Beyond the Screen: How AI, Monetisation, and Legal Challenges Are Shaping the Future of Gaming

The gaming industry has grown from a niche hobby to a global powerhouse, boasting approximately 3.3 billion active video gamers and generating $282 billion in revenue, according to Exploding Topics. The history of monetised gaming began in the 1970s with simple arcade games like Pong and Space Invaders, which introduced players to interactive digital entertainment. These early successes paved the way for home consoles in the 1980s, with systems like the Atari 2600 and the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) revolutionising the gaming landscape. Video games became more advanced throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, moving from pixelated graphics to rich 3D environments with the release of consoles such as the PlayStation and Xbox.

It has come a long way since the early days of arcade cabinets and home consoles, now encompassing a vast landscape of games with innovative technology such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR) and artificial intelligence (AI). Online multiplayer games transformed solitary screen time into worldwide community hubs, with hits like World of Warcraft and Call of Duty turning gamers into global citizens of a digital universe.

One standout example of this evolution is Grand Theft Auto V (GTA V). Released in 2013, this title is not only a technical masterpiece but also a microcosm of the industry's current trends. Its sprawling open-world environment and detailed, dynamic non-player characters (NPCs) were made possible by AI advancements, while its online multiplayer mode, GTA Online, became a financial juggernaut through the sale of in-game currency and items. The game was one of the first to highlight how much revenue could be generated from microtransactions, earning over $1 billion within three days of release and continuing to rake in billions from ongoing content and in-game purchases. GTA V shows how gaming has shifted from one-time purchases to an ongoing service model, where the game lives far beyond its initial launch, funded by player transactions.

Today, gaming is everywhere. Esports, once considered a niche hobby, now rivals traditional sports with packed stadiums, sponsorships, and prize pools that can buy you several Ferraris—or at least a ton of in-game skins. It is no longer about playing a game; it is about living it. But beneath the surface of this booming industry lies a battlefield of legal and ethical dilemmas.

Navigating Legal Frameworks

The gaming industry is increasingly governed by a complex set of legal frameworks, surrounding copyright law, consumer protection, and gambling regulation. Copyright law protects the intellectual property of developers, allowing them to safeguard their work from unauthorised use or distribution. However, the open nature of the internet and the rise of digital content sharing present significant challenges in enforcing these rights, especially when it comes to mods, user-generated content, and live-streamed gaming events.

In GTA V's case, Rockstar Games has had to walk a tightrope between encouraging creativity in the modding community and protecting its intellectual property. While mods have extended the life and appeal of the game, some infringe on Rockstar’s copyright or enable cheats in GTA Online, leading to legal disputes and bans. This highlights the broader legal struggle developers face in a digital world where user modifications can blur the lines between enhancing the game and breaking the rules.

In addition to IP concerns, monetisation strategies—especially microtransactions—are now heavily scrutinised by regulators. The line between in-game purchases and gambling is increasingly blurred in some jurisdictions, leading to calls for stricter regulation of mechanics like loot boxes – the ultimate wildcard which can be highly addictive. This has sparked a global debate on whether governments should step in to protect consumers, particularly younger players, from predatory practices. Several countries are already taking a hard stance. Belgium and the Netherlands, for instance, have declared loot boxes to be in violation of gambling laws, banning their use outright. Other jurisdictions are considering whether these mechanics need tighter regulation to protect consumers, especially minors. Developers and publishers may soon face stricter rules on how these revenue streams can operate—expect disclosures, age restrictions, and potentially, mandatory odds reveal. It is a fine line between fun and exploitation, and the legal landscape around microtransactions is likely to become even more fraught in the coming years.

Game developers and publishers are also navigating issues related to data privacy. Many games now require players to create accounts, linking their data to the game ecosystem. With regulations like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union and United Kingdom. Developers will need to be transparent about what data they are collecting and ensure they have airtight security measures in place. The penalties for mishandling data are steep, and no game company wants to be in the headlines for a massive data breach. Worse still, player trust is hard to rebuild once it is lost. If companies want to continue tracking every pixel of your gameplay, they will need to ensure players are fully onboard—and fully protected.

AI: Friend or Foe?

