Entertainment news and discussion on TalkFuse.
Echoing Palworld dev, video game lawyer says all her clients have anti-AI contracts because gamers hate it and it’s a copyright landmine: “I think we’re going to see lawsuits”
A video game lawyer says her clients are increasingly adding clauses to contracts that prohibit or restrict generative AI, reflecting both strong player opposition and unresolved legal risks. She expects disputes over AI-made game assets to reach the courts, particularly where the technology may have been trained on copyrighted work without permission.
The comments echo concerns previously raised by Palworld developer Pocketpair, whose publishing chief said AI use could damage a studio’s reputation with players. The lawyer argues that studios must also consider ownership, licensing and indemnity issues, as it may be unclear who owns AI-generated material or whether it infringes another party’s copyright.
In short
- Game studios are increasingly using anti-AI contract clauses.
- Player backlash and copyright uncertainty are driving caution.
- A lawyer expects AI-related games industry lawsuits.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Restricting generative AI in game development is a prudent response to genuine legal uncertainties around copyright, asset ownership and licensing that have not yet been resolved by courts. Players have demonstrated real opposition to AI in games, creating reputational risk alongside the legal exposure. Studios that adopt cautious policies now protect themselves from potentially costly litigation and the backlash that could damage goodwill with their communities.
The case against
Generative AI tools offer substantial development benefits—faster asset creation, reduced costs, greater accessibility for smaller studios—that shouldn't be forfeited based on speculative legal risks that may ultimately favour developers. Legal frameworks and licensing practices are evolving to address these concerns; waiting for courtroom clarity rather than preemptively restricting technology avoids unnecessary competitive disadvantage. Player opposition exists but may prove temporary or overstated, as consumers have accepted AI integration in many other industries.
Explained simply
Generative AI tools can produce images, voices, text and other material used in video games. Game studios often hire outside artists and other creators, and contracts set out how their work may be used and who is responsible if rights are challenged.
Copyright law gives creators rights over their work, but how those rights apply to AI-made material can be uncertain. Players’ reactions also matter to studios, whose reputation may be affected by how they make and source game content.
Pocketpair, the developer of Palworld, has previously warned that using AI could harm a studio’s standing with players. The wider debate concerns how game makers can balance new tools with clear ownership, permissions and accountability.