May 26, 2025 • 35 mins
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.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
a window breaks, a photo resurfaces and suddenly a
game built on fiction is draggedinto reality.
What you thought was background, art evidence, what you thought
was a title, a trademark, war.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
This is Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law
playing talk about intellectualproperty.
Please welcome your host,leticia Caminero.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Welcome and welcome to the podcast where creativity
meets control schemes and legaldrama spawns faster than a
plumber with a shiny star.
I'm Leticia Caminero.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Well, her AI version, of course, and I'm Artemisa,
your AI co-host, coded forcommentary, sarcastic side-eye
and the occasional copyrightconnection.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
In this episode we're diving headfirst into the legal
side quests no game developerasked for from names that
triggered trademark claims tofan-made modifications that got
taken down to a certainshattered glass photo that
cracked open a lawsuit.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
We'll take you through some fully rendered,
pixel-perfect cases, a few deepdives and sprinkle of rapid-fire
glitches, all stitched togetherwith IP threads and plot twists
worthy of a cutscene.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
And, yes, we used AI to build this episode voice
research, delivery all filteredthrough a human lawyer's
judgment.
So, no, we're not replacingcreators, we're just making the
loading screens more interesting.
For this episode, I built anescape room style game called IP
Sidequest Showdown, availableon our website,
(01:49):
wwwintangibliacom.
In the game, you're a rookie IPagent tasked with cracking some
legally inspired mysteries.
Solve all the missions and thebriefcase unlocks.
Drop a comment if you crackedthe code or if the clone got you
first.
Our first stop 2020,.
(02:12):
Ubisoft is gearing up torelease a mythology-based open
war adventure with gods,monsters and a few puzzles on
the side.
They call it Gods and MonstersClean, simple, epic, Until a
certain beverage company stompsin with his clothes out and a
lawyer in each hand, monsterEnergy filed an opposition
(02:35):
against Ubisoft's trademark theissue, the word monster.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
Apparently, if your game's title includes it, even
if it's about Greek gods andmythical beasts, monster thinks
you're stepping on their fizzytoes.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
Monster Energy argued that gamers might confuse their
drinks with a video game aboutzoos and floating islands.
Ubisoft tried to explain thattheir monster had wings and
fangs.
Not caffeine and carbonation,but legal pressure escalated and
so did the need to rebrand.
(03:20):
So Ubisoft blinked, they renamedthe game Immortals, fenyx
Rising, more poetic, maybe Lesslikely to be confused with an
energy drink.
Definitely it wasn't the firsttime Monster Energy pulled this
kind of move and spoiler.
It wouldn't be the last, butthis was the case.
That made it clear Even thetitle of games can be dangerous
territory, especially when abrand thinks it owns an entire
now.
Because Ubisoft wasn't alone.
After that, monster Energy wentfull rage mode, challenging
(03:43):
game titles left and right Likeit was on a trademark speed run.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
Next up Monster Hunter.
Yes, monster Hunter, afranchise that predates Monster
Energy by years and has zero todo with beverages.
That didn't stop Monster fromtrying to block its trademark
renewal in certain countries.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
Then they took a swing at Pokemon yes, that
Pokemon Over the name Pokemon Xand Y Pocket Monsters.
It didn't land, but the attemptalone raised eyebrows high
enough to trigger a level upprompt, and indie developers
weren't safe either.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
They went after Dark Deception, monsters and Mortals,
a horror party game with spookycharacters and zero sugar
content.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Most developers either fought back or settled,
but the legal drain was real.
Monster Energy didn't win mostof these, but their tactic was
loud, expensive and exhausting.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
It's what some call trademark bullying, using a big
legal budget not to win but towear the other player down.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
So next time you see the word monster in a game, just
know it might take it a fewrounds with legal before it made
it to your screen.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
And no, it won't make you more energized, but it
might make you more cautiousabout your game title.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
OK, let's talk.
Ink, not contracts skin,because in 2020, one of the most
unexpected copyright lawsuitshit the gaming world, and it all
started with LeBron James'sshoulder.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Welcome to the case of Solid Oak sketches versus 2K
games.
Solid Oak had acquired thecopyright to five tattoos real
tattoos on real NBA playersfeatured in the NBA 2K video
game series.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
The one 2K rendered those athletes in game ultra
realistic.
Every tattoo, included SolidOak, said you're using our art
without permission.
Pay up.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
And they didn't ask for chump change.
They were aiming for millionsin damages.
To be fair, it wasn't the firsttime this argument showed up.
Remember the hangover part two.
Mike Tyson's tattoo artist, sVictor Whitmill, sued Warner
Brothers for using his iconictribal design on Ed Helms.
That case didn't go to trial,but the judge did call Warner's
(06:10):
fair use defense, and I quotesilly.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
Back to NBA2K.
This case did go to court andit raised a big question.
If an athlete's body is part oftheir identity and their
tattoos are part of thatidentity, can a company show the
player without also showing theink?
Speaker 1 (06:35):
The court said yes.
They ruled that the tattooswere a minimal part of the
overall image, were used withimplied license and, importantly
, helped create realism.
Fair use case dismissed.
Speaker 3 (06:47):
It was a win for realism in sports games, but it
also left the door open, becausethis case was about usage in
context, not about tattoocopyright disappearing entirely.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
So if you're a developer scanning body art into
your next big release, justmake sure your realism doesn't
come with a lawsuit.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
From realism to rebellion, we now move into one
of the most poetic legal momentsin gaming.
This time, it wasn't aboutstealing, it was about restoring
Enter.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
Take-Two Verse.
The modders behind Re3 and ReVCFans who loved Grand Theft Auto
3 and Vice City like reallyloved them decided to reverse
engineer the original games Notto copy to fix.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
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, playedsmoother, it was preservation,
it was polished and it was aboutto get pulled.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Because Take-Two sued .
They said the fans had usedparts of the original games
without permission that'sunauthorized distribution of
copyrighted material and theydidn't wait around.
They fired off DMCA takedowns.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
Which, for non-lawyers, means they send
legal notices to platforms likeGitHub demanding the mods be
taken offline.
It's the digital version ofpulling the fire alarm fast,
automatic and hard to find.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
The modders argued back they weren't copying, they
were reverse engineering A legalgray zone where developers take
something apart to learn how itworks or make it compatible
with modern systems.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
It's a real legal defense, but a risky one when
you're dealing with one of thebiggest publishers in gaming.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
After a public backlash, the lawsuit vanished
like a hidden Easter egg nofinal verdict, no major
punishment, just one of thoserare endings where the
sidequesters walked away and aquick reminder sometimes the
best remaster is the one fans dothemselves, With better
lighting and fewer bugs.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
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 ofyou copied my homework and
didn't even change the font.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Riot Games had created League of Legends, one
of the most iconic competitiveonline games in the world.