If the Terminator taught us anything, it is that AI is coming for us—and it is starting in video games. Gone are the days when NPCs had the IQ of a potato. Modern game AI can be smart, adaptive, and even a little creepy. Those enemies that duck behind cover or outflank you in Call of Duty? That’s AI getting clever, learning from your mistakes, and making you work for your win. AI is used in several ways, from enhancing game play experiences to improving game development. AI can also generate dynamic game worlds, create intelligent story-lines, or adjust difficulty levels based on a player’s skill.

But AI is not just about making virtual enemies sneakier. It is also transforming the way games are built. Developers now use AI to help generate huge, sprawling game worlds and even craft narratives. The technology can create procedurally generated content, like entire cities or dungeons, saving game developers countless hours and costs, while also allowing for more expansive and immersive worlds.

GTA V offers another example of AI’s impact on modern gaming. Its AI-driven NPCs interact with the player in ways that feel spontaneous and lifelike, whether it’s pedestrians reacting to the player’s actions or police officers strategically hunting them down during a high-speed chase. These AI systems create a more immersive and believable world, blurring the lines between scripted interactions and dynamic, player-driven experiences.

And it is not just behind the scenes. AI is also moderating toxic behaviour. Whether you are crossing the line into uncharted realms of bad manners, AI is there, watching and learning. Companies are using AI to scan chat logs, detect harassment, and slap bans on unruly players faster than you can say, "I was just kidding."

On a more serious note, the European Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) came into effect on August 1, 2024, establishing a framework aimed at fostering responsible AI development and deployment across the EU. This comprehensive regulation categorises risk using the following framework:

·         Minimal risk: most AI systems, like spam filters and NPCs in AI – enabled video games, sail smoothly under the radar of the AI Act. While they are free from strict obligations, companies can still choose to level up by adopting voluntary codes of conduct – no boss battle required! 

·         Specific transparency risk: in the realm of chatbots, it is essential that they wear their “I am just a machine” badge proudly. Players should know when they are getting advice from an AI rather than a fellow gamer. Any AI-generated content – think dynamically created game levels – needs to be clearly labelled.

·         High risk: high risk AI systems, such as those powering AI-based medical software or recruitment tools, face tougher challenges, much like facing a final boss. These systems must comply with rigorous requirements, including robust risk -mitigation strategies, top-notch data quality, clear user communication, and essential human oversight. No deepfakes of individuals or shortcuts here!

·         Unacceptable risk: strictly prohibited AI systems, which include subliminal or deceptive techniques, social scoring, and biometric categorisation systems. After all, no one wants to navigate a world where your worth is determined by a social score rather than your epic gaming achievements!

In contrast, the UK has opted for a cross-sector framework built on five key principles: safety, security, transparency, fairness, and contestability and redress. As we adapt to these new guidelines, we can anticipate updated implementation advice, set to be released in April 2025.

The Future

Looking ahead, the gaming industry is poised for even more transformation, driven by emerging technologies such as VR, AR, and AI. These innovations are likely to blur the lines between the virtual and real worlds, creating more immersive and interactive gaming experiences. AI will continue to shape the future of gaming, enabling more sophisticated game design and user experiences.

However, the future also holds legal and regulatory challenges. Governments around the world are expected to increase their scrutiny of gaming companies, especially concerning issues like loot boxes, data privacy, and player rights. The example of GTA V shows that as games grow in scope and complexity, the legal and ethical questions surrounding them will only multiply, from intellectual property disputes to concerns over player spending habits.

Moreover, as AI becomes more integrated into gaming, new ethical and legal questions will arise. For example, who owns the content generated by AI systems in games? If AI can learn and adapt to players’ behaviour, how should privacy and data rights be managed? Additionally, as AI-driven moderation becomes more commonplace, there will need to be transparent and fair systems for addressing false positives and protecting players' rights.

The gaming industry has come a long way since the days of pixelated plumbers and blocky spaceship shooters. What started as a quirky niche of arcade cabinets and 8-bit consoles is now a global entertainment juggernaut, where teenage millionaires are crowned in Esports arenas and players are spending real cash on virtual hats. But with great growth comes great complexity—legal red tape, AI lurking in the shadows, and the never-ending debate over whether loot boxes are a fun surprise or a mini casino. As AI gets smarter, the ethical and legal questions will grow. Buckle up, because the gaming world is no longer about high scores and headshots.

Renae Weir, October 2024

From Inspiration to Infringement: Did 'When I Was Your Man' Plant the Seeds for 'Flowers'?

