Film or game? Identity, IP and compliance for interactive live-action games going global

Zhiheng “David” Ho · Consultant | King & Win Law Firm (Shanghai)

In recent years, China’s interactive live-action game market has grown rapidly. With The Invisible Guardian and Love Is All Around as examples, more teams are exploring how to bring this kind of content from China to overseas markets, and are facing new questions along the way. Will the target market accept the product, and is the company entitled to use the content in the planned way? Both conditions must be satisfied. Clarifying how they apply before considering film versions, overseas dubbing and AI characters helps turn compliance requirements into costs the business can plan for.

TL;DR

Chinese edition: approximately 4,500 characters; about a 12-minute read.

• Assess identity under each rule: Interaction, delivery and the responsible entity affect classification; games, audiovisual works and programme services can overlap across legal regimes.
• Confirm access separately: Store acceptance, age and content requirements, and local registration or licensing are separate questions.
• Check extensions by use: A licence for global release of the game may not cover a film adaptation, voice cloning or newly generated performances.
• Tie the decision to the version: Each version to be sold should match its market conditions, rights scope, production cost and responsible party.

1. Film, game or audiovisual service? Establish the legal categories first

Interactive live-action entertainment is not a legal category shared by every jurisdiction, and it should not be assumed to fall only under game rules. Live-action filming, story choices and a game-store listing describe assets, features and a channel. The legal question concerns what is actually supplied: a game, a video work or a programme service offered to the public.

1.1 Identify what the law is classifying

Product categories, service categories and copyright categories answer different questions. Supplying a physical game or film raises rating and distribution requirements; running a video catalogue may engage audiovisual-service rules; classifying scripts, software and footage affects ownership and exploitation rights. A conclusion at one level does not settle the others.

For example, the categories for software and audiovisual material in §§101–102 of the US Copyright Act and Copyright Office guidance concern copyright protection. The EU Nintendo case and the French Cryo case also address games as complex subject matter. A game can therefore contain material protected under audiovisual-work rules without necessarily being a film for distribution regulation.19

1.2 How the relevant jurisdictions draw the boundaries

United States: distinguish legal categories from channel categories. ESRB is an industry rating system, not a cross-cutting legal certification that a product is a game. The rating for Late Shift shows that live-action interactive works can enter that system; it does not decide another product’s legal status. A separately released linear version calls for a separate assessment of its intended channel and rights.239

United Kingdom: assess physical supply and on-demand services separately. The Video Recordings Act treats games and other video works differently, but its game-rating and exemption conditions do not define every product with choice buttons as a game. Physical releases involve a division of responsibilities between GRA/PEGI and BBFC. Accompanying videos also raise the question of whether they drive the game’s narrative. For an on-demand programme service, the Communications Act instead looks at principal purpose, editorial responsibility, public access and jurisdictional connections; notification and content-protection duties may follow. Video within a game is not automatically a separate programme service.4

European Union: distinguish a game from an audiovisual media service. Recital 22 of the AVMSD excludes online games from the Directive’s scope. Article 1, however, asks whether the principal purpose of a service or a dissociable section is to provide programmes to the public under editorial responsibility, alongside other conditions. A separate viewing catalogue within a game app may still engage audiovisual-service rules, including child-protection and advertising requirements. Selection or pause controls alone do not exclude those rules.5

Member states also attach requirements to particular distribution methods: Germany’s youth-protection law covers both film and game media, while France has a cinema exhibition visa route and separate labelling rules for game media. The EU service classification is not a single film-release permit, and a game classification does not remove national requirements.6

Thailand and Singapore: games can sit within broader film or video legislation. Thailand’s Film and Video Act includes game forms in its definition of Video. Singapore’s Films Act also includes video games that meet its definition within the broader term film; its definition of an interactive game focuses on player decisions, inputs and direct involvement determining progress and results at each stage. Falling within that broader category does not make the specific classification procedures for games and ordinary films identical.8

Indonesia and Vietnam: interaction criteria and express exclusions serve different roles. Article 1 of Indonesia’s game-classification regulation 2/2024 focuses on interaction with software through hardware and audiovisual feedback, while film law has a separate definition. A branching live-action program must be assessed by its actual features; a separately edited film requires a film-law assessment. Article 3 of Vietnam’s 2022 Cinema Law expressly excludes electronic games from its definition of film. Within the game regime, player and server interaction then helps distinguish G1–G4 and the corresponding procedures.7

1.3 Which product changes call for reassessment?

The proportion of live-action footage, number of branches or video length may not currently constitute hard thresholds. A business should explain whether choices change the story or game state, or merely select a video to watch; whether it supplies a standalone program or an editorially controlled programme catalogue; and how and by whom it is supplied. These are facts to establish, not a universal legal definition of a game.

