🔍 Read the full analysis: Are AI Game Clones A Shortcut Around Game Creators’ IP? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the latest gadgets delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
TL;DR
Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick said AI companies should protect both their own intellectual property and others’ after an IGN question about Anthropic’s game-recreation rule and whether OpenAI should adopt one. He described AI-enabled piracy as a creative concern, not a financial threat to Take-Two, while saying the company is strengthening technical and legal defenses. Neither Anthropic nor OpenAI had publicly responded to his remarks by November 14, according to the source report.
In the interview, published November 9, 2026, IGN asked Zelnick about claims that hackers were using AI to clone games faster and about Anthropic’s steps to restrict game recreation with Claude. Asked whether he wanted OpenAI to take similar steps, Zelnick answered: “I think all companies should be protecting intellectual property, their own and everyone else’s.” He added that it seemed “ironic” for companies in the intellectual-property business to “stomp on someone else’s IP and hope that yours is protected.”
The exchange did not identify a particular AI product, cloned game, or instance of infringement. Zelnick did not specify whether his criticism concerned what users make with AI, how AI systems are trained, or another practice. The source report says he did not claim that Claude or ChatGPT had been used to clone a Take-Two game.
On the same day, during Take-Two’s earnings call, Zelnick said piracy would become “more of a challenge” and that the company was “enhancing our technical defenses and enhancing our legal activities appropriately.” He also said AI-enabled piracy was not, in his view, a financial threat to the business, while describing the issue as relevant to the creative experience developers intend to deliver.
AI coding agents and existing games · as of Nov 14, 2026
Prompt in, game out: where the line runs
Three example requests (illustrative, not real cases) and what each vendor’s published rules say about them.
- Example request
“An original racing game with my own art”own idea, own assets
Claude Code (Anthropic)AllowedRule text: build original games and games from the user’s own designs and assets
Codex / policies (OpenAI)No objectionNothing in the published usage policies against it
- Example request
“A heist game with mechanics like [a named hit]”a game named as a reference
Claude Code (Anthropic)Allowed since v2.1.317Builds an original game in that genre, per Anthropic
Codex / policies (OpenAI)No game rule foundNo game-specific instruction in the Codex CLI code
- Example request
“Rebuild [a specific game], just rename it”a copy under a new name
Claude Code (Anthropic)Not allowedCovers its name, characters, art, music, levels or look; offers to build something similar
Codex / policies (OpenAI)General IP banUsage policies bar attempts to infringe IP; no game-specific rule found
Outside the tools: Take-Two says it relies on its own “technical defenses” and “legal activities”. Copyright and trademark law apply whichever tool writes the code.
The requests are our own illustrations. The rows summarize published rules, not tests of how the tools behave. ChatGPT’s and Codex Web’s server-side instructions are not public.
Sources: Claude Code program text, versions 2.1.317 to 2.1.325, and Anthropic’s statement of Nov 4, 2026 (via Tom’s Hardware); OpenAI usage policies, version effective Nov 20, 2026 (Internet Archive copy of Oct 28, 2026); Codex CLI repository on GitHub, checked Nov 14, 2026; Take-Two fiscal Q2 2027 earnings call, Nov 9, 2026.
Graphic: Powered by Thorsten Meyer AI
Game Recreation Tests IP Policies
The dispute concerns how companies that sell AI tools apply policies intended to prevent infringement when users request work resembling a specific commercial game. The handling of such requests may be relevant to game publishers, developers, and players, although no particular infringement has been established in this case.
Zelnick framed Take-Two’s concern around its intended creative experience and intellectual property, rather than an immediate loss of revenue. He did not say that AI-generated clones are causing measurable harm to the company. A stated risk is not proof of a specific infringement, and a policy alone does not show how consistently a system enforces it.
The interview did not resolve questions about responsibility when a user asks an AI system to reproduce protected material or describe a legal test for such cases. It raised questions about how AI firms apply their public commitments to requests involving recognizable games and other creative works.