Copyright infringement claims in the music industry have become commonplace in recent years. In a world where a combination of the same twelve notes is used in most songs, and 120,000 new songs are being released each day, there are bound to be similarities. Many of these cases involve some of the most successful songs in any given year, which is very attractive to a potential claimant seeking a large amount in compensation.

These cases have the potential to damage the reputation of both the artist and the industry and cause unnecessary stress and expense for both parties in dispute. It has become essential for an artist to seek permission from the owner of the work they are taking inspiration from, or even an artist to whom they are paying tribute, to avoid any potential claims. However, there should be a balance between giving credit where credit is due and allowing artists the freedom to create and express themselves, without having the fear of an infringement claim in the back of their mind.

What constitutes copyright infringement

To prove copyright infringement in music, the defendant must have had access to the song, and their song is ‘substantially similar’ to the original work. This definition is quite vague, and to combat this, there are several musicological factors that will be considered when deciding a case. It must be shown that an original musical element from the song in question was taken, meaning it can’t be an element that has previously been used many times before, such as a generic beat. Usually, music experts known as musicologists will be brought in and will use their extensive experience to provide some insight into what constitutes an original element. They will have a deep understanding of chord progression, melody, structure and tempo and will refer to each of these factors when comparing the two songs. They will then give their opinion as to whether any original material has been copied.

As well as reports from musicologists, the court will consider the extent of the songwriters’ access and exposure to the original song. For example, if the two artists played at the same festival, or if one was the opening act for the other on tour, there is a good chance they would have heard the song. In contrast, if the song was written by a relatively unknown artist, it would be difficult to prove exposure. Although, with the rise of TikTok and the easy access to a vast array of music, it has become increasingly challenging to claim that you had no reason to have heard the song before.

Finally, the court may acknowledge the artists propensity to copy other work. If there have been multiple successful infringement cases against an artist, it increases the likelihood that the material in question was copied.

Position in the US

In the past week, Miley Cyrus and her record-breaking song, ‘Flowers’, have become the subject of a copyright infringement claim filed by Tempo Music Investments (Tempo). It is argued that there are ‘significant similarities’ between the songs ‘Flowers’ and ‘When I Was Your Man’ by Bruno Mars, in which Tempo owns a share of the copyright. Tempo claims that there is a resemblance between the chord progressions of the two songs, including the vocal lines, pitch ending pattern and the baseline structure. They also believe that there are obvious similarities between the lyrics of both songs. When ‘Flowers’ was first released, the chorus became an immediate point of discussion on social media, with fans and news outlets picking up on the fact that it seemed to be an answer to each line in the chorus of ‘When I Was Your Man’. The lyrics appear to be a response, for example, “I hope he buys you flowers” becomes, “I can buy myself flowers”. While the lyrics are obviously similar, the question is whether they constitute a copyright infringement.

Position in the UK

Here in the UK, in the recent case involving Ed Sheeran’s ‘Shape of You’, another record-breaking song, the court rejected the claim of copyright infringement. In this case, the court considered whether the post-chorus of the song which includes the lyrics ‘Oh I’ was copied from Sami Switch’s ‘Oh Why’. Musicologists gave evidence in the case and concluded that the similarities were merely a coincidence and there were ‘distinctive differences’ between the two songs. The judge also stated that similarities are only a starting point, and that the claimants had failed to prove the elements were deliberately or subconsciously copied. Despite Sheeran having been sued for copyright infringement twice before, the judge did not find that he had a propensity to copy other material.  The songwriters denied ever hearing ‘Oh Why’ before, and there was very little evidence to contradict this. Upon winning the case, Sheeran stated that these types of claims are ‘way too common’ and ‘damaging to the songwriting industry’ and wishes in future that ‘baseless claims like this can be avoided’.

Potential outcome

Judging by the Sheeran decision, there may be a similar outcome for Cyrus. One would expect the court to find that there is no infringement, as the lyrics are not directly copied, and it is difficult to prove ‘substantial similarities’ in melody. However, the Cyrus case is unique in that the focus of the copyright is on the lyrics rather than the melody. There are several arguments likely to be made by the claimants. There will no doubt be musicological evidence submitted with regards to the chord progression.  As well as this, the claimants may argue that Cyrus and her co-writers had access to ‘When I Was Your Man’, considering its success. Another potential argument is that Cyrus intended to take inspiration from the lyrics in the chorus.

