The proliferation of AI tools in the arts, commercial design industries, and other endeavours has raised core questions regarding who or what actually supplied the alleged creative or inventive elements, if any, to the AI system’s output. In both US copyright and patent law the question focuses on a case-by-case analysis as to how much of the final product evidences human ‘authorship’ or invention. Also, creativity as well as infringement, can be located in various phases of the AI system’s creation, ingestion of training materials, management, and operation – including its output, whether affected prior to the output or after it. Issues such as liability for selecting ingestion materials or target data, as well as the potential inadvertent triggering of patent law’s bar date through use of specific AI systems, have also come to the forefront of AI’s potential to secure, forfeit, or impact claimed proprietary rights in AI-assisted creative and inventive activities. Several alternative intellectual property and unfair competition approaches that can supplement or supplant copyright and patent law principles also come into play as users of AI seek to protect the products of their efforts.
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence and evolving issues under US copyright and patent law","authors":"Gary Rinkerman","doi":"10.4337/ielr.2023.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/ielr.2023.0002","url":null,"abstract":"The proliferation of AI tools in the arts, commercial design industries, and other endeavours has raised core questions regarding who or what actually supplied the alleged creative or inventive elements, if any, to the AI system’s output. In both US copyright and patent law the question focuses on a case-by-case analysis as to how much of the final product evidences human ‘authorship’ or invention. Also, creativity as well as infringement, can be located in various phases of the AI system’s creation, ingestion of training materials, management, and operation – including its output, whether affected prior to the output or after it. Issues such as liability for selecting ingestion materials or target data, as well as the potential inadvertent triggering of patent law’s bar date through use of specific AI systems, have also come to the forefront of AI’s potential to secure, forfeit, or impact claimed proprietary rights in AI-assisted creative and inventive activities. Several alternative intellectual property and unfair competition approaches that can supplement or supplant copyright and patent law principles also come into play as users of AI seek to protect the products of their efforts.","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":"176 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139346131","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"EULAs: Flexible tools of governance or instruments of authoritarianism?","authors":"Gaetano Dimita, Yin Harn Lee, Michaela MacDonald","doi":"10.4337/ielr.2023.01.00","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/ielr.2023.01.00","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41916689","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Marvel Cinematic Universe is the highest grossing franchise of all time. What happens when the creators of some of the characters that have made Earth’s Mightiest Heroes such an onscreen success attempt to reclaim their ownership of those characters? This article discusses the relationship of the MCU to copyright disputes in phases. First, the history of copyright contests over Marvel characters is discussed, starting with the licensing disputes surrounding the 1998 film Blade. Former attempts by creators to reclaim ownership of their comic book characters are then analysed and compared to the current claims for ownership of MCU characters. The article then speculates on the possible effects of character ownership becoming split in the MCU and suggests ways that the MCU might move forward by taking an approach to shared character ownership informed by past Marvel licensing and character agreements.
{"title":"Mr. Feige, I don’t feel so good … Copyright ownership, creators’ rights, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe","authors":"A. Dixon","doi":"10.4337/ielr.2023.01.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/ielr.2023.01.02","url":null,"abstract":"The Marvel Cinematic Universe is the highest grossing franchise of all time. What happens when the creators of some of the characters that have made Earth’s Mightiest Heroes such an onscreen success attempt to reclaim their ownership of those characters? This article discusses the relationship of the MCU to copyright disputes in phases.\u0000First, the history of copyright contests over Marvel characters is discussed, starting with the licensing disputes surrounding the 1998 film Blade. Former attempts by creators to reclaim ownership of their comic book characters are then analysed and compared to the current claims for ownership of MCU characters. The article then speculates on the possible effects of character ownership becoming split in the MCU and suggests ways that the MCU might move forward by taking an approach to shared character ownership informed by past Marvel licensing and character agreements.","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45711110","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Nowadays the world of entertainment is based upon a multitude of platforms and not only on television. The disruptive new technologies, such as streaming platforms, have changed the entire panorama. The straightforwardness of content, the streaming enthusiasm and the creative freedom, directly blooming from the creator, are perfectly embodied through new actors like Twitch and YouTube. At the same time, with the arrival of esports on the international stage, they have become the preferred format for livestream, optimized and indispensable to publishers. However, the compulsory use of Twitch is challenging the normal broadcasting rights process by the intervention of numerous intermediaries, and consequently the rights applied to Intellectual Property. Our article will focus on the identification of these actors, in order to understand the distribution of broadcasting rights and the example of three countries involved in these problematics.
