Video Games Trigger New Legal Issues
Where there is money, there are contracts.The rapid evolution of the $100 billion video game industry has created a growing need for something many people…
July 10, 2017 at 11:47 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Where there is money, there are contracts.
The rapid evolution of the $100 billion video game industry has created a growing need for something many people wouldn't expect: lawyers. Where there is money, there are contracts. And, in the video game industry, there also are questions about intellectual property.
In addition, the explosive growth of professionalized esports, with high-stakes competitions often staged in sold-out arenas, has created opportunities for player agents, just like pro sports. And just like the major leagues, there are performance-enhancing drugs in eSports such as stimulants that need to be addressed with well-vetted policies.
Eric Ball, partner at Fenwick & West, recently sat down with Inside Counsel to discuss the new IP issues brought on by video games and eSports. Copyright and trademark issues are always top of mind for the video game industry because the industry relies heavily on the content it generates. As wearable technology, augmented reality (AR), and virtual reality (VR) continue to evolve, Ball expects patents and trade secrets to play an increasingly important role in the industry.
In addition, trade secrets may play a role in the eSports context as teams try to lock down their strategies like an NFL team maintaining secrecy over its playbook. Privacy concerns will also continue to grow as games become more interactive with the real world. Today, the growth of professionalized esports has created opportunities for player agents, just like pro sports.
“There has been a big push to port the existing infrastructure from the professional sports world over to the gaming world when it comes to players and their agents. However, as many in the eSports arena know, that is not always the right fit. The meteoric rise of professional eSports has created an exciting opportunity to structure relationships that are tailored to the unique needs of the games industry and its players,” explained Ball. “There is already a battle for control between individual players, teams, agents, game developers, and the platforms promoting the games.”
Many of the underlying concerns, such as well-vetted policies, effective enforcements, are the same in eSports and sports like the NFL. But, eSports are unique in that they are generally centered around specific IP like “League of Legends” or “Overwatch,” which makes them closely associated with gaming companies. According to Ball, doping associated with one franchise could end up impacting a company's brand, including a trickle-down effect to its other franchises.
“As gaming companies seek to diversify their player bases, creating content for both the casual and the hardcore gamer, this can have serious and far-reaching consequences,” he said. “Gaming companies operating in the eSports arena will want to think carefully about how to address the use of performance-enhancing substances, and consider that response as part of their overall branding strategy.”
The video games industry continues to push the boundaries of how we interact with IP. Over time, courts will be more comfortable understanding the complexities of today's games and grappling with the tough questions they pose. According to Ball, as more games focus on building communities of players, and players become more sophisticated at leveraging platforms like YouTube, policies governing player interactions, player-generated content, and content steaming will be more and more important to players, fans and game developers.
Further reading:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
US Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Pre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readPreparing for 2025: Anticipated Policy Changes Affecting U.S. Businesses Under the Trump Administration
Trending Stories
- 1Tuesday Newspaper
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-85
- 3Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 4Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 5Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250