Intangiblia™
Plain talk about Intellectual Property. Podcast of Intangible Law™
Intangiblia™
Insert Lawsuit to Continue: IP Legal Sidequests You Didn’t Ask For
Behind every pixel, mechanic, and character design lies a hidden battlefield where intellectual property law shapes the games we play. From energy drinks to tattoos, the unlikely legal showdowns that define modern gaming are stranger than fiction.
Play IP Sidequest Showdown. An escape-room-style game inspired by this episode. Drop a comment if you cracked the code.
Monster Energy's aggressive pursuit of any game title containing the word "monster" forced Ubisoft to abandon "Gods and Monsters" despite zero connection to beverages. When NBA 2K rendered LeBron James's tattoos with perfect detail, the copyright holders demanded millions—only to have the courts rule that realistic depictions qualify as fair use. And who knew that the shattered glass texture in Resident Evil was actually a photographer's copyrighted work, leading to one of the largest copyright claims ever filed by a single artist against a game studio?
The patent wars are equally fascinating. Nintendo secured a $30 million settlement from fellow Japanese developer Colopl over touch controls—yes, the way your finger moves across a screen can be proprietary. Sega claimed ownership of gacha mechanics where duplicate characters fuse to unlock abilities. And Palworld's "Pokémon with guns" approach triggered Nintendo's legal team to pursue patent infringement rather than the expected copyright route.
Even legends aren't immune. Diego Maradona discovered his likeness in Pro Evolution Soccer without permission, leading to a lawsuit that transformed into a sponsorship deal. Meanwhile, Call of Duty successfully defended using Humvees in-game without a license, establishing crucial First Amendment protections for realistic depictions in interactive entertainment.
These cases reveal the invisible forces shaping what makes it to our screens. Next time you're playing your favorite game, remember that behind every design decision might be a legal battle that determined not just how the game looks, but how it fundamentally works. The gaming industry's most consequential battles happen in courtrooms, not on our screens.
Ready to explore more? Remember to try our IP Sidequest Showdown game on our website and see if you can navigate the legal labyrinth yourself.
a window breaks, a photo resurfaces and suddenly a game built on fiction is dragged into reality. What you thought was background, art evidence, what you thought was a title, a trademark, war.
Speaker 2:This is Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law playing talk about intellectual property. Please welcome your host, leticia Caminero.
Speaker 3:Welcome and welcome to the podcast where creativity meets control schemes and legal drama spawns faster than a plumber with a shiny star. I'm Leticia Caminero.
Speaker 1:Well, her AI version, of course, and I'm Artemisa, your AI co-host, coded for commentary, sarcastic side-eye and the occasional copyright connection.
Speaker 3:In this episode we're diving headfirst into the legal side quests no game developer asked for from names that triggered trademark claims to fan-made modifications that got taken down to a certain shattered glass photo that cracked open a lawsuit.
Speaker 1:We'll take you through some fully rendered, pixel-perfect cases, a few deep dives and sprinkle of rapid-fire glitches, all stitched together with IP threads and plot twists worthy of a cutscene.
Speaker 3:And, yes, we used AI to build this episode voice research, delivery all filtered through a human lawyer's judgment. So, no, we're not replacing creators, we're just making the loading screens more interesting. For this episode, I built an escape room style game called IP Sidequest Showdown, available on our website, wwwintangibliacom. In the game, you're a rookie IP agent tasked with cracking some legally inspired mysteries. Solve all the missions and the briefcase unlocks. Drop a comment if you cracked the code or if the clone got you first. Our first stop 2020,. Ubisoft is gearing up to release a mythology-based open war adventure with gods, monsters and a few puzzles on the side. They call it Gods and Monsters Clean, simple, epic, Until a certain beverage company stomps in with his clothes out and a lawyer in each hand, monster Energy filed an opposition against Ubisoft's trademark the issue, the word monster.
Speaker 1:Apparently, if your game's title includes it, even if it's about Greek gods and mythical beasts, monster thinks you're stepping on their fizzy toes.
