Ownership and protection boundaries for online-game IP

Works, development contributions and substantial imitation

Research cut-off: 22 July 2026
This paper uses public laws, court materials, licence texts and industry sources. It is an academic research paper, not legal advice for a particular project, contract or dispute.

Abstract

An online game is neither a single intellectual-property right nor a mechanical pile of code, art and music. It contains programs and documents, continuous audiovisual output, characters and scenes, maps and interfaces, text and music, numbers and rules. After launch, player actions, livestream commentary, tournament production, mods and user-generated content interact with those developer-created materials. PRC copyright law has no separate “online-game work” category. Courts have treated sufficiently original dynamic images through the audiovisual-work framework and have separately protected maps, characters and rule text; they have also disagreed about whether mechanics, systems and operation methods are expression. Earlier Panda Warrior and Overwatch cases used a broader copyright route for combinations of mechanics, values, resources and interfaces. The Minecraft line and a 2025 Guangdong High People’s Court model judgment draw a stricter line and put systematic “reskinning” primarily into unfair-competition analysis. Neither can be reduced to “gameplay is never protected” or “specific gameplay is automatically copyright”.

Ownership cannot be answered by “the company paid”, “the employee made it” or a registration certificate. Corporate works, ordinary employee works, special employee works, employee-developed software, joint works and commissioned works have different elements. A founder’s pre-incorporation demo, personal repository or platform account does not move into the company merely because a company is formed. Unless a commission agreement clearly says otherwise, copyright in outsourced work generally remains with the commissioned creator. Fonts, music, plugins, models, asset libraries, open-source components and SDK terms may also mean that a company “owns the game” but cannot use it across the intended medium, territory or business model.

The paper proposes an object-by-object, ownership-by-ownership, claim-by-claim and evidence-throughout method. First classify software, the whole audiovisual output and separable elements. Filter ideas, functions, conventions, public material and prior expression. Compare only the remaining original expression under copyright; assess competitive interests, substantial harm, unfairness and market order independently under competition law. During development, map each core asset to creator, capacity, agreement, version and third-party licence. In litigation, use repositories and process records for ownership, reproducible capture and filtered comparison for infringement, and revenue and contribution data for damages. The boundary is not an abstract answer to whether a game is protected as a whole; it is a chain of proof about a particular object, contribution and act.

Keywords: online games; audiovisual works; computer software; gameplay; employee works; commissioned works; rights chain; substantial similarity; unfair competition; livestreaming; UGC; mods

1. Questions, objects and method

A game commonly includes client and server programs, editors and development tools, database structures, design documents, characters, animation, effects, scenes, maps, UI, icons, plot, dialogue, music, sound, names and marks. After launch, players may create recordings, streams, maps, buildings, mods and stories. Calling all of this “game IP” is useful commercially but hides three legal questions: whether each result is a work and what type; who owns the rights; and whether the challenged conduct copies protected expression, uses an unprotected mechanism or harms a separate competitive interest.

Article 3 of the Copyright Law [1] lists literary, musical, artistic, photographic, audiovisual, graphic, model and software works, and other intellectual achievements with originality, but does not list online games. The question whether a game is “a work” must therefore be answered together with the presentation and claim. Recognising a dynamic sequence as an audiovisual work does not absorb code, rules, platform services or all commercial value into one monopoly. Separately protecting a character or map does not mean the product can only be enforced as fragments.

This paper connects development and disputes. Development contribution determines the origin of a right; contracts and licences determine whether it enters the company; product assembly determines which objects can be claimed; evidence determines whether the boundary can be proved. Publishing settlement, the complete AI-training chain, non-competes and trade secrets are addressed only at necessary interfaces. The method combines statutory interpretation, object classification, comparison of 16 public cases or case groups, and a workflow analysis from contribution and versioning to contracting, asset intake and use.

Public materials have limits. Some important judgments are unpublished, so summaries omit proof and comparison detail. Shanghai’s 2025 set of 22 game cases is largely anonymised. Public materials give different first-instance numbers for the Miracle MU case: “529” in one court collection and “191” in another source that clearly assigns 191 to a DOTA2 broadcast case. This paper uses the more consistent (2015) Pu Min San (Zhi) Chu No. 529 and keeps the conflict visible.

