected. Copyright arises automatically upon creation and lasts 70 years after the author’s death (or 70 years from disclosure for collective works); registration at the General Registry of Intellectual Property can serve as evidence of ownership. Trademarks require filing with the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office or the EUIPO, granting ten‑year protection renewable indefinitely, while industrial designs protect the visual appearance of GUIs for five‑year terms, renewable up to 25 years. Trade‑secret protection relies on confidentiality agreements and technical safeguards for non‑public information such as storylines or novel mechanics. The guide stresses that, under Spanish law, employees retain initial rights to their creations, so studios must secure written assignments—preferably exclusive, worldwide and lasting until the work enters the public domain—to ensure exploitable rights. Collective works, common in game development, confer ownership to the coordinating developer or publisher. For third‑party content, the document outlines limited exceptions—public‑domain use, statutory limits, and narrowly defined descriptive uses of trademarks—while noting that the EU does not recognise a broad “fair‑use” doctrine. Overall, the document provides a comprehensive, jurisdiction‑specific framework for protecting video‑game assets across Spain and the European Union, guiding stakeholders through registration procedures, contractual safeguards and permissible uses of external material to secure commercial value and legal certainty.

regulation intellectual-property spain

AEVIJan 2025

Report

Guías AEVI: Propiedad intelectual e industrial

The guide aims to equip video‑game developers and publishers with a practical framework for safeguarding the creative and technical assets that constitute a game’s intellectual and industrial property. It clarifies the dual nature of IP under Spanish law—copyright and related rights on the one hand, and industrial property (patents, trademarks, designs, trade secrets) on the other—explaining which categories protect specific game elements such as scripts, music, graphics, code, user‑interface designs, character names and logos. Key conclusions stress that copyright arises automatically upon creation, lasting 70 years after the author’s death (or 70 years from disclosure for collective works), while related rights endure 50 years. Trademark protection requires registration and lasts ten years per filing, renewable indefinitely; design protection covers the external appearance of a GUI for five‑year periods, renewable up to 25 years. Trade‑secret measures rely on confidentiality agreements and technical safeguards rather than formal registration. The guide also outlines the legal regimes governing ownership of works created by employees, freelancers or collaborators, noting that Spanish law lacks a “work‑for‑hire” concept and therefore mandates explicit written assignments of exploitation rights, typically detailed in employment or service contracts. Practical recommendations include a step‑by‑step checklist for identifying each asset, determining the appropriate protection mechanism, confirming that all contributors have assigned their rights, and implementing NDAs to preserve secrecy during development. The guide further outlines limited exceptions for using third‑party material—public‑domain works, specific statutory limits, and narrowly defined descriptive uses of trademarks—while warning that doctrines such as “fair use” are not recognized in the EU. Overall, the document provides a comprehensive, Spain‑focused roadmap for building a robust IP portfolio that enhances a game’s market value and minimizes infringement risk.

regulation intellectual-property spain

AEVIJan 2025