Speaker 3:Monster Energy argued that gamers might confuse their drinks with a video game about zoos and floating islands. Ubisoft tried to explain that their monster had wings and fangs. Not caffeine and carbonation, but legal pressure escalated and so did the need to rebrand.
Speaker 3:So Ubisoft blinked, they renamed the game Immortals, fenyx Rising, more poetic, maybe Less likely to be confused with an energy drink. Definitely it wasn't the first time Monster Energy pulled this kind of move and spoiler. It wouldn't be the last, but this was the case. That made it clear Even the title of games can be dangerous territory, especially when a brand thinks it owns an entire now. Because Ubisoft wasn't alone. After that, monster Energy went full rage mode, challenging game titles left and right Like it was on a trademark speed run.
Speaker 1:Next up Monster Hunter. Yes, monster Hunter, a franchise that predates Monster Energy by years and has zero to do with beverages. That didn't stop Monster from trying to block its trademark renewal in certain countries.
Speaker 3:Then they took a swing at Pokemon yes, that Pokemon Over the name Pokemon X and Y Pocket Monsters. It didn't land, but the attempt alone raised eyebrows high enough to trigger a level up prompt, and indie developers weren't safe either.
Speaker 1:They went after Dark Deception, monsters and Mortals, a horror party game with spooky characters and zero sugar content.
Speaker 3:Most developers either fought back or settled, but the legal drain was real. Monster Energy didn't win most of these, but their tactic was loud, expensive and exhausting.
Speaker 1:It's what some call trademark bullying, using a big legal budget not to win but to wear the other player down.
Speaker 3:So next time you see the word monster in a game, just know it might take it a few rounds with legal before it made it to your screen.
Speaker 1:And no, it won't make you more energized, but it might make you more cautious about your game title.
Speaker 3:OK, let's talk. Ink, not contracts skin, because in 2020, one of the most unexpected copyright lawsuits hit the gaming world, and it all started with LeBron James's shoulder.
Speaker 1:Welcome to the case of Solid Oak sketches versus 2K games. Solid Oak had acquired the copyright to five tattoos real tattoos on real NBA players featured in the NBA 2K video game series.
Speaker 3:The one 2K rendered those athletes in game ultra realistic. Every tattoo, included Solid Oak, said you're using our art without permission. Pay up.
Speaker 1:And they didn't ask for chump change. They were aiming for millions in damages. To be fair, it wasn't the first time this argument showed up. Remember the hangover part two. Mike Tyson's tattoo artist, s Victor Whitmill, sued Warner Brothers for using his iconic tribal design on Ed Helms. That case didn't go to trial, but the judge did call Warner's fair use defense, and I quote silly.
Speaker 3:Back to NBA2K. This case did go to court and it raised a big question. If an athlete's body is part of their identity and their tattoos are part of that identity, can a company show the player without also showing the ink?
Speaker 1:The court said yes. They ruled that the tattoos were a minimal part of the overall image, were used with implied license and, importantly, helped create realism. Fair use case dismissed.
Speaker 3:It was a win for realism in sports games, but it also left the door open, because this case was about usage in context, not about tattoo copyright disappearing entirely.
Speaker 1:So if you're a developer scanning body art into your next big release, just make sure your realism doesn't come with a lawsuit.
Speaker 3:From realism to rebellion, we now move into one of the most poetic legal moments in gaming. This time, it wasn't about stealing, it was about restoring Enter.
Speaker 1:Take-Two Verse. The modders behind Re3 and ReVC Fans who loved Grand Theft Auto 3 and Vice City like really loved them decided to reverse engineer the original games Not to copy to fix.
Speaker 3:In the ruins of old code, fans unearthed a forgotten kingdom, gta 3 and Vice City. They rebuilt them, fixed bugs, added features and breathed new life into the classics. The games looked better, played smoother, it was preservation, it was polished and it was about to get pulled.
Speaker 1:Because Take-Two sued. They said the fans had used parts of the original games without permission that's unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material and they didn't wait around. They fired off DMCA takedowns.
