Press Start: Creative and Innovation Regulation in Video Games - Conference Report

This conference report was drafted by Zoe Debrie and Antonia Dumitru, law students at Bath Spa University.

On January 24th, the Press Start Conference on Creative and Innovation Regulation in Video Games was held at Bath Spa University, Sion Hill Campus. Organised and led by Amy Thomas, from the University of Glasgow, and Sevra Guzel, from Bath Spa University; this event combined different facets of the gaming industry and the law, beginning with the concept of creativity, and progressing to relevant legal challenges from multiple perspectives, including Intellectual Property and Competition Law. The proceedings comprised four consecutive panels: Creativity in Games, chaired by Gaetano Dimita, Intellectual Property Challenges, chaired by Yin Harn Lee, Competition and Business Law in the Gaming Industry, chaired by Magali Eben, and last, Regulatory Perspectives on Information Technologies, chaired by Michaela Macdonald.

Hosts Dr Sevra Guzel and Dr Amy Thomas opening the proceedings. All photos by Weiwei Yi

The first panel focused on the engaging topic of Creativity in Games, led by Gaetano Dimita from Queen Mary University of London’s School of Law. The panel provided insightful commentary on essential themes such as diversity within the industry, the intersection of art and law, and the unique challenges of fostering innovation in game development.

Creativity in Games panelists, left to right: Heather Haseley, entrepreneur and Professor of Practice in Education, University of Exeter, Professor James Newman, researcher in Games Development at Bath Spa University, Marina Markellou, Assistant Professor, University of Groningen, and Anna Wang, Vanitas Veritas.

The panelists examined how creativity manifests in various aspects of game design, including mechanics, rules, and compelling visual storytelling. They highlighted how the diverse backgrounds of creators enrich game design in multiple ways. Additionally, they explored the complex relationship between law and technology in the video game industry. E-sports emerged as a notable example of this intersection, showcasing its rapid growth and increasing popularity in recent years.

A particularly engaging point of discussion was the active participation of players in shaping gaming experiences. The role of users’ imagination was identified as a key driver of a game’s cultural significance and overall success. For instance, the Roblox community serves as a prime example where players are not just consumers but also creators, designing their own games, experiences, and virtual items within the platform.

The panel also addressed the function of merchandise—not only as means of building community and engagement among players but also as a way to deepen the consumer’s connection to the game, expand its reach, and ensure its ongoing relevance. User-generated content extends beyond the digital realm, with popular in-game creations inspiring physical merchandise, books, and even real-world brand collaborations.

This synergy of creativity and collaboration between creators and players highlights the vibrant and ever-evolving nature of the gaming industry. As these online communities continue to grow, the need for effective regulation becomes increasingly important.

Protecting creativity and ensuring that creative freedom can be put into practice are key concerns, particularly as more user-generated content blurs the lines between players and developers. The panel additionally examined the role of generative AI in this space, acknowledging both its benefits and challenges. While AI tools can facilitate aspects of game development, enhance creative workflows, and enable deeper engagement with consumers, they also raise questions about authorship, fair dealing and ethical oversight. Striking a balance between innovation and regulation will be essential in shaping the future of these digital ecosystems.

The second panel focused on Intellectual Property Challenges, examining the delicate balance between creator rights, user interests, and the rapidly evolving technological landscape. Key discussion points included the current UK government’s emphasis on text-and-data mining and the development of a code of practice that would allow creators to withdraw their work from AI training datasets.

Intellectual Property panelists: Adrian Aronsson-Storrier, practising lawyer in intellectual property and Lecturer, University College Cork, Cody Rei-Anderson, Lecturer in Law and Technology, Edinburgh Napier University, Abigail Rekas, Lecturer in Law and Innovation, University of Galway, Kristofer Erickson, Professor of Social Data Science, University of Glasgow and chair Yin Harn Lee, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Bristol Law School.

A recent report published by CREATe on the UK Government’s latest proposals regarding AI and copyright highlights significant challenges in implementing an opt-out system for text and data mining. One major issue is ensuring that rightsholders can effectively reserve their rights. The UK’s approach, which mirrors the EU’s model, aims to balance AI innovation with transparency and the protection of rights. However, recent legal cases, such as LAION and DPG MEDIA, along with Meta’s controversial changes to its privacy policy, illustrate the complexities involved in enforcing opt-out options, managing jurisdictional inconsistencies, and addressing uninformed user consent in AI training.

While larger creators often have the resources to protect their work, smaller and independent creators face greater vulnerability, raising concerns about potential exploitation and the urgent need for reforms that go beyond traditional copyright protections. The panelist noted that generic one-size-fits-all protections are inadequate. These protections fail to address the diverse challenges faced by various creative endeavours, while overly specific regulations may create obstacles and delays.

