Copyright OwnershIP In AI-Driven Game Development Rooted In Indonesian Folklore
Copyright Ownership in AI-Driven Game Development Rooted in Indonesian Folklore
AI-driven game development involves using artificial intelligence tools (procedural generation, generative AI for characters, storylines, music, or environments) to create video games. When the content is rooted in Indonesian folklore (e.g., legends like Timun Mas, Sangkuriang, or Nyai Roro Kidul), several copyright and legal questions arise:
Ownership of folklore-based content – Indonesian folklore is part of public domain cultural heritage, but creative depictions may be copyrighted.
AI authorship – Can AI-generated characters, storylines, or graphics be copyrighted?
Derivative works – When AI generates content inspired by existing folklore-based games or media.
1. Core Principles in Copyright for AI Games
(A) Folklore and Public Domain
Traditional Indonesian stories cannot be copyrighted because they are public cultural knowledge.
However, specific creative expressions (scripts, artwork, music) derived from folklore can be copyrighted if they are original.
(B) Human Authorship Requirement
Most copyright systems (including Indonesian law and international norms) require human creativity.
AI cannot be an author; ownership usually belongs to the human designer or game developer controlling the AI output.
(C) Idea–Expression Dichotomy
AI can generate ideas or procedural content based on folklore.
Only specific expressive content is protected.
2. Key Ownership Models in AI Game Development
Human-led AI development
Game designers guide AI to generate characters, quests, and dialogues.
Copyright likely belongs to human developers or the company.
Autonomous AI generation
AI produces a game fully autonomously.
Copyright protection may not exist under current law.
Collaborative human-AI creation
Human designers refine, edit, or select AI outputs.
Humans can claim authorship of the final work.
3. Relevant Case Laws (Global & Conceptual)
Here are seven landmark cases that inform AI-driven game development copyright:
1. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony (1884)
Facts: Napoléon Sarony photographed Oscar Wilde; company reproduced without permission.
Decision: Copyright exists because human creativity controlled the photo’s composition.
Relevance:
AI in games is similar: if a human directs AI to produce characters or quests, human creative control can grant copyright.
2. Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (1991)
Facts: A phonebook was copied; factual data itself is not copyrightable.
Decision: Only creative compilations qualify.
Relevance:
Indonesian folklore is factual/traditional. AI can generate content, but only the unique creative expression in the game (artwork, dialogue, gameplay) can be copyrighted.
3. Naruto v. Slater (2018) – The “Monkey Selfie” Case
Facts: A monkey took a selfie; courts denied copyright for non-human authors.
Relevance:
AI cannot own copyright.
Ownership belongs to humans or the company controlling AI.
4. Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023)
Facts: AI autonomously generated artwork. The owner tried to register AI as author.
Decision: Rejected; copyright requires human authorship.
Application:
Fully autonomous AI games based on folklore may lack copyright protection.
Ownership is valid only if humans actively guide or curate AI content.
5. Anderson v. Stallone (1989)
Facts: Unauthorized derivative script using Rocky characters was not copyrightable.
Relevance to Folklore Games:
If AI recreates copyrighted games inspired by folklore (e.g., other commercially released folklore games), it may be considered a derivative work.
Requires permission/licensing to avoid infringement.
6. Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp. (1982)
Facts: Game Pac-Man was cloned in K.C. Munchkin. Court examined similarities in gameplay mechanics.
Decision: Protectable elements include unique expression, but general ideas (maze, movement) are not.
Relevance:
AI-generated gameplay inspired by folklore must avoid copying distinctive gameplay mechanics from existing games.
Protects original AI-generated game mechanics but not folklore ideas themselves.
7. Authors Guild v. Google (2015)
Facts: Google scanned copyrighted books to create search indexes. Court ruled transformative use is fair.
Relevance:
AI training using folklore-inspired artworks or stories may be lawful under fair use/fair dealing, if transformed creatively.
Helps AI developers legally train models using folklore content or historical Indonesian artworks.
4. Ownership Scenarios in Indonesian Folklore Games
Scenario 1: AI as a tool
Developer inputs Timun Mas storyline, AI generates visuals, music, and side quests.
Human selects and edits outputs.
Ownership: Developer holds copyright.
Scenario 2: Fully autonomous AI
AI independently generates a folklore-based game with no human intervention.
Ownership: Likely no copyright, enters public domain.
Scenario 3: Collaborative AI
Human designer refines AI-generated Sangkuriang scenes.
Ownership: Humans or studio owns copyright.
5. Legal Challenges in AI Folklore Games
Derivative Works
Avoid recreating copyrighted games or films inspired by folklore.
Cultural Sensitivity
Indonesian folklore is cultural heritage; AI misuse may raise ethical or social disputes, even if not strictly copyright law.
Training Data Copyright
Using existing media or artworks without permission could trigger infringement.
Public Domain Ambiguity
Folklore is free to use, but unique adaptations can still be copyrighted.
6. Conclusion
AI cannot own copyright: Courts (Thaler, Naruto) consistently reject non-human authorship.
Folklore itself is public domain: Originality lies in creative expression (art, story, gameplay).
Human intervention is key: Burrow-Giles and Feist emphasize human creative control.
Derivative risks exist: Anderson and Atari highlight avoiding copyright infringement from preexisting works.
AI training and transformation: Authors Guild v. Google supports transformative use but must be careful.
Practical Implication:
For an AI-driven game based on Indonesian folklore, the studio or human designers who guide, curate, and select AI-generated content are the rightful copyright owners. Autonomous AI works may remain unprotected.
RELATED Blog
comments