The defence may argue against this and claim that while some lyrics mirror those in Mars’ chorus, the emotional context, melody and vibe of ‘Flowers’ is completely different.  They may argue that ‘Flowers’ is a parody of ‘When I Was Your Man’. If someone creates a parody, they may rely on the fair use exception to protect themselves against infringement claims. However, this argument may be a stretch, as the definition of a parody is ‘an imitation for comic effect or in ridicule’, which doesn’t seem to apply here. However, this case has the potential to create a new category of parody, where a creative response to another song can be protected. They could put forward that the lyrics are a response rather than a copy, like rappers responding to each other in diss tracks. This is a common part of hip-hop culture, a genre in which there are rarely any infringement claims. Perhaps the same leniency should be given to the other genres. They may also mention the fact that Mars’ song was streamed over a million times following the release of ‘Flowers’, resulting in an increase in popularity for a song that was released over a decade ago.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of this case, particularly if the argument of fair use is put forward. If the decision favours Tempo, it could result in huge damages, given the songs success. If the case goes Cyrus’ way, it could make history and set a precedent for songs that are in response to others. This has the potential to change the position in the UK and would undoubtably have an influence on future cases. These cases have become prevalent due to the rise of recording technology, streaming services and widespread accessibility. As the industry is constantly changing, so must the law in this area, to prevent people from taking advantage of the opportunity to make money and to allow artists to reach their full creative potential.

Sarah Buckley, 2024

The New Era of TV Entertainment

From Daytime to Anytime
The new era of TV entertainment

By Meghan Sousa Dias

It started out with the boom of the television in the 1960s with around 75% of Brits owning a TV set in their homes, allowing for the shift of human entertainment to be found in front of a TV screen. Then, in the mid-80s, daytime TV was launched allowing for all day scheduled TV shows, appeasing the rapid growth of technology consumption. However, the major advances in technology have allowed for TV to enter a new era of on-demand TV entertainment, conforming to the corporate on-the-go lifestyle, which has left many people to speculate where the need for scheduled channels will be.

The BBC and Daytime television

The BBC has been a centre point to UK’s daytime television, giving the public back-to-back entertainment since its conception. As the world’s leading public service broadcaster, the BBC translated everything that was found in the newspaper or radio to the screen. It also included fictional TV shows, such as ‘Neighbours’ an Australian sitcom, which was attracting 16 million viewers within the first couple years. While the importance of it remains, the viewership isn’t as prevalent, as the downside to a set schedule for each segment is proving to be more trouble than its worth.

Additionally, due to inflation, TV licences have gone up in prices by 6.6%, making it more expensive to afford to watch PSB services. It is expected to carry on rising in line with inflation for at least the following 4 years. Therefore, while the public would be expected to pay upwards of £169.50 per annum for the ability to watch the ordinary scheduled shows, the ever growing VoD conglomerates are offering a range of prices, majority of which are radically lower than the TV licence, depending on what is affordable for the household. With a larger selection of shows and higher quality content the current VoD service are, as expected, taking over TV entertainment. Amazon prime, in particular, profits primarily off of commission from selling products, therefore allowing them the ability to have those lower subscription prices, something PSBs do not have the luxury to match. To illustrate this, the annual subscription to Amazon prime will not only offer VoD services but also complete access to its music streaming services and next day delivery on products purchased through the platform – all for the price of £8.99, which would be just under £120 a year.

The shift toward online streaming

As technology became more advanced, with the 90s presenting the public with Macromedia (Adobe) Flash Player and RTMP (Real-Time Messaging Protocol) and RTSP (Real-Time Streaming Protocol), innovators were able to present us with the early streaming services such as YouTube (which aired in 2005), Netflix (which started it’s online streaming service in 2007) and later on the American streaming platform Hulu. This presented to the public a new way to consume video entertainment. It was playable at our convenience and offered a newfound flexibility, fixing what daytime TV was lacking. The days of going to blockbuster to buy films individually or waiting every week to watch said shows at specific times were gone, and instant entertainment became normalised accommodating to the fast-paced modern day lifestyle.

Another notable key factor that boosted streaming to the forefront of entertainment was the COVID-19 pandemic. With everyone stuck in their homes, almost everything had to be centred around technology. Prior to 2020, the video streaming market was limited to just a few major contenders, however between 2021 – 2022 platforms like Disney+, Peacock, Paramount+, Amazon Prime etc, were presented to the public making every major TV channel and Film company profit from their own VoD (Video on Demand) streaming platform.