Speaker 3:Which, for non-lawyers, means they send legal notices to platforms like GitHub demanding the mods be taken offline. It's the digital version of pulling the fire alarm fast, automatic and hard to find.
Speaker 1:The modders argued back they weren't copying, they were reverse engineering A legal gray zone where developers take something apart to learn how it works or make it compatible with modern systems.
Speaker 3:It's a real legal defense, but a risky one when you're dealing with one of the biggest publishers in gaming.
Speaker 1:After a public backlash, the lawsuit vanished like a hidden Easter egg no final verdict, no major punishment, just one of those rare endings where the sidequesters walked away and a quick reminder sometimes the best remaster is the one fans do themselves, With better lighting and fewer bugs.
Speaker 3:The best remaster is the one fans do themselves With better lighting and fewer bugs. Some legal fights are subtle. This wasn't one of them. This was the digital version of you copied my homework and didn't even change the font.
Speaker 1:Riot Games had created League of Legends, one of the most iconic competitive online games in the world. Moonton, a Shanghai-based studio, released Mobile Legends and let's just say, the resemblance was uncanny.
Speaker 3:We're talking character designs, map layouts, gameplay mechanics, even the marketing materials felt like deja vu. So Riot stood in the US. Moonton pulled the game and then relaunched it days later under a new name Mobile Legends. Bang Bang Bold move Didn't fool anyone. Riot stood again, this time in China. Moonton's parent company, bytedance, had deep pockets. And things got even more complicated. Legal ping pong across jurisdictions began.
Speaker 1:Eventually, riot took the fight back to the US and in 2018, they won a $2,900,000 zero cents judgment. But the game stayed online, the fans stayed loyal and Moonton just kept updating it.
Speaker 3:This was more than just a lawsuit. It became a long-term standoff about what counts as copying in games, where is the line between inspiration and imitation, and what if the clone becomes more popular than the original, at least in some regions.
Speaker 1:The case settled in 2023, with both parties dropping their swords behind closed doors.
Speaker 3:No epic win, no press conference, just silence and a whole lot of money probably changing hands, if anything this saga showed just how hard it is to protect a game's feel, Because in IP law you can copyright a character design, but not a gameplay vibe and in clone culture.
Speaker 1:sometimes the sequel starts before the lawsuit ends.
Speaker 3:Our next story starts with something small a texture, a broken glass pattern you'd barely notice while dodging zombies in Resident Evil. But it turns out that crack was real.
Speaker 1:And so was the lawsuit. But it turns out that crack was real and so was the lawsuit In 2021,. Photographer Judy Jurczyk filed a massive copyright infringement suit against Capcom claiming they used over 80 of her copyrighted images.
Speaker 3:Surfaces, a physical and CDREM collection of architectural and material textures, Things like bricks, marble, stained glass and, yes, shattered glass.
Speaker 1:Capcom allegedly took those images and inserted them directly into game environments doors, windows, flooring without asking, crediting or paying.
Speaker 3:Now here's the truth. How did she find out? Capcom's own files were exposed in a data breach in 2020. In those leaked internal documents, file names match the ones from her CD ARIAM. Side by side comparisons went viral.
Speaker 1:It was like the zombies had left behind receipts.
Speaker 3:And Hachikaz for over $12 million zero cents in damages, plus $2,500, zero cents to $25,000, zero cents per photo used per game. It was one of the largest copyright claims against a game studio ever filed by a single artist.
Speaker 1:Capcom denied wrongdoing and said they were still investigating the source of those assets. But let's be honest, the photo names didn't help their case.
Speaker 3:The case it didn't go to trial. It was settled privately in 2022. No public verdict, no official apology, but it left a big impact on how studios think about sourcing textures, references and background art.
Speaker 1:Because when something as simple as a cracked window shows up in multiple cut scenes and your reference book came out 25 years ago you better be sure you licensed that crack.
Speaker 3:This case wasn't about stolen characters or copied storylines. It was about realism and the fact that sometimes realism comes with strings attached.
Speaker 1:Or, in this case, jagged edges and metadata.
Speaker 2:Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law. Playing talk about intellectual property.
