A worrying increase in legal cases around allegations of IP and copyright allegations will have caused significant concern for the industry.
Martyn Hannah, Co-Founder and MD at Comparasino, shared his thoughts on the next steps the industry can take to avoid these cases and whether they will have a long lasting impact on how games studios operate.
As an industry that releases so much new content on a frequent basis, how challenging is it to avoid infringements?
There’s a difference between intentional (I think “wilful” is the legal term) and accidental infringement, but in either case, studios (and operators, affiliates and other stakeholders for that matter) must ensure they don’t copy someone else’s intellectual property.
In some cases, you have one studio claiming that another studio has essentially lifted a trademarked mechanic which, if proved to be true, is a blatant act of IP infringement. Other cases are less straightforward, especially those around logo/brand copyrights and trademarks. In these instances, you can have a company using a name/logo/design it believes it owns the copyright to, but another entity might hold similar rights but in different markets. For me, this is less intentional.
Is IP a big headache? Absolutely. But as we are seeing, the consequences of getting it wrong can be significant.
What can suppliers do to ensure they put their own spin on existing mechanics or innovations?
The issue is not using existing mechanics as the vast majority of these can’t be trademarked. Free spins, for example, can’t be trademarked, nor can wilds, multipliers or scatters. For IP to be granted, there must be something unique in the way the bonus is triggered or plays out, and so long as it is sufficiently unique and has not been done before, it can potentially be trademarked.
“copying ideas and experiences offered by a competitor is not the right way to do business”
Martyn Hannah, Co-Founder and MD at Comparasino
This gives studios a pretty broad scope when it comes to innovating around standard mechanics. Better yet, they should look to come up with something that has not been done before – and there are plenty of examples of studios doing this.
Do you believe the recent spate of copyright cases in the industry could be a watershed moment for how each game studio operates?
It’s looking that way. There have been some really high-profile cases over the past 12 months and I’m sure more will come to light. These cases involve some of the biggest and most established companies in the sector, which shows just how deep the issue runs.
If I were operating a game studio, it would certainly make me take a very close look at how we were approaching the development of themes, designs, sound, mechanics and technology, and I’d do everything I could to ensure there was no risk of infringing someone else’s IP, nor of having my IP infringed.
“more careful consideration needs to be given to game design”
Martyn Hannah, Co-Founder and MD at Comparasino
Is there a concern that these cases will continue as the igaming market becomes increasingly competitive?
I hope that it will lead to a slowdown in cases moving forward. The cases currently being heard should stand as a clear message that copying the ideas, designs, products, solutions and experiences offered by a competitor is not the right way to do business. It’s easy to look at something that works and is successful and copy it, but that’s just wrong on many levels.
Dig deeper and push harder to come up with your concepts and then invest the time and resources that those with innovative products have into your own game-changers and catalysts for success. That’s the most effective way of rising to the top even in the most competitive markets.
Is there potential for the industry to slow down the quantity of games that it releases and evolve the production process in order to ensure that games are completely unique?
I don’t think the issue is the volume of games being created but rather the need for studios to innovate, get ahead of their rivals and ultimately generate revenue and profit. There has been such a strong drive for studios to come up with their own trademarked mechanics that I think we were always going to arrive at the point where there were strong similarities between some of them.
I guess more careful consideration needs to be given to game design and how studios look to replicate the success of their rival’s titles – the fishing theme/cash collect genre has a lot of games that look and play very much the same but from different providers. These providers are all looking to cash in on the popularity of a combination (fishing and cash collect) that was initially pioneered by a particular studio. There’s a pretty fine line with this stuff and it’s up to each studio how close to the bone they want to go.
What steps can suppliers also take to protect their own original innovations, IP and ideas?
This is an incredibly complex area. Even as an online casino comparison brand, we have trademarked the Comparasino name and logo – having had prior experience with a previous site of our brand and design being copied – and to be frank, it was a bit of a minefield.
I can only imagine how challenging it must be for studios with multiple brands, designs, names and mechanics to trademark, with each market often requiring its own trademark and a different way of securing it. For me, IP will become the new compliance with studios having to appoint an IP specialist to ensure their assets are properly protected.