Where player decisions change progress, state and outcomes in a fixed-branch product, those facts can support assessment under game rules. Episode selection, seeking or choosing an ending alone does not guarantee exclusion from audiovisual-service rules. This is a project-specific assessment based on product features, which must be matched to the local definitions. Removing interaction to produce a film, adding a separate viewing mode or moving to an ongoing programme catalogue calls for reassessment of the affected version or service.

Once the applicable route has been identified, the next section addresses market conditions and the third section addresses content rights. A game rating does not complete actor clearance, and a complete rights grant does not replace local release formalities.

Start with the actual features, then assess each legal category

Shared starting point: how this version is supplied

Interaction · delivery format · target market · responsible entity

Apply local rules to three parallel questions

The categories can coexist. One classification does not exclude the other rules.

Then assess market access, content and performer permissions, and production arrangements.

A separate viewing mode, a different release method or added AI features calls for reassessment of the affected categories and duties.

Figure 1 | From version facts to applicable rules. Assess the three categories in parallel; definitions and scope are explained in the text.

2. Where can it be sold? Separate three market-access conditions

Even if a product is treated as a game, there is no universal “certificate to sell overseas.” The company needs to distinguish channel conditions, age and content requirements, and local registration or licensing. A market may impose several of these at once.

2.1 What stores, ratings and licences each control

Channel conditions come from store policies and contractual rules and determine whether a platform will accept the product. The US ESRB is an industry rating body whose effect is often felt through distribution channels; it is not a general federal licence to release games. The US Supreme Court has confirmed that games receive constitutional protection as expression, but that does not mean every content or business practice is outside regulation.3

Age and content requirements determine how a product is labelled, who may receive it and which content is restricted. In the UK, the supply of physical PEGI 12, 16 and 18 games is subject to legal age restrictions, while the current VRA applies differently to online games. Germany also distinguishes physical products, online content and specific platform duties. The legal effect of a rating must be assessed against the country, medium and responsible party.46

Registration or licensing requirements concern who may provide a service and through what process a product enters the market. Indonesia’s PSE/IGRS and Vietnam’s G1–G4 routes show why a live store page is not enough to establish that local formalities are complete. Thailand’s statutory definition of “video” itself includes game forms, so calling the product a game cannot automatically take it outside the film and video regime.78

2.2 Compare target markets on one scale

The table below compares eight markets by release facts and institutional consequences. The common audiovisual-service boundary in the EU is addressed above; specific game age and content systems still need to be checked at member-state level. Common-law or civil-law tradition may provide context, but it is not enough to predict whether registration, licensing or a statutory rating will be required.

2.3 Content review must cover every outcome players can reach

The review target for an interactive live-action game should not be limited to the main-line cut. Failure branches, hidden endings, player-selected actions, DLC, store screenshots and advertising may all affect rating or channel assessment. Watching a violent scene and choosing to commit violence in exchange for a reward may not be assessed in the same way; an “18+” label also does not make prohibited content or infringing material eligible for release.28

For the operator, this section should end in a concrete answer: which version can be released, through which party and channel, in which territory, and which conditions remain outstanding. That is closer to the true launch scope than simply recording that “Steam review was passed.”

3. Which rights and production terms govern your plans?

Market access does not mean that the company has obtained every permission it needs. An interactive live-action game requires parallel work on rights in the work and materials, performer-related rights, and production and hiring relationships. They may appear in one contract, but their legal bases and triggers can differ.