2. Composite objects and categories of work

2.1 Whole and parts can both be protected

Three overlapping layers are useful:

The whole and its components are not contradictory. A film is an audiovisual work while its script and music may remain separately enforceable. A game can similarly support claims for a full dynamic sequence, character art, spatial map arrangement and plot text. Article 17 of the Copyright Law [3] allows separately usable scripts and music in an audiovisual work to exercise rights independently. The same harm should not receive mechanically cumulative damages merely because several labels are placed on it.

2.2 Software does not monopolise function

The Software Protection Regulation [4] treats a program and its related documents as software; source and object code are one work, protected on independent creation and fixation. It excludes the ideas, processes, operating methods and mathematical concepts used to develop software, and excludes similarity where the available forms of expression are limited. The same function, compatible protocol, interface call or similar play experience does not prove code copying.

Comparison should first remove open-source components, SDKs, generated files, public libraries, programming conventions and unavoidable implementation choices. Only then should the structure, sequence and comments of the remaining code be examined. A percentage of code similarity is technical evidence, not the legal conclusion: the court must ask whether the shared part is original, central or peripheral, and whether its source was lawful. A software-registration certificate is initial evidence [5], not final proof of creation. The registration version, claimed version and challenged version need a tag, commit, build, hash and release mapping.

2.3 Dynamic images and interactivity

The Fantasy Westward Journey, Miracle MU and Overwatch lines [6][7] treat original sequences generated by a game as a film-like work under the former law or an audiovisual work under the current law. In Miracle MU, characters, maps, skills, weapons and equipment are called by code into continuous images with or without sound; player choices operate within developer-set images and paths and are not necessarily independent creation. Fantasy Westward Journey further examined commercial livestreaming by purpose, nature, amount and market effect.

That route has limits. The object is an identifiable audiovisual expression, not all technical and commercial functions. A linear game, fixed camera and open sandbox give developers different control over a particular sequence. Work status and infringement are separate: in Minecraft [8], the court accepted that the overall images could be audiovisual works but found that the similarity was in game-element design rather than the protected sequences.

Article 17 [9] also raises an ownership question for audiovisual works other than films and television. The parties may agree; absent a clear agreement, the producer holds the rights while authors retain attribution and remuneration rights. Who is the “producer” of a game, and whether programmers and artists are authors entitled to remuneration, depends on organisation and contract. A classification judgment does not itself settle every ownership issue.

2.4 Characters, scenes, maps, interfaces and effects

Protection of a character depends on original lines, proportions, colour, clothing, expression and combination, not fame. An archetype, class, race or “red-haired warrior with a sword” is an idea or common element; a sufficiently specific and recognisable design can be an artistic work. The Dragon Nest case [10] used concrete characters and scenes and treated an earlier collaboration as access evidence.

Maps require three filters: surface art, spatial arrangement and functional play. A screenshot may be art. Routes, entrances, cover and area relationships formed a graphic work in the CrossFire line [11]; “symmetrical competitive map” and “three lanes and two jungles” are closer to rules or convention. Guangdong’s court filtered common, prior and unoriginal material, finding substantial similarity in four of six maps rather than treating all six as protected.

UI is also constrained by function. Health bars, inventory grids, virtual joysticks and confirmation buttons have narrow protection. A freely chosen combination of hierarchy, animation, graphic and colour can be expressive. A single particle effect may be common or engine-generated; a coordinated sequence of effect, rhythm, camera and sound may enter audiovisual or artistic analysis.

2.5 Text, world-building and music

Abstract settings—post-apocalyptic factions, cultivation levels or Three Kingdoms card characters—are ideas or public material. Concrete character relations, event order, dialogue, quest text, item descriptions and narrative arrangement may be literary or audiovisual expression. The Three Kingdoms Kill rule-description case [12] distinguished general gameplay from wording: names and descriptions of cards, equipment, skills and achievements, and their arrangement after filtering public Three Kingdoms material, could be protected as a manual-like text.