Moonton, a Shanghai-basedstudio, released Mobile Legends
and let's just say, theresemblance was uncanny.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
We're talking character designs, map layouts,
gameplay mechanics, even themarketing materials felt like
deja vu.
So Riot stood in the US.
Moonton pulled the game andthen relaunched it days later
under a new name Mobile Legends.
Bang Bang Bold move Didn't foolanyone.
(09:57):
Riot stood again, this time inChina.
Moonton's parent company,bytedance, had deep pockets.
And things got even morecomplicated.
Legal ping pong acrossjurisdictions began.
Speaker 1 (10:11):
Eventually, riot took the fight back to the US and in
2018, they won a $2,900,000zero cents judgment.
But the game stayed online, thefans stayed loyal and Moonton
just kept updating it.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
This was more than just a lawsuit.
It became a long-term standoffabout what counts as copying in
games, where is the line betweeninspiration and imitation, and
what if the clone becomes morepopular than the original, at
least in some regions.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
The case settled in 2023, with both parties dropping
their swords behind closeddoors.
Speaker 3 (10:44):
No epic win, no press conference, just silence and a
whole lot of money probablychanging hands, if anything this
saga showed just how hard it isto protect a game's feel,
Because in IP law you cancopyright a character design,
but not a gameplay vibe and inclone culture.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
sometimes the sequel starts before the lawsuit ends.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
Our next story starts with something small a texture,
a broken glass pattern you'dbarely notice while dodging
zombies in Resident Evil.
But it turns out that crack wasreal.
Speaker 1 (11:23):
And so was the lawsuit.
But it turns out that crack wasreal and so was the lawsuit In
2021,.
Photographer Judy Jurczyk fileda massive copyright
infringement suit against Capcomclaiming they used over 80 of
(11:44):
her copyrighted images.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
Surfaces, a physical and CDREM collection of
architectural and materialtextures, Things like bricks,
marble, stained glass and, yes,shattered glass.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Capcom allegedly took those images and inserted them
directly into game environmentsdoors, windows, flooring without
asking, crediting or paying.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
Now here's the truth.
How did she find out?
Capcom's own files were exposedin a data breach in 2020.
In those leaked internaldocuments, file names match the
ones from her CD ARIAM.
Side by side comparisons wentviral.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
It was like the zombies had left behind receipts
.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
And Hachikaz for over $12 million zero cents in
damages, plus $2,500, zero centsto $25,000, zero cents per
photo used per game.
It was one of the largestcopyright claims against a game
studio ever filed by a singleartist.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
Capcom denied wrongdoing and said they were
still investigating the sourceof those assets.
But let's be honest, the photonames didn't help their case.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
The case it didn't go to trial.
It was settled privately in2022.
No public verdict, no officialapology, but it left a big
impact on how studios thinkabout sourcing textures,
references and background art.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
Because when something as simple as a cracked
window shows up in multiple cutscenes and your reference book
came out 25 years ago you betterbe sure you licensed that crack
.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
This case wasn't about stolen characters or
copied storylines.
It was about realism and thefact that sometimes realism
comes with strings attached.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
Or, in this case, jagged edges and metadata.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law.
Playing talk about intellectualproperty.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
In the world of mobile gaming, some battles
happen behind the screenliterally, because this next
case, it wasn't about monsters,music or character design.
It was about how your thumbmoves.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
Our scene begins in Japan, the year 2018.
Nintendo sues fellow Tokyodeveloper Kolo over their hit
mobile RPG White Cat Project.
The accusation Kolo was usingfive of Nintendo's patents,
including one for virtualjoystick controls on a
touchscreen.
Speaker 3 (14:34):
To the average player it just looks like a typical
mobile game swipe to move, tapto attack.
But Nintendo argued thosegestures weren't just intuitive,
they were protected.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
Specifically, nintendo said White Cat Project
was using the same touch-basedinput method.
Nintendo had patented for theDS and 3DS a method where a
player moves a character bydragging their finger across the
screen.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
Nintendo demanded damages and an injunction, and
at one point increased theirclaim to nearly 5 billion yen,
that's around 47 million dollars, zero cents dollars.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
Apollo fought back hard.
They denied infringement andkept the game online for years.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
But behind the scenes , the pressure mounted Finally
in 2021, three years into thefight Colopel agreed to settle.
They paid Nintendo 3.3 billionyen around 30 million dollars,
zero cents and licensed thepatent.
Zero cents and license thepatent.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
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 tweakWhite Cat Project's input
features to avoid any futurerisk.
Speaker 3 (15:56):
This case proves something crucial Game mechanics
, not just characters or logos,can be patented, and if those
mechanics are smooth, simple andwidely adopted, they might also
be legally explosive.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
Lesson learned Sometimes the swipe of a finger
is more than just control it'sinnovation.
Sometimes the swipe of a fingeris more than just control, it's
innovation.
And Nintendo protects itsinnovations like a final boss
guards a treasure chest.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
Every few years, a game comes along that the
internet can't stop talkingabout.
In 2024, that game was PowerWorld, described by some as
Pokemon with guns and by othersas a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Speaker 1 (16:39):
The developer, pocket Pair, had clearly struck a
nerve.
You could catch littlecreatures, battle with them and
use them for everything fromfarming to factory work.
Sound familiar To Nintendo andthe Pokemon company.
It sounded too familiar.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
In September 2024, Nintendo filed suit in Tokyo.
But this wasn't your usualcopyright or trademark fight.
They went in with patents.
Flaming Pal World had copiedspecific game mechanics
protected under.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
Japanese patent law.
One key issue the creaturecatching system.
Throwing a ball, watching theanimation, capturing a creature
that then joins your roster.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
Nintendo said that's not just a vibe, that's patented
Another red flag, the creaturedesigns.
Even if they weren't exactcopies, samples look
suspiciously like PokemonTeppukine after a few too many
energy drinks.
Twitter exploded, memesexploded and so did legal
speculation.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
To be fair, pocket Pair had tried to dodge a direct
hit.
They insisted Power World wasoriginal.
But after the lawsuit dropped,they quietly updated the game,
tweaking animations, adjustingdesigns and even altering
capture mechanics.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
As of now, the case is ongoing.
Nintendo hasn't asked to blockthe game outright, but they're
pressing for damages and changes, and Pocket Pair they're
walking the line, trying to keeptheir fan base while avoiding
more legal fire.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
It's rare for Nintendo to go the patent route
first, but this case may mark ashift, especially in Japan,
where major studios are startingto flex gameplay patents as
their new legal weapon of choice, and for indie developers out
there, the message is clear Ifyou're building something
inspired by a global franchise,check the artwork, check the
(18:37):
artwork, check the names anddefinitely check the patent
register.
Because catching creatures isfun, but catching a lawsuit not
so much.