The discussion also explored the broader implications of interconnected systems, highlighting that improving one aspect of intellectual property infringement could inadvertently disrupt another. Transformative works, which are crucial for creativity and innovation, frequently encounter legal and logistical hurdles. Additionally, there was significant criticism of major platforms and corporations that profit greatly from the gaming sector but offer minimal financial support to creators. Dr Yin Harn Lee, the chair of the panel, called for a rethinking of intellectual property approaches that not only protect users’ interests but also ensure fair compensation for creators. The goal is to find a balanced solution that bridges the existing gap. This conversation underscored the critical need for systemic changes aimed at empowering creators and nurturing an ecosystem that fosters ongoing innovation.

The third panel was on Competition and Business Law. Drastic developments in the gaming world increased the number of concerns regarding competition dynamics within digital markets, making this panel a very interesting one. Many speakers condemned some business practices from diverse platforms and intermediaries and argued that they should not use Intellectual Property protections as a shield against Competition law. “Manipulation” was often used by the attendees to define problematic business practices. It goes from asking the consumers to consent to the sharing of their data to access the game, therefore restricting them to making free choices, but also extends to inducing them to pay for better game resources, which sometimes are known to be of low quality. The panel debated several practices, such as geo-blocking and exclusivity agreements, which appear to have restricted market access, limited consumer choice and artificially inflated prices. The Valve case was brought up as an example of how companies used these practices to restrict consumers from purchasing games at lower prices across borders, thereby eroding the principles of the EU’s Digital Single Market. These anti-competitive conducts appear to have intensified over recent years due to the industry’s rapid expansion and the abusive use of power by large companies.

Competition Law panelists: Steven Goulton, Director of Law Courses, Bath Spa University, Eda Sahin-Sengul, Senior Lecturer in Law, Bath Spa University, Fabian Ziermann, Doctoral Researcher, WU Vienna, Magali Eben, Senior Lecturer, University of Glasgow.

The fourth panel, on Regulatory Perspectives, kicked off by highlighting the lack of care and transparency from these companies, particularly on the advertisement’s contents and the overall user experience. By obtaining more power, these major corporations are in a veritable struggle to be scrutinised by the competition authorities as some deals in this sector are often deemed unfair towards the real artists and developers behind the games. Their colossal economic prowess, including their primary focus to make substantial profits, is also slowly undermining the loyalty built by the gamer community over time.

Regulatory Perspectives panelists: Weiwei Yi, Doctoral Researcher, CREATe, University of Glasgow, Edina Harbinja, Reader in Media/Privacy Law, Aston University, Kim Barker, Professor of Law, University of Lincoln, Michaela Macdonald, Lecturer in Management, Queen Mary University London.

There remains some ambiguity regarding the specific entities targeted by these regulations, as well as the underlying intentions and motivations behind them. Suggestions for improvement included fostering collaboration with researchers, implementing proactive informed practices, prioritizing consumer protection and compliance, and enhancing efforts to regulate advertising. Participants also emphasized the need for regulatory authorities to prevent dominant intermediaries—such as Microsoft, Sony, Apple, and Google—from exploiting their market positions to stifle competition or limit consumer choices. Some discussions highlighted successful regulatory initiatives, such as Australia’s introduction of new classifications for video games that contain gambling-like content. These measures aim to prevent emotional and psychological harm and serve as a model for other countries to follow, according to many speakers.

The main takeaway from this panel is the need for regulators to strike a balance: protecting competition without stifling growth, ensuring consumer protection without imposing excessive regulations, and fostering innovation while preventing market abuses.

Conclusion

The gaming industry is evolving at an unprecedented pace, bringing with it complex legal and ethical challenges. From intellectual property concerns and AI-driven exploitation to anti-competitive business practices and ethics of monetisation, the need for fair and balanced regulation has never been greater. The discussions at the Press Start Conference made it clear that the industry must move beyond outdated copyright models, address monopolistic behaviours, and ensure that both creators and consumers are protected.

Striking the right balance between creativity, competition, and regulation is crucial. The future of gaming relies on policies that foster innovation without stifling smaller developers, protect user rights while allowing for market growth, and hold major corporations accountable without hindering industry progress. As these conversations continue, the decisions made today will shape the future of gaming for years to come.

As undergraduate students deeply interested in intellectual property and entertainment law, this experience has illuminated how these concepts manifest across various contexts, particularly within the creative and gaming sectors. We had the privilege of exploring the intricate challenges within this rapidly evolving industry, guided by esteemed practitioners and expert professors. Although we are not everyday gamers, the stimulating discussions broadened our understanding of this contemporary and niche area of law, offering valuable insights that will undoubtedly influence our approach to future legal studies and practice.