Speaker 3:In the world of mobile gaming, some battles happen behind the screen literally, because this next case, it wasn't about monsters, music or character design. It was about how your thumb moves.
Speaker 1:Our scene begins in Japan, the year 2018. Nintendo sues fellow Tokyo developer Kolo over their hit mobile RPG White Cat Project. The accusation Kolo was using five of Nintendo's patents, including one for virtual joystick controls on a touchscreen.
Speaker 3:To the average player it just looks like a typical mobile game swipe to move, tap to attack. But Nintendo argued those gestures weren't just intuitive, they were protected.
Speaker 1:Specifically, nintendo said White Cat Project was using the same touch-based input method. Nintendo had patented for the DS and 3DS a method where a player moves a character by dragging their finger across the screen.
Speaker 3:Nintendo demanded damages and an injunction, and at one point increased their claim to nearly 5 billion yen, that's around 47 million dollars, zero cents dollars.
Speaker 1:Apollo fought back hard. They denied infringement and kept the game online for years.
Speaker 3:But behind the scenes, the pressure mounted Finally in 2021, three years into the fight Colopel agreed to settle. They paid Nintendo 3.3 billion yen around 30 million dollars, zero cents and licensed the patent. Zero cents and license the patent.
Speaker 1:That's one of the biggest patent settlements ever in Japan's gaming industry. And what changed in the game? Not much that you notice. But ColoPlay did quietly tweak White Cat Project's input features to avoid any future risk.
Speaker 3:This case proves something crucial Game mechanics, not just characters or logos, can be patented, and if those mechanics are smooth, simple and widely adopted, they might also be legally explosive.
Speaker 1:Lesson learned Sometimes the swipe of a finger is more than just control it's innovation. Sometimes the swipe of a finger is more than just control, it's innovation. And Nintendo protects its innovations like a final boss guards a treasure chest.
Speaker 3:Every few years, a game comes along that the internet can't stop talking about. In 2024, that game was Power World, described by some as Pokemon with guns and by others as a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Speaker 1:The developer, pocket Pair, had clearly struck a nerve. You could catch little creatures, battle with them and use them for everything from farming to factory work. Sound familiar To Nintendo and the Pokemon company. It sounded too familiar.
Speaker 3:In September 2024, Nintendo filed suit in Tokyo. But this wasn't your usual copyright or trademark fight. They went in with patents. Flaming Pal World had copied specific game mechanics protected under.
Speaker 1:Japanese patent law. One key issue the creature catching system. Throwing a ball, watching the animation, capturing a creature that then joins your roster.
Speaker 3:Nintendo said that's not just a vibe, that's patented Another red flag, the creature designs. Even if they weren't exact copies, samples look suspiciously like Pokemon Teppukine after a few too many energy drinks. Twitter exploded, memes exploded and so did legal speculation.
Speaker 1:To be fair, pocket Pair had tried to dodge a direct hit. They insisted Power World was original. But after the lawsuit dropped, they quietly updated the game, tweaking animations, adjusting designs and even altering capture mechanics.
Speaker 3:As of now, the case is ongoing. Nintendo hasn't asked to block the game outright, but they're pressing for damages and changes, and Pocket Pair they're walking the line, trying to keep their fan base while avoiding more legal fire.
Speaker 1:It's rare for Nintendo to go the patent route first, but this case may mark a shift, especially in Japan, where major studios are starting to flex gameplay patents as their new legal weapon of choice, and for indie developers out there, the message is clear If you're building something inspired by a global franchise, check the artwork, check the artwork, check the names and definitely check the patent register. Because catching creatures is fun, but catching a lawsuit not so much.
Speaker 3:In the world of mobile RPGs, one mechanic reigns supreme the gacha. You roll, you pray, you get duplicates. But what if the way you fuse those duplicates was patented?
Speaker 1:That's exactly what Sega claimed in 2024. They filed suit against Bank of Innovation, the Tokyo-based studio behind Memento Mori and Cribetract. According to, Sega Boy's Games infringed five different patents.
