As controversies surrounding generative AI in game development continue to ferment, the legal community is issuing stern warnings. Haley MacLean, an intellectual property lawyer specializing in the gaming industry, recently revealed that over the past year, clauses prohibiting the use of generative AI in contracts between developers and publishers she has handled have evolved from "risk mitigation measures by some major companies" to nearly standard content for "all clients."
MacLean pointed out that this shift has been particularly intense over the past 12 months. Nowadays, even small independent studios are adding "boilerplate clauses" banning AI to their contracts, explicitly prohibiting the use of any AI systems to generate game assets and forbidding the importation of game products into AI databases. She stated bluntly: "If I encounter an agreement without such clauses, I will actively request their inclusion to ensure that publishers do not use AI in marketing, port testing, and other areas."
MacLean analyzed that the explosive growth of anti-AI clauses stems from two major real-world pressures. The first is strong backlash from the market—"Clients generally start from the community's attitude, clearly stating they don't want to use AI because players will hate it." This view aligns closely with previous statements by the PR lead for Palworld: "Players don't want AI."
MacLean warned that generative AI has fatal loopholes regarding copyright ownership: on one hand, AI-generated assets may constitute infringement due to unauthorized training data; on the other hand, developers who directly use AI outputs will be unable to claim effective copyright over such content. "If you generate a tree and put it in your game, and someone else uses it, you likely cannot sue—because copyright law protects human creation, not machine output."
MacLean specifically criticized the practices of some large corporations, pointing out that under pressure to cut jobs and reduce costs, they tend to use AI to "cut corners," while ignoring legal risks. She cited the recently controversial Tomb Raider: Relics of Atlantis as an example—the game faced criticism for using AI assets. She warned that if AAA publishers do not make substantial human modifications after generating assets with AI, they will face the dilemma of "having their work arbitrarily appropriated by others with no recourse."
She predicted: "In the coming years, we will definitely see related lawsuits. Companies that want to be fast and cheap will eventually stumble on this issue."