3.1 Source work and materials: delivery does not grant every use

Start with the work and materials: can the source work be adapted into interactive story content, what does an external script licence cover, how are the code and master footage allocated, and have both the musical work and the particular sound recording been cleared? Payment, receipt of project files or possession of the master does not replace contract review.19

The licence must also be mapped across territory, language, medium, term and use. For example, “global release of the game” may solve the territory question but may not permit the main story to be cut into a standalone film; a licence for music in the game may not cover the film version or advertising. Whether an amendment is needed depends on what the original contract already grants, rather than on an assumption that every new version requires a new contract.9

3.2 Performers: possession of recorded performance does not settle reuse

Live-action content adds a performer layer. Performer rights, likeness and voice protections on the Chinese production side are the starting point for overseas use. An actor’s agreement to perform for the work cannot be treated, outside its terms, as consent to every later use; an overseas distributor cannot supply a permission that the production side never obtained.11

Cross-border production also encounters mandatory rules that differ by jurisdiction. France requires written authorisation for fixation, reproduction and communication of a performance and has specific arrangements for audiovisual production contracts; EU author and performer protection is implemented through member-state law. A company cannot reduce the whole issue to the words “perpetual buyout,” nor assume that all of Europe requires one identical revenue share.10

3.3 Production and unions: added cost depends on whom you hire

Union questions turn on performer status, the producer’s signatory status, the place of work and the particular use of the performance. SAG-AFTRA’s interactive-media agreement covers on-camera and off-camera performance, and appearing in live action does not automatically move a project into a film agreement. A game produced in China and sold in the United States does not by itself make the Chinese company an employer bound by the agreement; if the company hires members or uses a signatory production arrangement, it should check the position further, including member work rules that address work outside the United States.12

UK Equity’s industry guidance and specific company agreements should be distinguished from generally applicable law. In France, some collective agreements extended by law may bind non-signatory employers within their scope. Overseas sales and overseas hiring are therefore different facts; the production arrangement chosen may change pay, reuse and working conditions. Resolving performer-union questions also does not resolve writers’ or other roles’ arrangements.1213

The production budget and rights scope should correspond: identify which costs cover the current game, which reuses may require more payment, and who must obtain each consent. That information determines whether the company can deliver its planned revenue from a film version, advertising or a sequel. A digital replica changes the nature of “use” again, which is addressed separately below.

4. Why does AI require both tracks to be reassessed?

The key change with AI is that content may move from playing existing material to generating new expression or performance. Ordinary subtitle translation, pre-generating a set of voice lines and allowing a character to answer players in real time do not require the same permissions or operating capacity. A fixed branching structure is not itself generative AI.

4.1 Rights track: separate training, synthesis and release

When an actor’s voice is used to generate lines that the actor never recorded, the question is no longer limited to permission to play the original recordings. A voice-related AI case published by China’s Supreme People’s Court indicates that rights in a sound recording do not automatically include permission to use the voice for AI-based exploitation. A model provider’s commercial package does not replace the actor’s consent.11

A digital-replica grant should therefore address whether the materials may be used for training or fine-tuning, which languages and uses may be synthesised, whether release and reuse across projects are permitted, and how those permissions align with the supplier’s retention and reuse terms. An applicable SAG-AFTRA agreement may require specific consent and compensation arrangements; California law also places enforceability limits on digital-replica clauses under specified conditions. These rules have different scopes and should not be presented as a single US-wide AI-performer price list or a blanket prohibition.1215

A separate question is what copyright the company can obtain. The US Copyright Office emphasises human creative contribution: AI assistance does not automatically remove protection, while purely AI-generated output is not protected merely because a prompt was supplied; UK law retains specific provisions for certain computer-generated works, so the same conclusion cannot simply be carried across. Being allowed to use a tool lawfully and being able to deliver globally exclusive copyright to a publisher are separate conclusions. The company should retain records of human writing, selection, arrangement and modification.14

4.2 Market track: pre-release review differs from ongoing output management

Pre-generated dialogue can be reviewed line by line before launch; a real-time AI character continues generating content after launch. Article 50 of the EU AI Act distinguishes interactive AI disclosures, machine-readable marking by providers of generative systems and deployer disclosure of deepfake content. Qualifying artistic or fictional works may use a tailored form of disclosure, but are not all exempt; an AI background image is not automatically a deepfake, and a notice shown only after the player completes the game should not be assumed sufficient.16

