The Debate Over AI Game Clones And Someone Else’s IP

🔍 Read the full analysis: The Debate Over AI Game Clones And Someone Else’s IP on ThorstenMeyerAI.com

Buying for a business?Offer from Amazon

Get business pricing on tech for your team

• Business-only prices and quantity discounts
• Tax-exempt purchasing
• Multiple users, one account, clear invoices

Create a free Business account →Free to register

As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.Hide

Take-Two Interactive CEO Strauss Zelnick said AI companies should protect other people’s intellectual property as well as their own, in a November 9 interview with IGN about tools that could be used to recreate games. He called the issue a creative concern, not a financial threat to Take-Two, but did not identify a specific AI product, game clone or incident.

The exchange came after IGN asked Zelnick about Anthropic’s new instruction for its Claude Code coding agent and whether OpenAI should introduce a similar restriction. Zelnick replied: “I think all companies should be protecting intellectual property, their own and everyone else’s.” He added that it seemed ironic for companies in the intellectual-property business to “stomp on someone else’s IP” while hoping their own rights would be protected.

The answer did not specify what conduct he meant by “stomp on” another company’s intellectual property. Zelnick did not name a game, allege that Claude or ChatGPT had cloned a Take-Two title, or distinguish between material used to train a model and content produced by its users. Headlines describing the remarks as a direct accusation against the two companies go beyond what the interview establishes: IGN’s question supplied their names, and Zelnick answered with a general principle and criticism framed as irony.

Asked separately about AI and piracy, Zelnick said he did not see it as a financial threat to Take-Two, but did see a creative issue. He said the company wants developers’ intended experiences to reach players and is protecting its intellectual property. On Take-Two’s earnings call that day, he said piracy would become “more of a challenge” and said the company was strengthening its technical defenses and legal activities.

How Game Clones Could Affect Creators

The remarks address two related but distinct concerns: piracy of a commercial release and AI-assisted creation of a work resembling an existing game. A pirated copy can undermine a publisher’s control over distribution. A clone that borrows a game’s characters, art, music or other distinctive elements can raise questions about creators’ rights and the boundaries of permitted reuse. Zelnick’s comments connect both topics to intellectual-property protection but do not establish that a particular clone exists or that a particular company enabled infringement.

For game studios, close imitation may raise concerns about a franchise’s identity and the creative work involved in making it. For AI developers, the remarks focus attention on safeguards for requests to recreate existing works and on how consistently product restrictions are applied. The interview contributes to the discussion of those policies, but does not resolve legal questions or establish how either company handles a specific game-cloning request.

Products Worth Considering

DJI Osmo 360 Motorcycle Handlebar POV Combo

AmazonView Latest Price

Amazon Kindle Paperwhite Signature Edition (2024), 32 GB, Metallic Black

AmazonView Latest Price

LG UltraGear 32GX870A-B 32-inch 4K UHD OLED Gaming Monitor

AmazonView Latest Price

As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.

What Anthropic and OpenAI Policies Say

Anthropic’s Claude Code instruction, introduced in version 2.1.317 on November 2, 2026, tells the model not to build a recreation of a specific existing game using its name, characters, art, music, levels or look, even if the result is renamed or described as original. Anthropic grounds the instruction in its broader usage policy, which prohibits infringing third-party intellectual property. The published game-specific wording addresses recreating a game; it does not itself say that the tool must block reverse engineering or decompilation.

OpenAI’s usage policies also prohibit attempts to infringe other people’s intellectual-property rights. The source report said it found no game-specific instruction in the open-source code of OpenAI’s Codex CLI. That observation is limited to the code examined; it does not establish how every OpenAI product responds to game-related requests. In the IGN interview, the question described Anthropic’s step as blocking reverse engineering, a broader description than the published instruction’s stated restriction on recreating a specific game.

On the earnings call, Zelnick said technical factors—including large files, the complexity of piracy and online server connections—had historically made piracy difficult for the company’s games. He also said AI could make the problem more challenging. His stated response was to strengthen technical defenses and legal activity, rather than to describe a particular enforcement action or a new company policy.

“I think all companies should be protecting intellectual property, their own and everyone else’s.”

— Strauss Zelnick, Take-Two Interactive chairman and CEO, speaking to IGN

The Conduct Zelnick Meant

Zelnick did not clarify whether his reference to companies “stomp[ing] on” others’ intellectual property concerned data used to train AI models, material generated by users, or another practice. The interview also provides no evidence that a Take-Two game has been cloned using Claude, ChatGPT or another named tool. It does not establish how often game-recreation requests are made or whether existing policies prevent infringement in practice.

As of 21:30 UTC on November 14, the source report found no public response from Anthropic or OpenAI to Zelnick’s remarks. The policy wording, his comments and the legal status of any hypothetical clone should not be treated as proof of a specific infringement case.

Policy Responses and Enforcement

Developments to watch include whether Anthropic or OpenAI responds publicly or clarifies its policies, and how the companies enforce restrictions on requests to recreate existing games. Take-Two has said it is strengthening technical defenses and legal activity, but has not detailed specific steps in the cited material. No particular lawsuit, product change or enforcement action was announced in the interview.

Further reporting may clarify how publishers distinguish conventional piracy from AI-generated works that resemble protected games. The confirmed development is that Zelnick called on AI companies to respect others’ intellectual property and described AI piracy as a creative concern, without specifying the target of his criticism or its practical implications.

Key Questions

What did Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick say about AI game clones?

He said companies should protect their own intellectual property and everyone else’s. He also described AI-related piracy as a creative concern, not a financial threat to Take-Two.

Did Zelnick accuse Anthropic or OpenAI of cloning a Take-Two game?

No specific accusation appears in the reported interview. The interviewer named Anthropic and OpenAI; Zelnick made a general criticism but did not identify a cloned game or a particular incident.

What restriction did Anthropic add to Claude Code?

The instruction says Claude Code should not build a recreation of a specific existing game using elements such as its name, characters, art, music, levels or look—even if the result is renamed or called original. The reported instruction appeared in version 2.1.317, published November 2, 2026.

Does OpenAI have a rule against infringing intellectual property?

OpenAI’s usage policies prohibit attempts to infringe other people’s intellectual-property rights. The source report found no game-specific instruction in the open-source Codex CLI code it examined; that finding does not establish how every OpenAI product handles such requests.

What remains unknown about the dispute?

Zelnick did not define what he meant by “stomp on” others’ intellectual property, and the cited material does not establish that a Take-Two game was cloned with an AI tool. The source report also found no public response from Anthropic or OpenAI as of November 14, 2026.

Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com