Speaker 3 (18:48):
In the world of mobile RPGs, one mechanic reigns
supreme the gacha.
You roll, you pray, you getduplicates.
But what if the way you fusethose duplicates was patented?
Speaker 1 (19:02):
That's exactly what Sega claimed in 2024.
They filed suit against Bank ofInnovation, the Tokyo-based
studio behind Memento Mori andCribetract.
According to, Sega Boy's Gamesinfringed five different patents
.
Speaker 3 (19:21):
At the heart of the claim was a mechanic Sega said
it pioneered.
When a player receives multiplecopies of the same character,
those copies could be fused tounlock new abilities.
Instead of being uselessduplicates, elegant, addictive
and, according to Sega, legallyprotected.
Speaker 1 (19:39):
The case hit Tokyo District Court in late 2024.
Sega wasn't subtle.
They demanded an injunction andone billion yen in damages.
That's around six million sixhundred thousand dollars, zero
cents.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
Bank of Innovation denied any wrongdoing and
insisted its systems weredistinct, but in the court of
public opinion it triggered abigger conversation.
Can Gacha mechanics be patentedand if so, how many other games
are skating close to the edge?
Speaker 1 (20:14):
For context, japan has a long history of issuing
patents for game systeminnovations, especially around
UI and reward mechanics, so thiswasn't a stretch, it was a
warning.
Speaker 3 (20:27):
The case is still pending, but it signals a larger
trend.
With Nintendo, Coloble, PocketPair and now Bank of Innovation
all facing patent litigation,the big studios are clearly
saying Gamefield isn't justabout design, it's intellectual
property.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
And if your gotcha game pops off unexpectedly, you
might just roll into court.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
In 2023, a greedy indie game called Dark and
Darker appeared online a darkfantasy extraction dungeon
crawler with retro graphics andinstant call bus.
But behind the torches andtreasure chests, something much
bigger was brewing a legal war.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
The game was developed by Iron Mace, a team
mostly made up of former Exxonemployees and Exxon.
They were not impressed.
They claimed Dark and Darkerwasn't just original inspiration
.
It was a stolen project.
Speaker 3 (21:23):
According to Nexon.
Dark and Darker was a shadowversion of a console internal
game codenamed P3.
They said the idea, mechanicsand even code had been taken by
devs who jumped ship and startedover in plain sight.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
So Nexon pulled out the full legal arsenal.
They filed criminal charges inKorea for trade secret theft.
They've issued DMCA takedownsin the US they had Dark and
Darker pulled from Steam andblocked from distribution.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
IRMIS denied everything.
They said they started fromscratch, that they had the
receipts and that the entirething was just a corporate
overreaction.
Fans took their side.
They launched support campaigns, they played pirated versions
and when Steam took the gamedown, Iron Maes made it
available via Torrent.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
That's right.
They Torrent, distributed theirown game like a fantasy themed
BitTorrent Hydra.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
In early 2024, a court in Seoul gave a mixed
ruling.
Irmas had not infringed oncopyright, since P3 was never
released, there was no game tocopy, but they had violated
trade secret law by usinginternal Nexon knowledge to
recreate key systems, even ifthe assets were new.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
The court ordered Iron Mace to pay around $8.5
billion won, or nearly $6million zero cents in damages,
but they didn't block the game.
Dark and Darker returned tosteam in 2024, still grimy,
still playable, still surroundedby controversy.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
The case is on appeal , but it raised one of the most
difficult questions in gamedevelopment today what's the
difference between experienceand theft.
Speaker 1 (23:09):
When a dev leaves a company, do they leave their
ideas behind, or does a goodidea always try to escape the
dungeon?
Speaker 3 (23:17):
In Argentina, the late Diego Maradona wasn't just
a footballer.
He was a God tier legend, anational icon, and in 2017, he
discovered he was also a videogame character in a game he
never agreed to be in.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
The game Pro Evolution Soccer 2017 by
Japanese developer Konami.
It featured classic teams andlegendary players, and there,
running across the screen, wasTenshagi Hand of God vibes.
Unmistakable dribble.
(23:55):
No official name, butunmistakably Maradona.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
Maradona was furious.
He claimed Konami had used hislikeness without permission and
he threatened legal action inboth Argentina and Japan.
The case sparkled headlines notjust because of who he was, but
because of what it meant.
How do you license a legend?
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Konami's initial defense was that they had
licensed rights through a clubor a players association, but
Maradona said that may work forsome players, not me.
He had never signed his imageover to any third party agency.
Speaker 3 (24:34):
Things escalated fast .
Legal teams got involved, thepress ran with it and then
something unexpected happened.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
They settled quietly, konami agreed to compensate
Maradona and, in a twist, madehim a brand ambassador for the
PES series through 2020.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
Maradona even announced that he would donate
his settlement money toGrassroots Sports in Argentina.
A dispute that started withanger ended in partnership and
legacy building.
Speaker 1 (25:06):
It was one of the few cases where a lawsuit turned
into a sponsorship deal, and itbecame a case study in right of
publicity, especially forretired players who retain
control over their image Today.
Speaker 3 (25:18):
Maradona has passed, but the case leaves on a
reminder that fame doesn'tautomatically mean licensing and
digital immortality still needsa signature.
Even legends have lawyers.
Call of Duty has droppedplayers into dozens of war zones
and for many fans, realism iseverything the sound of boots,
(25:43):
the click of a scope and theiconic military hardware on
screen.
But in 2017, one of thosevehicles decided it wasn't just
part of the background, itwanted a say.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
Enter the Humvee, or more specifically its
manufacturer, am General.
They filed a lawsuit againstActivision Blizzard, claiming
that Call of Duty had used theHumvee name, image and design
without permission in multiplegames.
Speaker 3 (26:13):
To AM General.
The Humvee is a trademarkproduct.
They argued that its inclusionimplied endorsement and that
Activision owed them a license.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
Activision fired back their defense.
First Amendment artisticexpression.
They said the Humvee was partof the battlefield just like it
is in real life.
It made the game more authentic, not promotional.
Speaker 3 (26:38):
The legal test at the heart of the case was the
Rogers v Grimaldi test, a USstandard used to balance
trademark rights withpre-expression.
To win, Amgeneral had to provethat the use of the Humvee
lacked artistic relevance or wasexplicitly misleading.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
Spoiler, they didn't.
In 2020, the federal courtruled in Activision's favor.
The judge said the use ofHumvees was clearly artistically
relevant to a realistic wargame and players weren't
confused about sponsorship.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
It was a big win for game developers, not just for
Call of Duty, but for any gamethat depicts real world, brands,
weapons or vehicles forstorytelling purposes.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
Because games, like movies, don't need a license to
show the world as it is, atleast not when they do it right.
Speaker 3 (27:30):
The case reaffirmed that IP law doesn't always
override realism and thatsometimes the most iconic
content just drives itself.