Music has a separate chain: composer, lyricist, recording producer, performer and library licence. Permission to play in the game does not automatically cover soundtrack release, advertising, tournaments, streamer recordings or commercial short videos. Possessing a music file is not possessing every adaptation, online-distribution, performance, recording and sublicensing right.

3. Gameplay, rules, mechanics and expression

3.1 The idea/expression distinction needs filtering

Rules state what a player may do, how to win, how resources change and how the system responds. They ordinarily resemble ideas, systems, processes or operating methods. Protecting a mechanic as copyright could bypass patent novelty, inventiveness and disclosure. A 2025 Guangdong model judgment [13] therefore said that a detailed and carefully designed system of game elements could remain a mechanic rather than copyright expression.

But “gameplay is unprotected” answers only one layer. Abstract objectives and mechanisms—turns, collection, crafting, card costs and victory conditions—are generally free. Functional parameter relationships—cooldowns, damage, growth curves and economies—are close to mechanics, although a particular arrangement can be evidence of expression. Rule wording, examples, tables and card descriptions may be literary or graphic expression. Character motion, camera, UI, sound and scene combinations after a rule runs can be protected audiovisual expression.

3.2 Merger, necessity and limited expression

If an idea has only one or very few forms, protecting the form would monopolise the idea. Red for health, arrows for direction, grid cells for movement, a first-person crosshair, a MOBA minimap and an RPG equipment panel are often functional, conventional or limited expressions. Courts should filter those, plus prior material, before comparison. Filtering does not destroy protection: originality may lie in the selection and arrangement of many weak elements. A claimant must identify the free choices, define the combination and show which relationships were copied.

3.3 Numerical systems

A single number is rarely a work. Values derived from balance objectives, probabilities and economy logic are functional. A complete table may nevertheless contain non-essential choices. The Panda Warrior summary [14] noted 24 identical or proportionally adjusted attributes among 47 equipment items and assessed those figures with mechanics, interface and skills. A 2025 SLG model case instead treated parameter types, values and relationships as mechanics and used competition law for systematic copying. The difference lies in defining the object. Ask first whether function, genre or standard determines the value, then whether it forms a perceptible expressive arrangement with words, UI and object relations. If the value lies in saving balance-testing and product-validation cost rather than copying expression, competition law may be the better route.

3.4 Unfair competition as a restrained supplement

The amended PRC Anti-Unfair Competition Law [15] took effect on 15 October 2025. The market regulator’s 2026 implementation notice stresses confusion, data, algorithms and new forms of online unfair competition, while warning against both overreach and tolerance. A “reskin” claim should establish: individual commercial value created through investment and market validation; actual competition for the same players or attention; scope, density, errors, development timing and access indicating substitution for independent development; substantial harm to opportunity, innovation incentives or consumer choice; and unfairness grounded in identifiable commercial norms. Minecraft [16] stresses that competition law protects a competitive interest rather than expanding copyright. The 2025 model judgment treats harm as neutral and dynamic competition as valuable: imitation is not automatically unlawful. Systematic appropriation across the whole and details, plainly inconsistent with good faith and harmful to order, may cross the line. Competition law is a separate and cautious supplement, not a copyright without a term.

4. Development contribution and ownership

Corporate works [17] require organisational direction, expression of the organisation’s will and responsibility under the organisation’s name; “team project” is not enough. Ordinary employee works [18] generally belong to the creator, with the employer having priority use, while special employee works—such as software, maps and engineering drawings made mainly with the employer’s resources and under its responsibility—may vest the economic rights in the employer. Software has a specific rule [19]: in-service software is employer-owned where it implements a specifically assigned objective, is a foreseeable result of duties, or mainly uses the employer’s funds, equipment or confidential information.