Products Worth Considering
Bose QuietComfort Headphones – Wireless Bluetooth Over-Ear Noise Cancelling Headphones, Petal Pink Limited Edition
Kindle Paperwhite 16GB (2024 Model) – Graphite
Apple Watch Ultra 4 GPS + Cellular, 49 mm
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What the Companies’ Rules Say
Anthropic’s Claude Code guidance, according to the source report, says the model should not build “a recreation of a specific existing game” using its name, characters, art, music, levels, or look, even if the work is renamed or described as original. The instruction was included beginning with Claude Code version 2.1.317, published November 2, 2026. Anthropic grounds the restriction in its broader usage policy against infringing third-party intellectual property.
OpenAI’s usage policies also prohibit attempts to infringe others’ intellectual-property rights. The source report says it found no game-specific instruction in the open-source code of OpenAI’s Codex CLI agent. That finding is limited to the code examined; it does not establish what safeguards may exist elsewhere in OpenAI’s products or how requests are handled in practice.
The interview’s initial question referred to AI being used to “clone” games and to reverse engineering. But Anthropic’s published instruction, as described in the report, addresses recreating a specific existing game; it does not explicitly mention reverse engineering or decompilation. Those terms should not be treated as interchangeable based on the available material.
“I think all companies should be protecting intellectual property, their own and everyone else’s.”
— Strauss Zelnick, Take-Two Interactive chairman and CEO, speaking to IGN
Enforcement and Specific Cases Remain Unknown
The available account does not establish whether an AI system has been used to reproduce a Take-Two game, whether any such output infringed copyright, or what specific conduct Zelnick meant by “stomp on someone else’s IP.” It also does not show how often Anthropic’s restriction blocks requests or how OpenAI handles comparable game-specific prompts across its services.
As of 21:30 UTC on November 14, the source report said it had found no public response from Anthropic or OpenAI to Zelnick’s remarks. The report’s findings about policy language are not a legal ruling and do not resolve questions about training data, user-generated outputs, or responsibility for alleged infringement.
Watch for Policy and Defense Updates
The next developments to watch are any public response from Anthropic or OpenAI, and whether either company publishes more detail about how its restrictions apply to game-recreation requests. Take-Two has said it is strengthening technical defenses and legal activity, but the source material gives no timetable or specific measures.
Further reporting would be needed to establish whether these safeguards prevent infringing outputs, how publishers identify and challenge alleged clones, and whether any dispute reaches court. For now, Zelnick’s remarks are a statement of principle and concern—not an announcement of a specific case or a finding that an AI company has copied a Take-Two game.
Key Questions
What did Strauss Zelnick say about AI companies and game IP?
He said companies should protect both their own intellectual property and other people’s. He also called the apparent contradiction “ironic” if an IP company infringes someone else’s rights while expecting its own to be protected.
Did Zelnick accuse Anthropic or OpenAI of cloning a Take-Two game?
No specific cloning incident was identified in the reported interview. Zelnick did not name a product or game, and the source says he did not claim Claude or ChatGPT had been used to clone a Take-Two title.
What restriction did Anthropic add to Claude Code?
The source report says Claude Code’s guidance tells the model not to recreate a specific existing game using elements such as its characters, art, music, levels, or look, even under a new name. The instruction was included in version 2.1.317, published November 2, 2026.
Does OpenAI have the same game-specific rule?
OpenAI’s usage policies prohibit attempts to infringe others’ intellectual-property rights. The source report found no game-specific instruction in the open-source Codex CLI code it examined; that does not establish how every OpenAI product handles such requests.
What remains unresolved?
The reported exchange does not establish whether a specific game was copied, how consistently AI tools enforce their policies, or which practices Zelnick meant by his criticism. As of the report’s November 14 cutoff, neither AI company had publicly responded to his remarks.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