No license plate required.
Okay, we've covered the fullcampaigns.
Now it's time for the speed run.
Speaker 1 (27:48):
Quick cases, big consequences.
No cut scene.
Speaker 3 (27:52):
In this lightning session.
Speaker 1 (27:54):
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 froma lawsuit.
Speaker 3 (28:05):
These are the side quests.
No one planned for, thetakedowns no one saw coming and
the pixel-sized lawsuits thatpack a punch.
Speaker 1 (28:15):
Grab your paddle.
It's time to insert context andcontinue.
Go Take-Two Interactive versusBBC GTA.
Speaker 3 (28:23):
The BBC made an unauthorized grand theft
autobiopic with Daniel Radcliffe.
Take-two hit the brakes fast.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
They sued for trademark misuse.
The film aired, but with a bigfat disclaimer no stars were
wanted.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
Capcom versus Poi tecmo dynasty warriors.
Capcom claimed qa's hack andslash games, stole patented
features like bonus unlocks andrumble alerts japan's court said
game on capcom got over onemillion zero cents.
Speaker 1 (28:56):
Even power-ups can be patented.
Lindsay Lohan and Karen Gravanoversus Take-Two GTA V.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
Pop star and the daughter of a famed New York
figure.
Both claim GDP.
Use their likeness for in-gamecharacters without permission.
Speaker 1 (29:17):
New York's court hit pause.
Satire is legal.
Gta's parody meter stayed maxedout.
Jim Brown versus ElectronicArts Madden NFL.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
NFL legend Jim Brown saw himself in Madden but never
signed on the dotted line.
Speaker 1 (29:38):
EA settled for 600K.
Even retired players need theirrights drafted properly.
Speaker 3 (29:45):
Atari versus Nestle breakout.
Nestle's Kit Kat ad turnedAtari's breakout into a
chocolate arcade.
Speaker 1 (29:53):
Atari wasn't sweet on it.
They sued, nestle crumbled andpulled the campaign.
Blizzard versus Bossland,overwatch and World of Warcraft.
Speaker 3 (30:02):
Bossland sold cheat bots for Blizzard games, then
ignored the US lawsuit like abroken raid group.
Speaker 1 (30:12):
Default judgment $8,600,000,.
Zero cents, no risk rules forcheaters.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
Nintendo versus Mario Kart or Street Kart.
Mario Kart A go-kart tour inTokyo.
Let riders dress up as Marioand Peach.
Nintendo said absolutely not.
Speaker 1 (30:35):
Lawsuit won, name changed, damages increased.
The only car left was StreetKart.
No shells, no stars.
Pubg Corp versus NetEase.
Rules of survival and knivesout.
Speaker 3 (30:47):
Krafton said NetEase dropped into the battle royale
genre with full-blown PUBGclones, they settled out of
court.
Speaker 1 (30:54):
Game mechanics survived, legal airstrike
avoided.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
Bandai Namco versus Ad Games.
Ms Pac-Man.
Ad Games made a retro consolewith Ms Pac-Man, without
Bandai's.
Ok.
Then they tried to buy therights mid-fight Messy moves,
quiet settlement.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
Ms Pac-Man got ghosted from new releases.
Aaron Berg inventions versusVal Steam Controller.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
Val got it back.
Paddles to Steam Controller.
Goff said those buttons areours.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
Jury agreed.
Valve paid $4 million.
Game pads aren't exempt fromlegal combos.
Speaker 3 (31:38):
From parodies and power-ups to chocolate pixels
and controller paddles, ipprotection never quits, and if
you, don't press license beforepressing launch.
Speaker 1 (31:52):
Well, it's game over with legal respawn costs.
Speaker 3 (31:56):
After all these lawsuits and takedowns, you
might be wondering isn't there abetter way to resolve disputes
in the gaming world than waitingyears for a court decision?
Speaker 1 (32:06):
Well enter the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
, the low-key final boss ofglobal dispute resolution, and
in 2024, they powered up withnew tools tailored for digital
creators, game studios andplatform conflicts.
Speaker 3 (32:21):
WIPO now offers faster, lower-cost alternatives
to court battles, includingonline mediation and expert
determinations for IP disputes.
They've also createdspecialized procedures for video
game and metaverse conflicts,including cases involving
user-generated content, nfts,esports rights and character
(32:44):
licensing.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
Translation.
Instead of dragging each otherthrough Tokyo, paris and
California, two studios can sitdown virtually and hash it out
with WIPO's help.
Speaker 3 (32:55):
Private cross-border legally enforceable, and it's
not just for big studios.
Indie developers, modders, evenstreamers can now resolve
conflicts over contracts,royalty splits or creative
ownership without mortgagingtheir next game to pay legal
fees.
Speaker 1 (33:14):
So the next time someone copies your in-game
mechanics or you get locked in across-platform licensing mess,
you might not need to insertlawsuit to continue.
You might just need to selectmediation instead.
Speaker 3 (33:28):
Because the game is evolving, and so it's the way we
resolve the fights that comewith it.
Before we log out, let's lockin five legal checkpoints from
today's journey, the kind thatapply whether you're a studio,
an indie dev or just a curiousplayer watching from the loading
screen, from Nintendo'stouchscreen patterns to
(33:50):
Ironberg's back paddles.
Speaker 1 (33:52):
the invisible parts of gameplay how it feels, how it
works are sometimes the mostlegally explosive.
Speaker 3 (34:00):
Whether it's Jim Brown in Madden, maradona in PES
or a homie in Call of Duty.
Using real-world likenesses orbrands without clear permission
can trigger lawsuits, unlessit's transformative, artistic or
clearly part of storytelling.
Speaker 1 (34:18):
Reviving an old game, building a new one based on
what you learned at your lastjob.
The courts are watching, andthe difference between homage
and infringement can be oneshared file too many.
Speaker 3 (34:30):
Whether you're in Seoul, tokyo, london or LA.
If your game grows global, sodo your legal risk.
Choose your jurisdictionswisely and know how to serve up
a takedown across time zones.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
Borrowing the vibe of a hit game is one thing.
Borrowing code, animations orgameplay structure that's how
side quests turn into subpoenas.
Speaker 3 (34:53):
So the next time you press start on your big idea,
remember creativity moves fast,but IP catches up.
Remember to play the game IPSide Quest Showdown available on
our website, inspired by thisepisode.
Speaker 2 (35:11):
Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the
podcast of intangible law Plaintalk about intellectual property
.
Did you like what we talkedtoday?
Please share with your network.
Do you want to learn more aboutintellectual property?
Subscribe now on your favoritepodcast player.
Follow us on Instagram,facebook, linkedin and Twitter.
(35:31):
Visit our websitewwwintangibliacom.
Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020.
All rights reserved.