One employment contract should not be used to collapse code, art, music and plot into one answer. Joint works [20] require common creative intent and contribution; funding, management, testing and approval are not automatically creative contribution. Commissioning [21] requires a clear agreement because, absent agreement, the commissioned creator normally owns copyright. Payment, source delivery, an invoice saying “art production fee” and a registration certificate do not substitute for a transfer clause.

A workable rights-aggregation schedule identifies source files, project files, drafts, rejected versions, tools, documents and modifications; the rights transferred or licensed; territory, duration, media and sublicensing; attribution, moral-rights consents where lawful; delivery and acceptance; third-party materials; and remedies. Founder-created demos and personal repositories need a written contribution, licence or assignment when the company is formed. Part-time staff, advisers, interns and resident outsourcing personnel require separate review of task, equipment, confidentiality, payment and creation.

5. Third-party assets and open source

Review third-party assets by use, not file name. A font licence [22] may permit embedding but restrict modification or redistribution. Music may permit in-game use but not commercial livestreams. An SDK licence may restrict reverse engineering, data collection, geography or advertising. An asset store purchase may be personal, non-transferable or limited to one product. The due-diligence question is not “does the folder contain the file?” but “can the company perform the intended act in the intended territory and medium?”

Open source [23] is not a free asset and Copyleft is not a ban on commercial use. MIT and Apache licences usually permit commercial use subject to notices and conditions; GPL and AGPL can impose source-disclosure or network-interaction consequences when covered code is combined or provided as a service. The project should preserve licence version, source, NOTICE, modifications, dependency graph, distribution mode and compliance decision. A compatible licence must also be compatible with the game’s intended distribution and proprietary code.

AI-generated or AI-assisted assets should be analysed through the traditional chain: what human contribution is claimed, what service terms govern input and output, whether training or output restrictions are relevant, whether third-party style or content is implicated, and whether prompts, iterations and selection are preserved. Public Chinese cases [24][25] on the copyright significance of a human-created generation process show that proof of contribution matters; they do not create a blanket guarantee for AI output.

6. Livestreams, tournaments, mods and UGC

A stream may contain the game, player operation, oral commentary, camera, editing and platform arrangement. The streamer may own new commentary or programme expression; that does not erase the underlying owner’s rights. Fantasy Westward Journey [26] assessed commercial livestreaming by purpose, nature, quantity and market effect; a large organised profit-making use was not fair use. A short review, tutorial, news report or non-commercial community clip can differ materially.

Tournament broadcasting has at least three objects: the game, the match and the produced programme. In the DOTA2 Asian Invitational case [27], the defendant used the client’s spectator function without the claimant’s commentary and camera production. The court did not simply protect the tournament programme as copyright but recognised competitive interest in exclusive broadcast investment. The two routes differ because the object and authorisation differ. Agreements should separately address game/client access, event rules, footage, commentary, music, player image, signal, replay, editing and distribution.

Mods raise rights to copy, modify, adapt and distribute software and assets; whether the mod runs locally or distributes original files; SDK/EULA permission; circumvention of technical measures; server and fair-play effects; trademark confusion; and originality in new code and art. Non-commercial status is a factor, not a general exemption. In the YaoYao virtual-location plug-in case [28], the court treated disruption of location-based play and fair competition as legally relevant. A clear mod policy can permit defined uses while reserving action against cheats, private servers, unlicensed IP and security risks.

UGC depends on identifiable free choices. Choosing a preset skin or following a fixed recipe is usually use, not authorship. A sandbox building, original map, story, model or music may be a work, but fan creation using game assets may be a derivative work. Terms should grant only the storage, display, recommendation, conversion, moderation and necessary sublicensing needed to operate; commercialisation, official integration or third-party licensing should be separately addressed. Avatar, voice, nickname and motion data create personality and personal-information issues. Notice-and-takedown systems [29] should verify the claimed right, locate content, preserve evidence and offer a reasonable counter-notice process.

7. Trademark, copyright and competition law

Short game names may be too brief for copyright but can become source identifiers through registration, use, promotion and player recognition. In the Call of Duty film-name case [30], associating a film with the established game name created confusion and unfair imitation. A character name or design may simultaneously be art and a mark. Copyright protects expression without proving confusion; trademark and unfair competition protect source identity and goodwill. The same facts can support alternative claims without duplicating damages.

