Activision and Bethesda are going after vibe coders, sending cease-and-desist notes for AI recreations
Bethesda and Activision have taken action against projects involving AI-generated recreations of their games, including a browser-based Fallout project and footage linked to an attempt to access Modern Warfare 2’s source code. The cases highlight tensions over AI tools, intellectual property and the use of established games and creative work.
The creator of Fallout: New York said they took the project down after legal pressure; it was described as having quests, dialogue trees, V.A.T.S. and a Pip-Boy, with its assets generated by code. Separately, Activision removed footage posted by a user who claimed to have deployed 17 AI bots in an effort to obtain Modern Warfare 2’s source code. The article also refers to a recent dispute over AI-generated changes to a Total War: Warhammer 3 mod.
- Bethesda pursued the creator of a browser-based Fallout project.
- Activision removed footage tied to an AI-assisted source-code attempt.
- The cases raise questions about AI and game intellectual property.
New here? Start with this
Bethesda makes the Fallout games, while Activision publishes the Call of Duty series, which includes Modern Warfare 2. Their games feature distinctive characters, settings and designs, and the companies control rights to much of that material.
AI tools can generate code, images and other content from instructions, making it easier to create projects that resemble existing games. A fan project or modification may still use recognisable elements from a game, raising questions about how copyright and other intellectual property rights apply.
The issue affects game makers, fan creators and people who use AI tools. It matters because decisions about where companies draw the line can shape what fans are able to create and share, as well as how game publishers protect their work.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Rights holders can argue that AI tools do not erase the value of protected characters, worlds, code or other creative work, and that close recreations may confuse audiences or undermine authorised products. Enforcing those rights can protect creators’ investment and preserve a route for licensing and collaboration, while action over attempts to obtain source code can also guard against security and commercial harms.
The case against
Critics can argue that broad legal threats may chill fan creativity and experimentation, especially when projects are non-commercial and made with new tools rather than copied assets. They may favour clearer, proportionate rules that distinguish transformative work and commentary from market substitutes or attempts to access confidential code, so that copyright enforcement does not shut down legitimate innovation.