This podcast is provided forinformation purposes only.
a window breaks, a photo resurfaces and suddenly a
game built on fiction is draggedinto reality.
What you thought was background, art evidence, what you thought
was a title, a trademark, war.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
This is Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law
playing talk about intellectualproperty.
Please welcome your host,leticia Caminero.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Welcome and welcome to the podcast where creativity
meets control schemes and legaldrama spawns faster than a
plumber with a shiny star.
I'm Leticia Caminero.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Well, her AI version, of course, and I'm Artemisa,
your AI co-host, coded forcommentary, sarcastic side-eye
and the occasional copyrightconnection.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
In this episode we're diving headfirst into the legal
side quests no game developerasked for from names that
triggered trademark claims tofan-made modifications that got
taken down to a certainshattered glass photo that
cracked open a lawsuit.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
We'll take you through some fully rendered,
pixel-perfect cases, a few deepdives and sprinkle of rapid-fire
glitches, all stitched togetherwith IP threads and plot twists
worthy of a cutscene.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
And, yes, we used AI to build this episode voice
research, delivery all filteredthrough a human lawyer's
judgment.
So, no, we're not replacingcreators, we're just making the
loading screens more interesting.
For this episode, I built anescape room style game called IP
Sidequest Showdown, availableon our website,
(01:49):
wwwintangibliacom.
In the game, you're a rookie IPagent tasked with cracking some
legally inspired mysteries.
Solve all the missions and thebriefcase unlocks.
Drop a comment if you crackedthe code or if the clone got you
first.
Our first stop 2020,.
(02:12):
Ubisoft is gearing up torelease a mythology-based open
war adventure with gods,monsters and a few puzzles on
the side.
They call it Gods and MonstersClean, simple, epic, Until a
certain beverage company stompsin with his clothes out and a
lawyer in each hand, monsterEnergy filed an opposition
(02:35):
against Ubisoft's trademark theissue, the word monster.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
Apparently, if your game's title includes it, even
if it's about Greek gods andmythical beasts, monster thinks
you're stepping on their fizzytoes.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
Monster Energy argued that gamers might confuse their
drinks with a video game aboutzoos and floating islands.
Ubisoft tried to explain thattheir monster had wings and
fangs.
Not caffeine and carbonation,but legal pressure escalated and
so did the need to rebrand.
(03:20):
So Ubisoft blinked, they renamedthe game Immortals, fenyx
Rising, more poetic, maybe Lesslikely to be confused with an
energy drink.
Definitely it wasn't the firsttime Monster Energy pulled this
kind of move and spoiler.
It wouldn't be the last, butthis was the case.
That made it clear Even thetitle of games can be dangerous
territory, especially when abrand thinks it owns an entire
now.
Because Ubisoft wasn't alone.
After that, monster Energy wentfull rage mode, challenging
(03:43):
game titles left and right Likeit was on a trademark speed run.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
Next up Monster Hunter.
Yes, monster Hunter, afranchise that predates Monster
Energy by years and has zero todo with beverages.
That didn't stop Monster fromtrying to block its trademark
renewal in certain countries.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
Then they took a swing at Pokemon yes, that
Pokemon Over the name Pokemon Xand Y Pocket Monsters.
It didn't land, but the attemptalone raised eyebrows high
enough to trigger a level upprompt, and indie developers
weren't safe either.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
They went after Dark Deception, monsters and Mortals,
a horror party game with spookycharacters and zero sugar
content.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Most developers either fought back or settled,
but the legal drain was real.
Monster Energy didn't win mostof these, but their tactic was
loud, expensive and exhausting.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
It's what some call trademark bullying, using a big
legal budget not to win but towear the other player down.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
So next time you see the word monster in a game, just
know it might take it a fewrounds with legal before it made
it to your screen.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
And no, it won't make you more energized, but it
might make you more cautiousabout your game title.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
OK, let's talk.
Ink, not contracts skin,because in 2020, one of the most
unexpected copyright lawsuitshit the gaming world, and it all
started with LeBron James'sshoulder.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Welcome to the case of Solid Oak sketches versus 2K
games.
Solid Oak had acquired thecopyright to five tattoos real
tattoos on real NBA playersfeatured in the NBA 2K video
game series.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
The one 2K rendered those athletes in game ultra
realistic.
Every tattoo, included SolidOak, said you're using our art
without permission.
Pay up.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
And they didn't ask for chump change.
They were aiming for millionsin damages.
To be fair, it wasn't the firsttime this argument showed up.
Remember the hangover part two.
Mike Tyson's tattoo artist, sVictor Whitmill, sued Warner
Brothers for using his iconictribal design on Ed Helms.
That case didn't go to trial,but the judge did call Warner's
(06:10):
fair use defense, and I quotesilly.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
Back to NBA2K.
This case did go to court andit raised a big question.
If an athlete's body is part oftheir identity and their
tattoos are part of thatidentity, can a company show the
player without also showing theink?
Speaker 1 (06:35):
The court said yes.
They ruled that the tattooswere a minimal part of the
overall image, were used withimplied license and, importantly
, helped create realism.
Fair use case dismissed.
Speaker 3 (06:47):
It was a win for realism in sports games, but it
also left the door open, becausethis case was about usage in
context, not about tattoocopyright disappearing entirely.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
So if you're a developer scanning body art into
your next big release, justmake sure your realism doesn't
come with a lawsuit.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
From realism to rebellion, we now move into one
of the most poetic legal momentsin gaming.
This time, it wasn't aboutstealing, it was about restoring
Enter.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
Take-Two Verse.
The modders behind Re3 and ReVCFans who loved Grand Theft Auto
3 and Vice City like reallyloved them decided to reverse
engineer the original games Notto copy to fix.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
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, playedsmoother, it was preservation,
it was polished and it was aboutto get pulled.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Because Take-Two sued .
They said the fans had usedparts of the original games
without permission that'sunauthorized distribution of
copyrighted material and theydidn't wait around.
They fired off DMCA takedowns.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
Which, for non-lawyers, means they send
legal notices to platforms likeGitHub demanding the mods be
taken offline.
It's the digital version ofpulling the fire alarm fast,
automatic and hard to find.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
The modders argued back they weren't copying, they
were reverse engineering A legalgray zone where developers take
something apart to learn how itworks or make it compatible
with modern systems.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
It's a real legal defense, but a risky one when
you're dealing with one of thebiggest publishers in gaming.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
After a public backlash, the lawsuit vanished
like a hidden Easter egg nofinal verdict, no major
punishment, just one of thoserare endings where the
sidequesters walked away and aquick reminder sometimes the
best remaster is the one fans dothemselves, With better
lighting and fewer bugs.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
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 ofyou copied my homework and
didn't even change the font.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Riot Games had created League of Legends, one
of the most iconic competitiveonline games in the world.