Start with the object copied: code or documents points to software copyright; character, map, scene, text or music to the relevant work; name, logo, domain or keyword to trademark or confusion; a false “official” sequel to misleading representation; a mechanism systematically taken to unfair competition only after strict proof; cheats and account rental to online unfair competition or a general clause. In the Westward Journey case [31], the court evaluated 78 similar elements under copyright and did not apply competition law redundantly to the same conduct.

8. Substantial imitation

“Access plus substantial similarity” is a useful framework, not a shortcut. Access may be shown by public release, accounts, media testing, cooperation, employee movement or development materials. In Hearthstone [32], access to core card data, sample production from test videos, a testing account and a 20-working-day build collectively weakened independent creation. Access does not prove that the similar material is protected.

Use four steps: identify the claimed object; filter mechanics, function, genre convention, public material, prior expression, licensed elements and limited expression; compare composition, route, hierarchy, event order, relationships and rhythm; then apply an overall test to the protected portion’s qualitative importance. Four of six CrossFire maps being held similar shows why each object needs its own analysis. Minecraft shows that 230 similar elements cannot by themselves prove audiovisual similarity.

“Reskin” is industry shorthand, not a legal element. It may be copyright infringement of concrete resources and sequences; unfair competition when only mechanics are taken in an excessive and dishonest way; or lawful genre borrowing with independent expression. Player comments may support access or market perception but cannot replace expert comparison. Remedies should be proportionate. In Minecraft [33] the court required removal of 230 elements rather than stopping the entire sandbox service, considering the proportion of infringement, feasibility of correction and possible rights in player creations.

9. Evidence from development to court

A usable rights chain has five groups: creation and date (Git, source files, layers, drafts, tasks, mail, build logs); company basis (employment, adviser, outsourcing, founder and assignment/licence agreements); delivery (acceptance, payment, invoices, lists, source and account transfer); third-party legality (orders, licence versions, author permission, open-source list and NOTICE); and registration/version correspondence (deposit, version number, hash and release).

Capture of a dynamic game should preserve download address, version, device and system, account, server, time, steps, full recording, screenshots, package and hash. Maps can be compared by overhead views, coordinates, route length, entrances, cover and area relationships; UI by hierarchy and state; code with build environment and dependencies. Technical expert evidence identifies facts, but work status, substantial similarity and fair use remain legal judgments.

Damages may use actual loss, infringer profit, licence fee, statutory damages and, where conditions are met, enhanced damages under Article 54 [34]. Relevant data includes downloads, users, top-ups, server count, online time, channel share, advertising revenue, licence fee and product profit. Total turnover is not automatically infringement profit; the copied element’s contribution and proven costs matter. CrossFire [35] combined average monthly profit, infringing-map online time and contribution. Fantasy Westward Journey separated game, streamer and platform contributions. In Minecraft, refusal to produce business data contributed to an evidentiary award of RMB 50 million.

Evidence governance should be a development rule. No core branch should accept an asset without creator, agreement, source and licence. A major build should generate an SBOM, asset list and hash. On departure, return access, repositories, source and creation confirmations. Preserve market and financial data by version, channel and territory.

10. Trends and limits

The centre of litigation is moving from whether game images can be a film-like work to which expressive choices remain after filtering, how open interaction affects developer control and which similarities are mechanisms. Gameplay cases are reallocating claims between copyright and competition law. The latter route can avoid using copyright to bypass patent requirements, but its general clause must not become a perpetual quasi-copyright.

Whole-work protection and ownership still pull in different directions. A producer may hold a right in the whole audiovisual work without having a clean licence for outsourced music or character art; a character author may hold a local right without being able to dispose of the game. UGC, mods and generative content do not yet have a stable Chinese case group. Historical cases also use earlier versions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law; their article numbers and factual assumptions cannot simply be relabelled under the 2025 amendment.