{"title":"Are streaming rights the new broadcasting rights of the 21st century? A comparative review on the specific case of esport competitions","authors":"Adèle Serio, Christian Ciniero","doi":"10.4337/ielr.2023.01.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/ielr.2023.01.03","url":null,"abstract":"Nowadays the world of entertainment is based upon a multitude of platforms and not only on television. The disruptive new technologies, such as streaming platforms, have changed the entire panorama. The straightforwardness of content, the streaming enthusiasm and the creative freedom, directly blooming from the creator, are perfectly embodied through new actors like Twitch and YouTube. At the same time, with the arrival of esports on the international stage, they have become the preferred format for livestream, optimized and indispensable to publishers. However, the compulsory use of Twitch is challenging the normal broadcasting rights process by the intervention of numerous intermediaries, and consequently the rights applied to Intellectual Property. Our article will focus on the identification of these actors, in order to understand the distribution of broadcasting rights and the example of three countries involved in these problematics.","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44470349","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cloud gaming represents a new model of video game distribution. It involves playing games that are streamed from a remote server (the cloud), and has the potential to revolutionize gaming as it is, at least in theory, device-agnostic, allowing high-end or ‘AAA’ games to be played on any device with a connection to the internet. However, Apple blocks the emergence of cloud gaming apps on its Apple App Store, and Google, although not completely blocking them, still imposes restrictions on them. Apple’s prevention of cloud gaming apps has led the UK Competition and Markets Authority to make a Market Investigation Reference, which could lead to remedies being imposed on Apple. However, Apple subsequently successfully appealed the decision to make the Reference. This article provides an introduction to cloud gaming and explains why it is an important development that offers huge potential for competition and innovation in digital markets. It then discusses Apple’s prevention of cloud gaming apps and examines Apple’s stated rationale for this policy, after which it also touches on Google’s approach. This is followed by a section that sets out other reasons why it may be in Apple’s commercial interest to block the emergence of cloud gaming apps, looking in particular at whether this may be linked to a desire to protect its position in the distribution of apps on iOS devices and its revenues from the sale of hardware. After this, the article discusses how these restrictions have led to the UK Market Investigation Reference, and how they may be treated under the forthcoming EU Digital Markets Act.
{"title":"Dark clouds gather – The development of cloud gaming, and competition agencies’ efforts to enable it on mobile app stores","authors":"D. Geradin, Stijn Huijts","doi":"10.4337/ielr.2023.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/ielr.2023.0001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Cloud gaming represents a new model of video game distribution. It involves playing games that are streamed from a remote server (the cloud), and has the potential to revolutionize gaming as it is, at least in theory, device-agnostic, allowing high-end or ‘AAA’ games to be played on any device with a connection to the internet. However, Apple blocks the emergence of cloud gaming apps on its Apple App Store, and Google, although not completely blocking them, still imposes restrictions on them. Apple’s prevention of cloud gaming apps has led the UK Competition and Markets Authority to make a Market Investigation Reference, which could lead to remedies being imposed on Apple. However, Apple subsequently successfully appealed the decision to make the Reference.\u0000This article provides an introduction to cloud gaming and explains why it is an important development that offers huge potential for competition and innovation in digital markets. It then discusses Apple’s prevention of cloud gaming apps and examines Apple’s stated rationale for this policy, after which it also touches on Google’s approach. This is followed by a section that sets out other reasons why it may be in Apple’s commercial interest to block the emergence of cloud gaming apps, looking in particular at whether this may be linked to a desire to protect its position in the distribution of apps on iOS devices and its revenues from the sale of hardware. After this, the article discusses how these restrictions have led to the UK Market Investigation Reference, and how they may be treated under the forthcoming EU Digital Markets Act.","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43094360","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The legal nature of video games in terms of copyright is hard to determine. Video games are highly interactive multimedia that are made up of individual elements that are the ‘product’ of creative effort and expertise. Video games are also complex multimedia works that combine video, music, art and characters. There is a debate on which work is qualified to be copyright protected: is it the video game as a whole or the individual elements of it? To question further, under which category of protected works should they be classified? This article will shed light on the above considerations by employing a combination of doctrinal and comparative analyses. European and national legislation and case law will be analysed, with particular emphasis on four national jurisdictions: Germany, France, Greece and the UK. The article discusses the divergent opinions among academics, national and European case law, and will suggest that copyright registration of video games would provide more clarity.