Moonton, a Shanghai-basedstudio, released Mobile Legends
and let's just say, theresemblance was uncanny.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
We're talking character designs, map layouts,
gameplay mechanics, even themarketing materials felt like
deja vu.
So Riot stood in the US.
Moonton pulled the game andthen relaunched it days later
under a new name Mobile Legends.
Bang Bang Bold move Didn't foolanyone.
(09:57):
Riot stood again, this time inChina.
Moonton's parent company,bytedance, had deep pockets.
And things got even morecomplicated.
Legal ping pong acrossjurisdictions began.
Speaker 1 (10:11):
Eventually, riot took the fight back to the US and in
2018, they won a $2,900,000zero cents judgment.
But the game stayed online, thefans stayed loyal and Moonton
just kept updating it.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
This was more than just a lawsuit.
It became a long-term standoffabout what counts as copying in
games, where is the line betweeninspiration and imitation, and
what if the clone becomes morepopular than the original, at
least in some regions.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
The case settled in 2023, with both parties dropping
their swords behind closeddoors.
Speaker 3 (10:44):
No epic win, no press conference, just silence and a
whole lot of money probablychanging hands, if anything this
saga showed just how hard it isto protect a game's feel,
Because in IP law you cancopyright a character design,
but not a gameplay vibe and inclone culture.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
sometimes the sequel starts before the lawsuit ends.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
Our next story starts with something small a texture,
a broken glass pattern you'dbarely notice while dodging
zombies in Resident Evil.
But it turns out that crack wasreal.
Speaker 1 (11:23):
And so was the lawsuit.
But it turns out that crack wasreal and so was the lawsuit In
2021,.
Photographer Judy Jurczyk fileda massive copyright
infringement suit against Capcomclaiming they used over 80 of
(11:44):
her copyrighted images.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
Surfaces, a physical and CDREM collection of
architectural and materialtextures, Things like bricks,
marble, stained glass and, yes,shattered glass.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Capcom allegedly took those images and inserted them
directly into game environmentsdoors, windows, flooring without
asking, crediting or paying.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
Now here's the truth.
How did she find out?
Capcom's own files were exposedin a data breach in 2020.
In those leaked internaldocuments, file names match the
ones from her CD ARIAM.
Side by side comparisons wentviral.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
It was like the zombies had left behind receipts
.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
And Hachikaz for over $12 million zero cents in
damages, plus $2,500, zero centsto $25,000, zero cents per
photo used per game.
It was one of the largestcopyright claims against a game
studio ever filed by a singleartist.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
Capcom denied wrongdoing and said they were
still investigating the sourceof those assets.
But let's be honest, the photonames didn't help their case.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
The case it didn't go to trial.
It was settled privately in2022.
No public verdict, no officialapology, but it left a big
impact on how studios thinkabout sourcing textures,
references and background art.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
Because when something as simple as a cracked
window shows up in multiple cutscenes and your reference book
came out 25 years ago you betterbe sure you licensed that crack
.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
This case wasn't about stolen characters or
copied storylines.
It was about realism and thefact that sometimes realism
comes with strings attached.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
Or, in this case, jagged edges and metadata.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law.
Playing talk about intellectualproperty.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
In the world of mobile gaming, some battles
happen behind the screenliterally, because this next
case, it wasn't about monsters,music or character design.
It was about how your thumbmoves.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
Our scene begins in Japan, the year 2018.
Nintendo sues fellow Tokyodeveloper Kolo over their hit
mobile RPG White Cat Project.
The accusation Kolo was usingfive of Nintendo's patents,
including one for virtualjoystick controls on a
touchscreen.
Speaker 3 (14:34):
To the average player it just looks like a typical
mobile game swipe to move, tapto attack.
But Nintendo argued thosegestures weren't just intuitive,
they were protected.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
Specifically, nintendo said White Cat Project
was using the same touch-basedinput method.
Nintendo had patented for theDS and 3DS a method where a
player moves a character bydragging their finger across the
screen.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
Nintendo demanded damages and an injunction, and
at one point increased theirclaim to nearly 5 billion yen,
that's around 47 million dollars, zero cents dollars.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
Apollo fought back hard.
They denied infringement andkept the game online for years.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
But behind the scenes , the pressure mounted Finally
in 2021, three years into thefight Colopel agreed to settle.
They paid Nintendo 3.3 billionyen around 30 million dollars,
zero cents and licensed thepatent.
Zero cents and license thepatent.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
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 tweakWhite Cat Project's input
features to avoid any futurerisk.
Speaker 3 (15:56):
This case proves something crucial Game mechanics
, not just characters or logos,can be patented, and if those
mechanics are smooth, simple andwidely adopted, they might also
be legally explosive.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
Lesson learned Sometimes the swipe of a finger
is more than just control it'sinnovation.
Sometimes the swipe of a fingeris more than just control, it's
innovation.
And Nintendo protects itsinnovations like a final boss
guards a treasure chest.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
Every few years, a game comes along that the
internet can't stop talkingabout.
In 2024, that game was PowerWorld, described by some as
Pokemon with guns and by othersas a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Speaker 1 (16:39):
The developer, pocket Pair, had clearly struck a
nerve.
You could catch littlecreatures, battle with them and
use them for everything fromfarming to factory work.
Sound familiar To Nintendo andthe Pokemon company.
It sounded too familiar.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
In September 2024, Nintendo filed suit in Tokyo.
But this wasn't your usualcopyright or trademark fight.
They went in with patents.
Flaming Pal World had copiedspecific game mechanics
protected under.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
Japanese patent law.
One key issue the creaturecatching system.
Throwing a ball, watching theanimation, capturing a creature
that then joins your roster.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
Nintendo said that's not just a vibe, that's patented
Another red flag, the creaturedesigns.
Even if they weren't exactcopies, samples look
suspiciously like PokemonTeppukine after a few too many
energy drinks.
Twitter exploded, memesexploded and so did legal
speculation.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
To be fair, pocket Pair had tried to dodge a direct
hit.
They insisted Power World wasoriginal.
But after the lawsuit dropped,they quietly updated the game,
tweaking animations, adjustingdesigns and even altering
capture mechanics.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
As of now, the case is ongoing.
Nintendo hasn't asked to blockthe game outright, but they're
pressing for damages and changes, and Pocket Pair they're
walking the line, trying to keeptheir fan base while avoiding
more legal fire.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
It's rare for Nintendo to go the patent route
first, but this case may mark ashift, especially in Japan,
where major studios are startingto flex gameplay patents as
their new legal weapon of choice, and for indie developers out
there, the message is clear Ifyou're building something
inspired by a global franchise,check the artwork, check the
(18:37):
artwork, check the names anddefinitely check the patent
register.
Because catching creatures isfun, but catching a lawsuit not
so much.