Speaker 3:At the heart of the claim was a mechanic Sega said it pioneered. When a player receives multiple copies of the same character, those copies could be fused to unlock new abilities. Instead of being useless duplicates, elegant, addictive and, according to Sega, legally protected.
Speaker 1:The case hit Tokyo District Court in late 2024. Sega wasn't subtle. They demanded an injunction and one billion yen in damages. That's around six million six hundred thousand dollars, zero cents.
Speaker 3:Bank of Innovation denied any wrongdoing and insisted its systems were distinct, but in the court of public opinion it triggered a bigger conversation. Can Gacha mechanics be patented and if so, how many other games are skating close to the edge?
Speaker 1:For context, japan has a long history of issuing patents for game system innovations, especially around UI and reward mechanics, so this wasn't a stretch, it was a warning.
Speaker 3:The case is still pending, but it signals a larger trend. With Nintendo, Coloble, Pocket Pair and now Bank of Innovation all facing patent litigation, the big studios are clearly saying Gamefield isn't just about design, it's intellectual property.
Speaker 1:And if your gotcha game pops off unexpectedly, you might just roll into court.
Speaker 3:In 2023, a greedy indie game called Dark and Darker appeared online a dark fantasy extraction dungeon crawler with retro graphics and instant call bus. But behind the torches and treasure chests, something much bigger was brewing a legal war.
Speaker 1:The game was developed by Iron Mace, a team mostly made up of former Exxon employees and Exxon. They were not impressed. They claimed Dark and Darker wasn't just original inspiration. It was a stolen project.
Speaker 3:According to Nexon. Dark and Darker was a shadow version of a console internal game codenamed P3. They said the idea, mechanics and even code had been taken by devs who jumped ship and started over in plain sight.
Speaker 1:So Nexon pulled out the full legal arsenal. They filed criminal charges in Korea for trade secret theft. They've issued DMCA takedowns in the US they had Dark and Darker pulled from Steam and blocked from distribution.
Speaker 3:IRMIS denied everything. They said they started from scratch, that they had the receipts and that the entire thing was just a corporate overreaction. Fans took their side. They launched support campaigns, they played pirated versions and when Steam took the game down, Iron Maes made it available via Torrent.
Speaker 1:That's right. They Torrent, distributed their own game like a fantasy themed BitTorrent Hydra.
Speaker 3:In early 2024, a court in Seoul gave a mixed ruling. Irmas had not infringed on copyright, since P3 was never released, there was no game to copy, but they had violated trade secret law by using internal Nexon knowledge to recreate key systems, even if the assets were new.
Speaker 1:The court ordered Iron Mace to pay around $8.5 billion won, or nearly $6 million zero cents in damages, but they didn't block the game. Dark and Darker returned to steam in 2024, still grimy, still playable, still surrounded by controversy.
Speaker 3:The case is on appeal, but it raised one of the most difficult questions in game development today what's the difference between experience and theft.
Speaker 1:When a dev leaves a company, do they leave their ideas behind, or does a good idea always try to escape the dungeon?
Speaker 3:In Argentina, the late Diego Maradona wasn't just a footballer. He was a God tier legend, a national icon, and in 2017, he discovered he was also a video game character in a game he never agreed to be in.
Speaker 1:The game Pro Evolution Soccer 2017 by Japanese developer Konami. It featured classic teams and legendary players, and there, running across the screen, was Tenshagi Hand of God vibes. Unmistakable dribble. No official name, but unmistakably Maradona.
Speaker 3:Maradona was furious. He claimed Konami had used his likeness without permission and he threatened legal action in both Argentina and Japan. The case sparkled headlines not just because of who he was, but because of what it meant. How do you license a legend?
Speaker 1:Konami's initial defense was that they had licensed rights through a club or a players association, but Maradona said that may work for some players, not me. He had never signed his image over to any third party agency.
Speaker 3:Things escalated fast. Legal teams got involved, the press ran with it and then something unexpected happened.
Speaker 1:They settled quietly, konami agreed to compensate Maradona and, in a twist, made him a brand ambassador for the PES series through 2020.
