A video game lawyer tells GamesRadar+ that “no gen AI” clauses have gone from a risk-averse-publisher nicety to standard practice in a single year — even small publishers now include them “just to cover our butts.” The drivers: gamer backlash and a copyright system that does not protect purely AI-generated work.
The contract shift:
- Clauses now appear in marketing, porting, and QA agreements, not just core development
- Her advice to studios without them: “Don’t touch it. It’s not worth the legal liability that it brings to you.”
- Palworld’s publishing lead recently said the devs avoid AI because “gamers don’t want it, end of conversation”
The copyright angle is the part most devs miss:
- Copyright law “wants humans making art” — purely AI-generated content lacks human authorship and cannot be protected
- “Gen AI can’t assign copyright; it can’t transfer copyright”
- An un-transformed AI asset gives you no ownership title — an artist transforming an AI first pass into an original asset is what creates protectable IP
- The theft risk: sloppy, un-transformed AI assets can be lifted and reused by others without penalty
- Real-world signal: Tomb Raider: Legacy of Atlantis discloses that AI-assisted assets were replaced or “refined by humans” after backlash
- Her prediction: cost-cutting studios will get sloppy and lawsuits will follow
For indie devs the practical lesson is that the human-refinement pass is not just about quality or optics — it is the step that makes the asset legally yours. And since anti-AI clauses can now be a dealbreaker in publishing negotiations, reading your contract’s AI language matters before you sign.