Speaker 3 (18:48):
In the world of mobile RPGs, one mechanic reigns
supreme the gacha.
You roll, you pray, you getduplicates.
But what if the way you fusethose duplicates was patented?
Speaker 1 (19:02):
That's exactly what Sega claimed in 2024.
They filed suit against Bank ofInnovation, the Tokyo-based
studio behind Memento Mori andCribetract.
According to, Sega Boy's Gamesinfringed five different patents
.
Speaker 3 (19:21):
At the heart of the claim was a mechanic Sega said
it pioneered.
When a player receives multiplecopies of the same character,
those copies could be fused tounlock new abilities.
Instead of being uselessduplicates, elegant, addictive
and, according to Sega, legallyprotected.
Speaker 1 (19:39):
The case hit Tokyo District Court in late 2024.
Sega wasn't subtle.
They demanded an injunction andone billion yen in damages.
That's around six million sixhundred thousand dollars, zero
cents.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
Bank of Innovation denied any wrongdoing and
insisted its systems weredistinct, but in the court of
public opinion it triggered abigger conversation.
Can Gacha mechanics be patentedand if so, how many other games
are skating close to the edge?
Speaker 1 (20:14):
For context, japan has a long history of issuing
patents for game systeminnovations, especially around
UI and reward mechanics, so thiswasn't a stretch, it was a
warning.
Speaker 3 (20:27):
The case is still pending, but it signals a larger
trend.
With Nintendo, Coloble, PocketPair and now Bank of Innovation
all facing patent litigation,the big studios are clearly
saying Gamefield isn't justabout design, it's intellectual
property.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
And if your gotcha game pops off unexpectedly, you
might just roll into court.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
In 2023, a greedy indie game called Dark and
Darker appeared online a darkfantasy extraction dungeon
crawler with retro graphics andinstant call bus.
But behind the torches andtreasure chests, something much
bigger was brewing a legal war.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
The game was developed by Iron Mace, a team
mostly made up of former Exxonemployees and Exxon.
They were not impressed.
They claimed Dark and Darkerwasn't just original inspiration
.
It was a stolen project.
Speaker 3 (21:23):
According to Nexon.
Dark and Darker was a shadowversion of a console internal
game codenamed P3.
They said the idea, mechanicsand even code had been taken by
devs who jumped ship and startedover in plain sight.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
So Nexon pulled out the full legal arsenal.
They filed criminal charges inKorea for trade secret theft.
They've issued DMCA takedownsin the US they had Dark and
Darker pulled from Steam andblocked from distribution.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
IRMIS denied everything.
They said they started fromscratch, that they had the
receipts and that the entirething was just a corporate
overreaction.
Fans took their side.
They launched support campaigns, they played pirated versions
and when Steam took the gamedown, Iron Maes made it
available via Torrent.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
That's right.
They Torrent, distributed theirown game like a fantasy themed
BitTorrent Hydra.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
In early 2024, a court in Seoul gave a mixed
ruling.
Irmas had not infringed oncopyright, since P3 was never
released, there was no game tocopy, but they had violated
trade secret law by usinginternal Nexon knowledge to
recreate key systems, even ifthe assets were new.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
The court ordered Iron Mace to pay around $8.5
billion won, or nearly $6million zero cents in damages,
but they didn't block the game.
Dark and Darker returned tosteam in 2024, still grimy,
still playable, still surroundedby controversy.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
The case is on appeal , but it raised one of the most
difficult questions in gamedevelopment today what's the
difference between experienceand theft.
Speaker 1 (23:09):
When a dev leaves a company, do they leave their
ideas behind, or does a goodidea always try to escape the
dungeon?
Speaker 3 (23:17):
In Argentina, the late Diego Maradona wasn't just
a footballer.
He was a God tier legend, anational icon, and in 2017, he
discovered he was also a videogame character in a game he
never agreed to be in.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
The game Pro Evolution Soccer 2017 by
Japanese developer Konami.
It featured classic teams andlegendary players, and there,
running across the screen, wasTenshagi Hand of God vibes.
Unmistakable dribble.
(23:55):
No official name, butunmistakably Maradona.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
Maradona was furious.
He claimed Konami had used hislikeness without permission and
he threatened legal action inboth Argentina and Japan.
The case sparkled headlines notjust because of who he was, but
because of what it meant.
How do you license a legend?
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Konami's initial defense was that they had
licensed rights through a clubor a players association, but
Maradona said that may work forsome players, not me.
He had never signed his imageover to any third party agency.
Speaker 3 (24:34):
Things escalated fast .
Legal teams got involved, thepress ran with it and then
something unexpected happened.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
They settled quietly, konami agreed to compensate
Maradona and, in a twist, madehim a brand ambassador for the
PES series through 2020.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
Maradona even announced that he would donate
his settlement money toGrassroots Sports in Argentina.
A dispute that started withanger ended in partnership and
legacy building.
Speaker 1 (25:06):
It was one of the few cases where a lawsuit turned
into a sponsorship deal, and itbecame a case study in right of
publicity, especially forretired players who retain
control over their image Today.
Speaker 3 (25:18):
Maradona has passed, but the case leaves on a
reminder that fame doesn'tautomatically mean licensing and
digital immortality still needsa signature.
Even legends have lawyers.
Call of Duty has droppedplayers into dozens of war zones
and for many fans, realism iseverything the sound of boots,
(25:43):
the click of a scope and theiconic military hardware on
screen.
But in 2017, one of thosevehicles decided it wasn't just
part of the background, itwanted a say.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
Enter the Humvee, or more specifically its
manufacturer, am General.
They filed a lawsuit againstActivision Blizzard, claiming
that Call of Duty had used theHumvee name, image and design
without permission in multiplegames.
Speaker 3 (26:13):
To AM General.
The Humvee is a trademarkproduct.
They argued that its inclusionimplied endorsement and that
Activision owed them a license.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
Activision fired back their defense.
First Amendment artisticexpression.
They said the Humvee was partof the battlefield just like it
is in real life.
It made the game more authentic, not promotional.
Speaker 3 (26:38):
The legal test at the heart of the case was the
Rogers v Grimaldi test, a USstandard used to balance
trademark rights withpre-expression.
To win, Amgeneral had to provethat the use of the Humvee
lacked artistic relevance or wasexplicitly misleading.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
Spoiler, they didn't.
In 2020, the federal courtruled in Activision's favor.
The judge said the use ofHumvees was clearly artistically
relevant to a realistic wargame and players weren't
confused about sponsorship.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
It was a big win for game developers, not just for
Call of Duty, but for any gamethat depicts real world, brands,
weapons or vehicles forstorytelling purposes.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
Because games, like movies, don't need a license to
show the world as it is, atleast not when they do it right.
Speaker 3 (27:30):
The case reaffirmed that IP law doesn't always
override realism and thatsometimes the most iconic
content just drives itself.