{"title":"Copyright protection of video games: a comparative study","authors":"Despoina Farmaki","doi":"10.4337/ielr.2022.02.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/ielr.2022.02.04","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The legal nature of video games in terms of copyright is hard to determine. Video games are highly interactive multimedia that are made up of individual elements that are the ‘product’ of creative effort and expertise. Video games are also complex multimedia works that combine video, music, art and characters. There is a debate on which work is qualified to be copyright protected: is it the video game as a whole or the individual elements of it? To question further, under which category of protected works should they be classified? This article will shed light on the above considerations by employing a combination of doctrinal and comparative analyses. European and national legislation and case law will be analysed, with particular emphasis on four national jurisdictions: Germany, France, Greece and the UK. The article discusses the divergent opinions among academics, national and European case law, and will suggest that copyright registration of video games would provide more clarity.","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45786364","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article summarizes the key issues arising in respect of the US case Epic Games v. Apple; provides an overview of the related investigations and litigation in other jurisdictions and examines how Epic Games v. Apple may impact developers’ game monetization and payment system options and challenges moving forward.
{"title":"The impact of the Epic Games v. Apple case on developer monetization and payment systems","authors":"Julian Ward, Elaahe Farsimadan","doi":"10.4337/ielr.2022.02.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/ielr.2022.02.03","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article summarizes the key issues arising in respect of the US case Epic Games v. Apple; provides an overview of the related investigations and litigation in other jurisdictions and examines how Epic Games v. Apple may impact developers’ game monetization and payment system options and challenges moving forward.","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46568315","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Hypes, fads and dead-ends: a mere distraction from the real questions","authors":"Gaetano Dimita, Yin Harn Lee, Michaela MacDonald","doi":"10.4337/ielr.2022.02.00","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/ielr.2022.02.00","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43218301","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA) video game genre has been plagued with copyright infringement cases. Some of the copyright challenges that face this genre stem from the fact that the progenitor to the genre, Defense of the Ancients (DotA), was a ‘mod’ created for an already-existing video game, Warcraft 3. Further, DotA was a community-based project and while there were predominantly three major ‘modders’, it is argued that many of the characters that appeared in DotA were, in themselves, copyrighted works that originated from contributors out of the playing-community, who made material contributions through forums, notice boards and the DotA Allstars website. This article delves into the copyright challenges facing the genre, with a specific focus on DotA, DOTA2 and League of Legends (LOL). An in-depth study is done on the copyright ownership of the mod, DotA, with a conclusion being drawn that the copyright ownership of characters found in DotA is of utmost importance, as most of the other elements found in MOBA games are not worth copying. As will be illustrated, copyright infringement challenges in the MOBA industry usually revolve around the copying of characters, many of whom draw inspiration from characters that appeared in the progenitor, DotA. With the focus of copyright ownership shifting to the characters found in DotA, the ownership attributed to the three modders in the Blizzard Entertainment, Inc and Valve Corporation v. Lilith Games (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. and uCool, Inc. suit will be critically evaluated. Finally, an approach is proposed for use in copyright infringement cases in the MOBA genre, specifically where the characters in contention are based on or derived from DotA characters, to try to address any potential copyright infringement claims where the alleged proprietor claiming infringement is not truly the copyright owner of the characters in question. As a practical illustration, the proposed approach will be applied to various DOTA2 and LOL characters, with a conclusion being drawn as to why there has been a lack of copyright infringement cases between Riot Games, the owner of LOL, and Valve Corporation, the owner of DOTA2, despite apparent similarities between various of their characters.