Vietnam also has an AI law in force together with implementing rules. The practical analysis should first identify who provides the system, who deploys it and who presents the content to the public, then determine the applicable notice or labelling work. A Chinese team should not use one broad statement that “AI was used in part of the product” in place of analysing the relevant roles and uses.17

Platforms retain their own access decisions. Steam distinguishes pre-generated from runtime-generated content and asks developers to disclose the relevant use; runtime generation also requires an explanation of measures against unlawful output, and its current questionnaire does not accept games with runtime-generated adult sexual content. A romance theme is not automatically adult sexual content, but if the business plan depends on that kind of runtime output, performer consent and age rating cannot guarantee listing.18

The AI-character budget should therefore include additional permissions, human review, runtime content controls and disclosure work. If players may upload faces or voices or share generated content, data and user-content analysis is also needed; a developer’s own AI output does not become UGC automatically merely because AI was used.

5. Return to the business decision: turn one IP into three specific release plans

The approval target is not an abstract “global IP,” but a product version with defined conditions. Apply the framework from the first four sections to assess the fixed-branch game, standalone film and real-time AI character separately.

One IP, three release proposals to assess separately

A · Fixed-branch game

• Market conditions： Confirm target markets, physical or download channels and content requirements across all branches.
• Rights and permissions： Confirm rights in the underlying work, assets, performances and localisation for this game.
• Business decision： A workable launch plan identifies the ratings and local procedures, asset permissions and production costs.

B · Standalone film

• Market conditions： Reassess the actual cinema, television or on-demand route; the game route does not automatically carry over.
• Rights and permissions： Confirm linear editing, cross-media use, and the permitted reuse of performances and music.
• Business decision： Treat film revenue as conditional until any additional permissions and reuse costs are established.

C · Real-time AI character

• Market conditions： Check channel acceptance, applicable AI notices and labels, and continuing output management.
• Rights and permissions： Confirm permission for replica training, synthesis, publication and vendor use.
• Business decision： Budget for additional consent, contractual remuneration and operations, alongside model usage costs.

Figure 2 | A decision framework, not a universal list of filings or fees. Overseas dubbing is a version change to assess within each proposal.

The table is meant to distinguish revenue that already has corresponding release and rights conditions from revenue that still depends on additional arrangements. It does not mean that every extension must start the process from zero, or that one plan is necessarily more commercially valuable. The company may complete the fixed-branch version first or develop other versions in parallel, but it should state the outstanding conditions and costs.

When signing with a publisher, use this analysis to specify who handles each market procedure, who supplies rights evidence, who submits AI-use information, and who may edit, delay or delist the product. Costs should match the situation: who pays for additional performer permissions, new dubbing, local edits and another submission? The parties can allocate tasks by agreement, but a sentence saying “the publisher handles all compliance” cannot transfer a duty that applicable law places on a particular party.

The company can use one version decision table to carry these conclusions forward, retaining four groups of information: the confirmation status for each market and channel, the basis for footage and performer permissions, responsibility and cost arrangements, and the version and AI-use record. Record an owner for each outstanding item and its effect on launch. A market whose route remains unconfirmed can be marked for further review or left out of the first release; this is a scheduling recommendation, not a finding that local law prohibits release.

For later updates, return to the same questions: has the delivery method, content, licensed use, AI function or sales territory changed? If so, recheck the affected track. The label “film” or “game” is useful, but the decision to go global is supported by matching market conditions and usable rights to the same product version.

Research note

This article provides general legal information and a business decision framework; it is not advice on a specific project. The baseline scenario is a live-action branching game made in China and released digitally overseas, with further discussion of physical products, standalone audiovisual works, overseas production and AI features. Product names are used only to describe a product form, and the product-extension examples do not describe their actual business. The non-public contracts or rating records of the example works were not reviewed, and not every US state, EU member state or ASEAN country is covered. Vietnam’s specific online classification still requires project-level confirmation. Children’s protection, personal data, UGC, tax and subsidy issues are outside the article’s full research scope. The legal effect of statutes, industry ratings, union agreements and platform rules is described separately; the allocation and version comparisons are management recommendations. Where no dedicated FMV decision was found, the conclusion is a research judgment based on product facts.