Speaker 3:Maradona even announced that he would donate his settlement money to Grassroots Sports in Argentina. A dispute that started with anger ended in partnership and legacy building.
Speaker 1:It was one of the few cases where a lawsuit turned into a sponsorship deal, and it became a case study in right of publicity, especially for retired players who retain control over their image Today.
Speaker 3:Maradona has passed, but the case leaves on a reminder that fame doesn't automatically mean licensing and digital immortality still needs a signature. Even legends have lawyers. Call of Duty has dropped players into dozens of war zones and for many fans, realism is everything the sound of boots, the click of a scope and the iconic military hardware on screen. But in 2017, one of those vehicles decided it wasn't just part of the background, it wanted a say.
Speaker 1:Enter the Humvee, or more specifically its manufacturer, am General. They filed a lawsuit against Activision Blizzard, claiming that Call of Duty had used the Humvee name, image and design without permission in multiple games.
Speaker 3:To AM General. The Humvee is a trademark product. They argued that its inclusion implied endorsement and that Activision owed them a license.
Speaker 1:Activision fired back their defense. First Amendment artistic expression. They said the Humvee was part of the battlefield just like it is in real life. It made the game more authentic, not promotional.
Speaker 3:The legal test at the heart of the case was the Rogers v Grimaldi test, a US standard used to balance trademark rights with pre-expression. To win, Amgeneral had to prove that the use of the Humvee lacked artistic relevance or was explicitly misleading.
Speaker 1:Spoiler, they didn't. In 2020, the federal court ruled in Activision's favor. The judge said the use of Humvees was clearly artistically relevant to a realistic war game and players weren't confused about sponsorship.
Speaker 3:It was a big win for game developers, not just for Call of Duty, but for any game that depicts real world, brands, weapons or vehicles for storytelling purposes.
Speaker 1:Because games, like movies, don't need a license to show the world as it is, at least not when they do it right.
Speaker 3:The case reaffirmed that IP law doesn't always override realism and that sometimes the most iconic content just drives itself. No license plate required. Okay, we've covered the full campaigns. Now it's time for the speed run.
Speaker 1:Quick cases, big consequences. No cut scene.
Speaker 3:In this lightning session.
Speaker 1:I'll start the setup and I'll smash back with the verdict. Think of it as IP pickleball, Rapid volleys, weird rules and someone's always one swing from a lawsuit.
Speaker 3:These are the side quests. No one planned for, the takedowns no one saw coming and the pixel-sized lawsuits that pack a punch.
Speaker 1:Grab your paddle. It's time to insert context and continue. Go Take-Two Interactive versus BBC GTA.
Speaker 3:The BBC made an unauthorized grand theft autobiopic with Daniel Radcliffe. Take-two hit the brakes fast.
Speaker 1:They sued for trademark misuse. The film aired, but with a big fat disclaimer no stars were wanted.
Speaker 3:Capcom versus Poi tecmo dynasty warriors. Capcom claimed qa's hack and slash games, stole patented features like bonus unlocks and rumble alerts japan's court said game on capcom got over one million zero cents.
Speaker 1:Even power-ups can be patented. Lindsay Lohan and Karen Gravano versus Take-Two GTA V.
Speaker 3:Pop star and the daughter of a famed New York figure. Both claim GDP. Use their likeness for in-game characters without permission.
Speaker 1:New York's court hit pause. Satire is legal. Gta's parody meter stayed maxed out. Jim Brown versus Electronic Arts Madden NFL.
Speaker 3:NFL legend Jim Brown saw himself in Madden but never signed on the dotted line.
Speaker 1:EA settled for 600K. Even retired players need their rights drafted properly.
Speaker 3:Atari versus Nestle breakout. Nestle's Kit Kat ad turned Atari's breakout into a chocolate arcade.
Speaker 1:Atari wasn't sweet on it. They sued, nestle crumbled and pulled the campaign. Blizzard versus Bossland, overwatch and World of Warcraft.
Speaker 3:Bossland sold cheat bots for Blizzard games, then ignored the US lawsuit like a broken raid group.
Speaker 1:Default judgment $8,600,000,. Zero cents, no risk rules for cheaters.