{"title":"Copyright law in the MOBA genre: a comparative analysis of DOTA2 and League of Legends","authors":"Cornelius Jonker, S. Karjiker","doi":"10.4337/ielr.2022.02.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/ielr.2022.02.01","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA) video game genre has been plagued with copyright infringement cases. Some of the copyright challenges that face this genre stem from the fact that the progenitor to the genre, Defense of the Ancients (DotA), was a ‘mod’ created for an already-existing video game, Warcraft 3. Further, DotA was a community-based project and while there were predominantly three major ‘modders’, it is argued that many of the characters that appeared in DotA were, in themselves, copyrighted works that originated from contributors out of the playing-community, who made material contributions through forums, notice boards and the DotA Allstars website.\u0000This article delves into the copyright challenges facing the genre, with a specific focus on DotA, DOTA2 and League of Legends (LOL). An in-depth study is done on the copyright ownership of the mod, DotA, with a conclusion being drawn that the copyright ownership of characters found in DotA is of utmost importance, as most of the other elements found in MOBA games are not worth copying. As will be illustrated, copyright infringement challenges in the MOBA industry usually revolve around the copying of characters, many of whom draw inspiration from characters that appeared in the progenitor, DotA. With the focus of copyright ownership shifting to the characters found in DotA, the ownership attributed to the three modders in the Blizzard Entertainment, Inc and Valve Corporation v. Lilith Games (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. and uCool, Inc. suit will be critically evaluated.\u0000Finally, an approach is proposed for use in copyright infringement cases in the MOBA genre, specifically where the characters in contention are based on or derived from DotA characters, to try to address any potential copyright infringement claims where the alleged proprietor claiming infringement is not truly the copyright owner of the characters in question. As a practical illustration, the proposed approach will be applied to various DOTA2 and LOL characters, with a conclusion being drawn as to why there has been a lack of copyright infringement cases between Riot Games, the owner of LOL, and Valve Corporation, the owner of DOTA2, despite apparent similarities between various of their characters.","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45030279","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article proposes arguments proving that the act of playing a video game may attract copyright protection in the context of European intellectual property law. This article explores this from a multidisciplinary perspective including performance studies and EU copyright law. The increasingly popular practice and industry of ‘public gaming’ is suggesting that playing video games is now enriched with elements belonging more to musical and recitative performances. However, while actors and musicians’ performances constitute undeniable bricks of the creative process in presentations to the public, there is no such thing called ‘video game performance’ or ‘gaming performance’. The article suggests that, under certain conditions, players’ agency is able to generate a multi-layered meaning among players, audiences and the game.1 Therefore, after building a theoretical framework where gameplays are featured by theatrical performance qualities, the article proposes a definition of ‘public gaming performance’. After that, it uses such a definition to suggest that certain public gameplays, as well as being public performances under the performative studies umbrella, have everything they need to enjoy copyright protection under EU copyright law. On the one hand, then, this article uses theatrical models to shape gaming as a performative activity. On the other hand, it analyses the legal structures and mechanisms preventing game stream from attracting copyright protection while providing the reader with observations on the main obstacles to the full empowerment of players as performers.
{"title":"The Gaming Theatre Company: players, gameplay, performance and the law","authors":"Salvatore Fasciana","doi":"10.4337/ielr.2022.02.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/ielr.2022.02.02","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article proposes arguments proving that the act of playing a video game may attract copyright protection in the context of European intellectual property law. This article explores this from a multidisciplinary perspective including performance studies and EU copyright law. The increasingly popular practice and industry of ‘public gaming’ is suggesting that playing video games is now enriched with elements belonging more to musical and recitative performances. However, while actors and musicians’ performances constitute undeniable bricks of the creative process in presentations to the public, there is no such thing called ‘video game performance’ or ‘gaming performance’. The article suggests that, under certain conditions, players’ agency is able to generate a multi-layered meaning among players, audiences and the game.1 Therefore, after building a theoretical framework where gameplays are featured by theatrical performance qualities, the article proposes a definition of ‘public gaming performance’. After that, it uses such a definition to suggest that certain public gameplays, as well as being public performances under the performative studies umbrella, have everything they need to enjoy copyright protection under EU copyright law. On the one hand, then, this article uses theatrical models to shape gaming as a performative activity. On the other hand, it analyses the legal structures and mechanisms preventing game stream from attracting copyright protection while providing the reader with observations on the main obstacles to the full empowerment of players as performers.","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41748270","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：