What does statute say?

As of 24th May, the Media Act 2024 came into fruition, introducing new legislation, within Part 2 of the act, for PSB services, as it recognises the uprising of streaming, thus allowing for PSB VoD services to engage with similar protection as there scheduled channels do. It also requires the VoD service to meet similar, if not, the same demands as it would on a linear regime. An example of this would be the placement of PSBs on EPGs (Electronic Programme Guide) upholding the ‘prominence regime’ and having the main national general entertainments channel’s listed first. This however wasn’t extended to the VoD system, thus the need for statute.

The concepts of ‘regulated television services’ and ‘designated internet programme services’ were also introduced in Part 2. The ‘television selection service’ essentially allows internet programme services to be presented and selected between. As not all of these services will be subject to the new regulations, the Secretary of State will be selecting which services will be required to follow the set regulations based on the amount of usage the British public gets out of the service. Designated internet programme will allow for PSBs to be provided with designated solely for the VoD format.

The Future

While limited statute has been released for PSB services allowing them to maintain providence in alliance with statute regulations. It is likely not to going to convince the public to remain loyal to the nationally provided services as their pricing, quality and quantity are not worth it in comparison to what the streaming services are offering. It may be worth statute recognising the obvious competition put in place and allow for BBC VoD to match the price of their competitors and increase the range of their content. Either way, the monopoly once held by the BBC over the nation’s attention is decreasing, televisions and content are being threatened and ultimately being taken over by streaming platforms offering a plethora of content. Whether or not the BBC will rise to this challenge remains to be seen.

Olympic Rings and Legal Strings: The notorious I.O.C.

Olympic Rings and Legal Strings: The notorious I.O.C.

With a record number of global broadcasters lining up to deliver 11,000 hours of coverage across all 33 disciplines at Paris 2024, the Olympics are shaping up to be the ultimate playing field for advertising and visibility. However, as the Olympic torch approaches Paris, so does the International Olympic Committee’s relentless vigilance over unauthorised use of the ‘Olympic Properties’. Athletes and sponsors alike must be well-versed in navigating these regulations to avoid penalties and ensure a smooth performance both on and off the field.

Foul Play: Ambush Marketing

For non-Olympic sponsors, the legal landscape during the Games requires a strategic game plan. “Ambush marketing”, where non-official sponsors try to associate themselves with the Olympics without paying for the rights, is a legal foul that the IOC is committed to penalizing. The IOC’s ‘Olympic Properties’ encompass a broad range of intellectual property rights, including logos, trademarks, emblems and Olympic symbols. In a notable French case (TGI Paris, 1996), a company producing bottles of wine was condemned for attempting to usurp the notoriety attached to the Olympic Games by including a photo of Pierre de Coubertin, the colors of the Olympic rings, the Olympic Flame, and the words "centenary of Olympism." “Ambush marketing” can also include indirect references, or strategic placements during high-visibility moments. For instance, during the 1992 Winter Games in Albertville, a company was reprehended for using the term "OLYMPRIX" in reduced-price campaigns, deemed a deterioration in the image of the "OLYMPIC" Trademark. The Olympic Games are fraught with legal minefields for unofficial sponsors, where missteps can lead to sanctions from cease-and-desist orders to redress through traditional forms of intellectual property protection, and torts such as passing off.

Digital Defensive Line: Blackout Period

During the Games, from the Olympic Village's opening to two days after the closing ceremony inclusive, athletes and “accredited individuals” (coaches, team officials, entourage and volunteers) must navigate the social media field with caution. Known as the blackout period, social media restrictions complicate their ability to leverage their Olympic status for personal gain and constrain them to sideline their personal sponsors. Athletes are prohibited from mentioning unofficial sponsors or brands in any social media content that is commercial in nature. This includes but is not limited to promoting third parties or products/services, paid advertisements, endorsement or marketing, likely to result in Take Down action by the IOC. Star sprinter Elaine Thompson-Herah was temporarily blocked on Instagram after posting clips of her gold medal-winning races at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, due to an automatic process that enforces the Rights Holding Broadcasters’ (RHBs) exclusive rights to broadcast the Games, including on social media. These restrictions, beyond securing substantial financial returns from broadcasting rights, also enforce Rule 40 of the Olympic Charter.