No license plate required.
Okay, we've covered the fullcampaigns.
Now it's time for the speed run.
Speaker 1 (27:48):
Quick cases, big consequences.
No cut scene.
Speaker 3 (27:52):
In this lightning session.
Speaker 1 (27:54):
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 froma lawsuit.
Speaker 3 (28:05):
These are the side quests.
No one planned for, thetakedowns no one saw coming and
the pixel-sized lawsuits thatpack a punch.
Speaker 1 (28:15):
Grab your paddle.
It's time to insert context andcontinue.
Go Take-Two Interactive versusBBC GTA.
Speaker 3 (28:23):
The BBC made an unauthorized grand theft
autobiopic with Daniel Radcliffe.
Take-two hit the brakes fast.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
They sued for trademark misuse.
The film aired, but with a bigfat disclaimer no stars were
wanted.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
Capcom versus Poi tecmo dynasty warriors.
Capcom claimed qa's hack andslash games, stole patented
features like bonus unlocks andrumble alerts japan's court said
game on capcom got over onemillion zero cents.
Speaker 1 (28:56):
Even power-ups can be patented.
Lindsay Lohan and Karen Gravanoversus Take-Two GTA V.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
Pop star and the daughter of a famed New York
figure.
Both claim GDP.
Use their likeness for in-gamecharacters without permission.
Speaker 1 (29:17):
New York's court hit pause.
Satire is legal.
Gta's parody meter stayed maxedout.
Jim Brown versus ElectronicArts Madden NFL.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
NFL legend Jim Brown saw himself in Madden but never
signed on the dotted line.
Speaker 1 (29:38):
EA settled for 600K.
Even retired players need theirrights drafted properly.
Speaker 3 (29:45):
Atari versus Nestle breakout.
Nestle's Kit Kat ad turnedAtari's breakout into a
chocolate arcade.
Speaker 1 (29:53):
Atari wasn't sweet on it.
They sued, nestle crumbled andpulled the campaign.
Blizzard versus Bossland,overwatch and World of Warcraft.
Speaker 3 (30:02):
Bossland sold cheat bots for Blizzard games, then
ignored the US lawsuit like abroken raid group.
Speaker 1 (30:12):
Default judgment $8,600,000,.
Zero cents, no risk rules forcheaters.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
Nintendo versus Mario Kart or Street Kart.
Mario Kart A go-kart tour inTokyo.
Let riders dress up as Marioand Peach.
Nintendo said absolutely not.
Speaker 1 (30:35):
Lawsuit won, name changed, damages increased.
The only car left was StreetKart.
No shells, no stars.
Pubg Corp versus NetEase.
Rules of survival and knivesout.
Speaker 3 (30:47):
Krafton said NetEase dropped into the battle royale
genre with full-blown PUBGclones, they settled out of
court.
Speaker 1 (30:54):
Game mechanics survived, legal airstrike
avoided.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
Bandai Namco versus Ad Games.
Ms Pac-Man.
Ad Games made a retro consolewith Ms Pac-Man, without
Bandai's.
Ok.
Then they tried to buy therights mid-fight Messy moves,
quiet settlement.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
Ms Pac-Man got ghosted from new releases.
Aaron Berg inventions versusVal Steam Controller.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
Val got it back.
Paddles to Steam Controller.
Goff said those buttons areours.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
Jury agreed.
Valve paid $4 million.
Game pads aren't exempt fromlegal combos.
Speaker 3 (31:38):
From parodies and power-ups to chocolate pixels
and controller paddles, ipprotection never quits, and if
you, don't press license beforepressing launch.
Speaker 1 (31:52):
Well, it's game over with legal respawn costs.
Speaker 3 (31:56):
After all these lawsuits and takedowns, you
might be wondering isn't there abetter way to resolve disputes
in the gaming world than waitingyears for a court decision?
Speaker 1 (32:06):
Well enter the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
, the low-key final boss ofglobal dispute resolution, and
in 2024, they powered up withnew tools tailored for digital
creators, game studios andplatform conflicts.
Speaker 3 (32:21):
WIPO now offers faster, lower-cost alternatives
to court battles, includingonline mediation and expert
determinations for IP disputes.
They've also createdspecialized procedures for video
game and metaverse conflicts,including cases involving
user-generated content, nfts,esports rights and character
(32:44):
licensing.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
Translation.
Instead of dragging each otherthrough Tokyo, paris and
California, two studios can sitdown virtually and hash it out
with WIPO's help.
Speaker 3 (32:55):
Private cross-border legally enforceable, and it's
not just for big studios.
Indie developers, modders, evenstreamers can now resolve
conflicts over contracts,royalty splits or creative
ownership without mortgagingtheir next game to pay legal
fees.
Speaker 1 (33:14):
So the next time someone copies your in-game
mechanics or you get locked in across-platform licensing mess,
you might not need to insertlawsuit to continue.
You might just need to selectmediation instead.
Speaker 3 (33:28):
Because the game is evolving, and so it's the way we
resolve the fights that comewith it.
Before we log out, let's lockin five legal checkpoints from
today's journey, the kind thatapply whether you're a studio,
an indie dev or just a curiousplayer watching from the loading
screen, from Nintendo'stouchscreen patterns to
(33:50):
Ironberg's back paddles.
Speaker 1 (33:52):
the invisible parts of gameplay how it feels, how it
works are sometimes the mostlegally explosive.
Speaker 3 (34:00):
Whether it's Jim Brown in Madden, maradona in PES
or a homie in Call of Duty.
Using real-world likenesses orbrands without clear permission
can trigger lawsuits, unlessit's transformative, artistic or
clearly part of storytelling.
Speaker 1 (34:18):
Reviving an old game, building a new one based on
what you learned at your lastjob.
The courts are watching, andthe difference between homage
and infringement can be oneshared file too many.
Speaker 3 (34:30):
Whether you're in Seoul, tokyo, london or LA.
If your game grows global, sodo your legal risk.
Choose your jurisdictionswisely and know how to serve up
a takedown across time zones.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
Borrowing the vibe of a hit game is one thing.
Borrowing code, animations orgameplay structure that's how
side quests turn into subpoenas.
Speaker 3 (34:53):
So the next time you press start on your big idea,
remember creativity moves fast,but IP catches up.
Remember to play the game IPSide Quest Showdown available on
our website, inspired by thisepisode.
Speaker 2 (35:11):
Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the
podcast of intangible law Plaintalk about intellectual property
.
Did you like what we talkedtoday?
Please share with your network.
Do you want to learn more aboutintellectual property?
Subscribe now on your favoritepodcast player.
Follow us on Instagram,facebook, linkedin and Twitter.
(35:31):
Visit our websitewwwintangibliacom.
Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020.
All rights reserved.
This podcast is provided forinformation purposes only.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.