Key sources and references

[1] Games as complex subject matter and their copyright protection · Case law

• CJEU, Nintendo v PC Box, C-355/12, para. 23
• Cour de cassation, Cryo, 25 June 2009, 07-20.387

[2] An FMV rating example and the role of ratings · Rating-body materials

• ESRB: Late Shift
• ESRB FAQs

[3] US protection for game expression and industry ratings · Case law and industry guidance

• Brown v. EMA, 564 U.S. 786 (2011)
• ESRB FAQs

[4] UK boundaries between games, video works and on-demand programme services · Statutes and regulatory and rating-body guidance

• Video Recordings Act 1984, s. 2A
• GRA: ratings
• BBFC: classification requirements
• BBFC: fee tariffs and video-game material
• Video Recordings Act 1984, s. 1
• Video Recordings Act 1984, s. 2
• Communications Act 2003, s. 368A
• Ofcom: ODPS Rules and Guidance, updated 5 January 2026

[5] The boundary between games and audiovisual media services · EU directives

• Directive 2010/13/EU, recital 22
• Directive (EU) 2018/1808, amended service definitions
• AVMSD: consolidated text, 8 February 2025

[6] German and French ratings, labelling and cinema routes · National law and institutional guidance

• Germany: JuSchG §12
• Germany: JuSchG §14a
• USK: types of classification procedures
• France: Décret n° 2015-1251
• France: Code du cinéma, L211-1

[7] Game definitions, film boundaries and game-service categories in Indonesia and Vietnam · Regulations and official notice

• Indonesia: Permenkominfo 2/2024
• Komdigi: Steam rating notice, 5 April 2026
• Vietnam: Decree 147/2024/ND-CP, Article 37 and related provisions
• Indonesia: Film Law, UU 33/2009, Article 1
• Vietnam: Cinema Law 05/2022/QH15, Article 3(2)

[8] Games and classification within Thai and Singapore film legislation · Statutes, statutory translation and regulatory guidance

• Thailand: Film and Video Act B.E.2551, ss. 4 and 47 (English translation)
• IMDA: Video Game Classification Guidelines
• Singapore: Films Act 1981, s. 2

[9] US copyright subject matter, rights and program registration · Statute and registration guidance

• 17 U.S.C. §§101, 102 and 106, Copyright Office text
• US Copyright Office: Circular 61

[10] Written performer consent, remuneration and exploitation information · National law and EU directive

• France: CPI L212-3
• France: CPI L212-4
• Directive (EU) 2019/790, Articles 18–22

[11] Image, voice and performer rights at the production source · PRC law and official case publication

• Civil Code of the PRC, Articles 1019 and 1023
• Copyright Law of the PRC, Article 39
• SPC: 2025 Civil Code cases, AI-generated voice dispute

[12] Game performance, digital replicas and production agreements · Union agreements and membership rules

• SAG-AFTRA: Interactive Media
• SAG-AFTRA: 2025 IMA materials
• SAG-AFTRA: February 2026 digital-replica consent bulletin
• SAG-AFTRA: Global Rule One
• WGAW: contracts

[13] Production and labour analysis in the UK and France · Union materials and labour law

• Equity: video-game performers
• Equity–OMUK agreement announcement, 2021
• France: Code du travail L7121-3
• France: Code du travail L2261-15

[14] Copyright in AI output and differences between US and UK law · Copyright Office report, statute and policy report

• US Copyright Office: AI Report, Part 2, 2025
• UK: CDPA 1988, s. 9
• UK Government: Report on Copyright and AI, 2026

[15] Enforceability of digital-replica contract terms in California · US state law

• California AB 2602 / Labor Code §927

[16] AI transparency, artistic works and specific transitional arrangements · EU regulation and official explanation

• EU AI Act, Article 50
• European Commission: Article 50 transparency FAQs
• European Commission: transparency quick facts
• European Commission: AI Omnibus entry into force

[17] AI providers, deployers and public-facing labelling in Vietnam · Vietnamese law and implementing decree

• Law 134/2025/QH15, Articles 11 and 35
• Decree 142/2026, Article 18

[18] Steam’s pre-generated, live-generated and admission rules · Platform rules

• Steamworks: Content Survey
• Steamworks: Onboarding