Sponsorship Hurdles: Rule 40

Bye Law 3 to Rule 40: ‘Competitors, team officials and other team personnel who participate in the Olympic Games may allow their person, name, picture or sports performances to be used for advertising purposes during the Olympic Games in accordance with the principles determined by the IOC Executive Board’

The origins of Olympic advertising regulation trace back to the early 1960s, initially aimed at maintaining athletes’ amateur status. By 1991, Rule 40 was incorporated into the Olympic Charter to safeguard the financial stability of the Games by curbing excessive commercialization and managing the use of Olympic intellectual property. While the intent was to maintain the focus on athletic performance, it has increasingly restricted association between athletes and the non-paying sponsors and their ability to fully capitalize on their personal image. In the lead-up to Rio 2016, controversy surged as athletes protested Rule 40. The debate intensified after a 2019 German Bundeskartellamt ruling deemed the IOC’s rules anticompetitive, resulting in relaxed restrictions for German athletes. British Olympians also contested the British Olympic Association (BOA) over blackout rules, arguing that these regulations unfairly limited their earning potential during crucial peak career periods. In response, the IOC relaxed Rule 40 for the Paris 2024 Games, and introduced Key Principles, which include restrictions on the presence of advertising on the market at least 90 days prior to the Games and limiting athlete engagement with personal sponsors to one thank-you message.

While some applaud the IOC’s efforts to preserve the uniqueness of official Olympic marketing and support global athlete funding, enforcing Rule 40 often imposes undue financial strain on lesser-known or emerging competitors, curtailing significant revenue opportunities. Critics contend that these adjustments fall short of fully addressing athletes' concerns, notably considering the severity of repercussions for violations of Rule 40 such as losing accreditation, facing legal action, and, under Rule 59, even disqualification and forfeiture of medals.

 Carla Tabarie, 2024

The Future of Content Creation: Legal Insights on Sora and AI in Media

Photo by Eddie Kopp on Unsplash

Artificial Intelligence is revolutionising the media and entertainment industry, offering unprecedented capabilities in content creation, curation, and personalisation. Among these advancements, Sora stands out as a prime example of AI's developing transformative power in new media. With such developments, it is crucial to understand the limitations and legal implications that come with AI.

What is Sora?

Sora is an AI model, currently unreleased to the public, developed by Open AI which creates videos up to 1 minute long from text instructions. Sora is capable of generating content, recommend personalised media experiences, and even creating deepfake videos. Sora’s capabilities extend beyond simple automation, employing sophisticated algorithms to produce engaging and highly tailored content for users.

AI applications in media are diverse and growing and these trends underscore the need for a comprehensive understanding of the legal frameworks that govern AI in media.

Intellectual Property Rights of AI

One of the most pressing questions in the realm of AI is the issue of authorship and ownership. When Sora creates a piece of content, who owns it? Current legal frameworks often struggle to address this question, as traditional IP laws are designed with human creators in mind. The debate continues whether the developer, the user, or another entity holds the rights to AI-generated works.

Despite the ambiguities, there are strategies to protect AI-generated content. Registering works under the developer’s or user’s name, and clearly defining ownership in contracts, can provide a level of protection. However, enforcing these rights can be challenging, especially across different jurisdictions.

In the UK, the IPO announced in June 2023 that they were developing a code of practice for copyright and AI. Although there was no plan for legislation directed towards AI in the King’s Speech in November 2023, by April 2024 the House of Commons Culture, Media, and Sport Committee published a report recommending that content creators should enforce their consent and receive fair compensation for use of their work by AI developers.

Under EU laws, copyright is eligible for any work if it is original in the sense of being the author’s own intellectual creation which can be proven. The UK case law originally required in addition to this a certain amount of time, skill, and labour. In the UK, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides for literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works being computer-generated’ and provides that ‘the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken’.

Prompt-based generative AI differs in proposition to the computer-generated work in such a case and no case law has considered how computer-generated work would satisfy the requirement under EU case law that a work will be the author’s own intellectual creation’. Furthermore, the relevant platform’s terms of use must be considered. At the time of writing, the terms of service for ChatGPT, for example, purport to assign any copyright in the output to the user, but these terms may vary from platform to platform and may change over time as well.

Recent Case Studies

Several companies have successfully integrated AI like Sora into their media strategies. These companies often employ legal strategies to protect their AI initiatives and mitigate risks.