Speaker 3:Nintendo versus Mario Kart or Street Kart. Mario Kart A go-kart tour in Tokyo. Let riders dress up as Mario and Peach. Nintendo said absolutely not.
Speaker 1:Lawsuit won, name changed, damages increased. The only car left was Street Kart. No shells, no stars. Pubg Corp versus NetEase. Rules of survival and knives out.
Speaker 3:Krafton said NetEase dropped into the battle royale genre with full-blown PUBG clones, they settled out of court.
Speaker 1:Game mechanics survived, legal airstrike avoided.
Speaker 3:Bandai Namco versus Ad Games. Ms Pac-Man. Ad Games made a retro console with Ms Pac-Man, without Bandai's. Ok. Then they tried to buy the rights mid-fight Messy moves, quiet settlement.
Speaker 1:Ms Pac-Man got ghosted from new releases. Aaron Berg inventions versus Val Steam Controller.
Speaker 3:Val got it back. Paddles to Steam Controller. Goff said those buttons are ours.
Speaker 1:Jury agreed. Valve paid $4 million. Game pads aren't exempt from legal combos.
Speaker 3:From parodies and power-ups to chocolate pixels and controller paddles, ip protection never quits, and if you, don't press license before pressing launch.
Speaker 1:Well, it's game over with legal respawn costs.
Speaker 3:After all these lawsuits and takedowns, you might be wondering isn't there a better way to resolve disputes in the gaming world than waiting years for a court decision?
Speaker 1:Well enter the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, the low-key final boss of global dispute resolution, and in 2024, they powered up with new tools tailored for digital creators, game studios and platform conflicts.
Speaker 3:WIPO now offers faster, lower-cost alternatives to court battles, including online mediation and expert determinations for IP disputes. They've also created specialized procedures for video game and metaverse conflicts, including cases involving user-generated content, nfts, esports rights and character licensing.
Speaker 1:Translation. Instead of dragging each other through Tokyo, paris and California, two studios can sit down virtually and hash it out with WIPO's help.
Speaker 3:Private cross-border legally enforceable, and it's not just for big studios. Indie developers, modders, even streamers can now resolve conflicts over contracts, royalty splits or creative ownership without mortgaging their next game to pay legal fees.
Speaker 1:So the next time someone copies your in-game mechanics or you get locked in a cross-platform licensing mess, you might not need to insert lawsuit to continue. You might just need to select mediation instead.
Speaker 3:Because the game is evolving, and so it's the way we resolve the fights that come with it. Before we log out, let's lock in five legal checkpoints from today's journey, the kind that apply whether you're a studio, an indie dev or just a curious player watching from the loading screen, from Nintendo's touchscreen patterns to Ironberg's back paddles.
Speaker 1:the invisible parts of gameplay how it feels, how it works are sometimes the most legally explosive.
Speaker 3:Whether it's Jim Brown in Madden, maradona in PES or a homie in Call of Duty. Using real-world likenesses or brands without clear permission can trigger lawsuits, unless it's transformative, artistic or clearly part of storytelling.
Speaker 1:Reviving an old game, building a new one based on what you learned at your last job. The courts are watching, and the difference between homage and infringement can be one shared file too many.
Speaker 3:Whether you're in Seoul, tokyo, london or LA. If your game grows global, so do your legal risk. Choose your jurisdictions wisely and know how to serve up a takedown across time zones.
Speaker 1:Borrowing the vibe of a hit game is one thing. Borrowing code, animations or gameplay structure that's how side quests turn into subpoenas.
Speaker 3:So the next time you press start on your big idea, remember creativity moves fast, but IP catches up. Remember to play the game IP Side Quest Showdown available on our website, inspired by this episode.
Speaker 2:Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law Plain talk about intellectual property. Did you like what we talked today? Please share with your network. Do you want to learn more about intellectual property? Subscribe now on your favorite podcast player. Follow us on Instagram, facebook, linkedin and Twitter. Visit our website wwwintangibliacom. Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020. All rights reserved. This podcast is provided for information purposes only.