11. Conclusions

An online game can be protected as a whole, but no single category does all the work. Original dynamic images may be audiovisual works; source and documentation are software; original characters, maps, text, music and UI may be separately protected. Mechanics and rules require filtering: abstract systems are free, while rule wording, spatial expression, concrete sequences and selection arrangements may be protected. Competition law can address systematic appropriation of a valuable competitive interest, but requires proof of actual competition, excess imitation, bad faith or commercial unfairness and market harm.

The rights chain starts when contribution is made. Corporate, employee, software, joint and commissioned-work rules are not interchangeable. Formation of a company, payment, delivery or registration does not replace a clear acquisition document. Fonts, music, models, plugins, SDKs and open-source components must be matched to the intended medium, territory, derivative use and sublicensing. Livestreams, tournaments, mods and UGC combine new contributions with underlying rights; scene-specific community policies are more durable than “ban everything” or “the platform owns everything”.

Ultimately, game IP disputes are evidence engineering. The object must be describable, ownership traceable, similarity filtered and damages calculable. The boundary is not a first impression of whether two games look alike; it is whether ideas, expression, contribution, licence and market interest have each been proved.

12. Limitations

Some cases are available only as summaries and important docket numbers conflict. Mods, UGC and ownership of newer audiovisual works lack a stable body of effective judgments. This paper does not systematically cover patents, trade secrets, non-competes, data compliance, publishing approval, revenue settlement or the full generative-AI chain. A project-specific opinion requires its source code, contracts, versions, personnel and territories.

References

[1] PRC Copyright Law, Article 3, Chinese Government.
[2] Shanghai IP Court, Miracle MU materials, and Pudong Court case collection: court source; case collection.
[3] PRC Copyright Law, Article 17, same source as [1].
[4] Software Protection Regulation, Articles 2, 4, 6 and 29, CAC.
[5] Software Protection Regulation, Article 7, same source as [4].
[6] Shanghai IP Court, Miracle MU case, court source.
[7] Guangdong High People’s Court, 2019 Top Ten IP Cases, Case 2, court source.
[8] Guangdong High People’s Court, Minecraft second-instance judgment report, court source.
[9] PRC Copyright Law, Article 17, same source as [1].
[10] Shanghai courts, typical online-game IP case on game elements, source.
[11] Guangdong courts, 2021 IP protection cases, Case 1, source.
[12] Pudong Court case collection, (2017) Hu 0115 Min Chu 27056, source.
[13] Guangdong High People’s Court, 2025 game-IP model judgment materials, source.
[14] Panda Warrior case materials, cited in [15].
[15] State Administration for Market Regulation, 2026 implementation materials on unfair competition, official portal.
[16] Minecraft case, cited in [8].
[17] PRC Copyright Law, Article 11, same source as [1].
[18] PRC Copyright Law, Article 18, same source as [1].
[19] Software Protection Regulation, Article 13, same source as [4].
[20] PRC Copyright Law, Article 14; Software Protection Regulation, Article 10.
[21] PRC Copyright Law, Article 19; Software Protection Regulation, Article 11.
[22] SIL Open Font License 1.1, OFL.
[23] GPLv3, AGPLv3, Apache-2.0 and MIT licence texts: GNU, Apache, MIT.
[24] Supreme People’s Court IP Tribunal, (2021) SPC IP Civil Final 2063, source.
[25] Beijing courts’ AI case notices, source.
[26] Fantasy Westward Journey case, cited in [7].
[27] Pudong Court case collection and DOTA2 report, source.
[28] Pudong Court (2019) Hu 0115 Xing Bao 1, cited in [12].
[29] Regulation on the Protection of the Right of Communication through Information Networks, National Laws Database.
[30] Shanghai courts, game-name confusion case, cited in [10].
[31] Shanghai courts, platform liability case, cited in [10].
[32] Shanghai IP Court, Hearthstone copying case, court source.
[33] Minecraft remedies, cited in [8].
[34] PRC Copyright Law, Article 54, same source as [1].
[35] CrossFire, Fantasy Westward Journey and Minecraft cases, cited in [7], [8] and [11].