In June 2024, Toys “R” Us released the first ad created with Sora, which proved highly controversial to critics. The ad highlights the capacities of AI-generated videos through subtle errors where there seems to be inconsistencies throughout, including the model of the main character, who appears slightly different in each scene and seems to move in a rather unnatural sense. Furthermore, there are arguments that the rise in use of AI for commercial use shows the decline in human creativity.

Amazon also recently announced a new Winnie-the-Pooh series which was created using AI for efficiency. However, there seems to similarly have errors in the images that were used to promote this release. The use of generative AI to write and illustrate children’s books have become increasingly common, which is followed with a rise in backlash at the use of AI directed towards children and a young audience.

Examining legal disputes involving AI can provide valuable insights. For example, cases involving deepfake technology highlight the need for clear legal standards and robust enforcement mechanisms. Businesses can learn from these disputes to better navigate the legal landscape.

The integration of AI in new media, exemplified by systems like Sora, brings significant legal implications where understanding and addressing these challenges is crucial. As AI continues to evolve, so too must our legal frameworks and strategies. Staying informed and proactive in navigating these issues will be key to leveraging AI's full potential in the media industry.

 Angelina Hong 2024

New Media Law appointed as official legal adviser to GFU

On 1st July 2024, the Global Fighters Union (GFU) announced the appointment of New Media Law as their official legal adviser. We are honoured to partner with an organization dedicated to advocating for, improving, and representing participants in combat sports. The discipline of one-on-one combat, including boxing, karate, judo, taekwondo, wrestling, and ju-jitsu, is renowned for its intensity and physical demands. Recognising these challenges, the GFU was founded by boxing icons Paul Smith, Stephen Smith, and Amir Khan; who bring their extensive industry knowledge and collective experience to advocate for meaningful change within the sport.

The GFU is an inclusive union that welcomes members regardless of ability, gender, race, religion, or age. It fosters a supportive community where athletes can access a range of benefits, including representation and advocacy, legal assistance, health and safety support, education and training, and networking opportunities. 

As the Legal & Business Affairs representative, New Media Law is eager to support the growth and development of GFU members. We are committed to providing expert legal services and guidance to help athletes navigate the complexities of their sport. In alignment with GFU's mission, we are prepared to assist with contractual and negotiation support, dispute resolutions, and the protection of members' rights.

Our partnership aims to strengthen the union's mission of creating a fair and equitable environment for all combat sports participants. Together, we strive to ensure that every athlete has access to the resources and support they need to succeed, both in and out of the ring.

MiCannes '22 a great success! Now preparing for MiCannes '23...

In December 2021, Reed Midem announced that Midem was cancelled, permanently. After 54 years, the annual habit of the music industry to descend on Cannes in the South of France to eat, drink and be merry (and do deals, meet like minds and conduct business) was to come to an unglamorous end.

Together with a band of legendary music industry stalwarts, New Media Law resolved to ensure that this demise was avoided. Along with a gathering of some of the MIDEM “Old Guard”, such as Nigel Elderton, Eddie Levy, John Saunderson, Dave Loader, Christian Ulf-Hansen, Jay Mistry, Rick Riccobono, David Stark, Ryan Edwards, Tony Byrne, Debs Wild, Malcolm Dunbar, Joel Jordan, Ian Titchener, Colin Peter, Darryl Ballantyne, Martin O'Shea, Emma Stakes, Jeff Liebenson and many others, New Media Law's Ian Penman formed a Committee, to ensure that the Midem spirit in Cannes did not die out. The new event was imaginatively dubbed “Music Industry Cannes” and a website created to guide the participants: www.MiCannes.com

Everyone descended on Cannes in early June, and took part in 4 days of networking, sponsored events, and general fun and mayhem, supported by key sponsors such as the PRS for Music, Audoo, LyricFind and of course New Media Law.

Some world class acts sponsored by PRS and Audoo played at the magnificent MJC Picaud Theatre - and the reaction was fantastic. 2022’s line up included:

DIRTY BLACK SUMMER

GABRIEL TEMPLAR

LAPELS (courtesy of Marquee Records)

IVY MAE

AMiR

The team is now preparing for MiCannes '23, which will take place in Cannes between 6 June and 9 June 2023. Make sure you book your flights and accommodation now, before they get booked and prices go up!

For more information - go to www.MiCannes.com