Open Forum #12 Game on Exploring IP and Resolving Disputes in Esports

Summary

This WIPO-hosted discussion explored the critical role of intellectual property in the esports ecosystem and methods for resolving related disputes. The session featured experts from WIPO, Video Games Europe, and legal practitioners who examined how IP rights function across the complex network of stakeholders in competitive gaming.

The panelists emphasized that video games themselves are multiverses of IP protection, encompassing everything from software code and character designs to music and storytelling elements. Unlike traditional sports where rules are collectively owned, esports rules are typically protected by IP rights held by game developers and publishers. This creates a unique dynamic where the “playing field” itself is an artistic creation subject to copyright protection.

Tournament organizers must navigate varying licensing requirements depending on the scale and commercial nature of their events. While grassroots community tournaments often operate under automatic licenses with basic restrictions, larger commercial tournaments require explicit licensing agreements with game publishers. The discussion highlighted how licensing policies vary significantly between companies, games, and territories, creating a complex landscape for organizers to navigate.

Players and teams have increasingly become IP powerhouses in their own right, protecting their brands, logos, and even catchphrases through trademark registrations. Notable examples include professional player Tyler “Ninja” Blevins, who holds approximately 25 trademark registrations. The integration of team brands and player likenesses directly into games through cosmetic items represents an evolving revenue stream that bridges player IP with game publisher IP.

The session also addressed dispute resolution challenges in this fast-moving, global, and predominantly digital industry. Traditional court litigation often proves inadequate due to jurisdictional complexities, lengthy proceedings, and high costs. WIPO introduced the International Games and Esports Tribunal (IGET), a specialized alternative dispute resolution framework designed specifically for the gaming industry, offering faster, more cost-effective, and industry-knowledgeable resolution processes.

The discussion concluded with emphasis on the importance of IP literacy and proactive dispute resolution planning, noting that WIPO is developing educational resources to help players and tournament organizers better understand and navigate IP requirements in the esports ecosystem.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **IP as the Foundation of Esports**: Video games are fundamentally built on intellectual property rights (copyright, trademarks, patents), and esports competitions require explicit or implicit licenses from game developers/publishers to use their IP for tournaments, broadcasting, and commercial activities.

– **Multi-Stakeholder IP Ecosystem**: The esports industry involves complex IP ownership across multiple parties – game developers/publishers own the core game IP, while tournament organizers, teams, and players are increasingly developing their own IP assets (brands, trademarks, content) that can be commercialized and integrated back into games.

– **Licensing Framework and Commercial Thresholds**: There’s a clear distinction between community/grassroots tournaments (often automatically licensed with basic conditions) and commercial tournaments (requiring explicit licensing agreements), with the level of commercialization determining the complexity of IP permissions needed.

– **Global Jurisdiction and Dispute Resolution Challenges**: Traditional court litigation is often inadequate for esports disputes due to the global, digital, and fast-moving nature of the industry, leading to the development of specialized alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like the International Games and Esports Tribunal (IGET).

– **Education and Awareness Gaps**: There’s a recognized need for better IP literacy among players, streamers, and tournament organizers to help them understand when they’re using protected content commercially versus for community purposes, and how to properly navigate licensing requirements.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to educate stakeholders about the critical role of intellectual property in the esports ecosystem, explain how different parties can protect and manage their IP rights, and introduce specialized dispute resolution tools designed specifically for the gaming and esports industry.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, educational tone throughout, with speakers acting as industry experts sharing knowledge rather than debating contentious issues. The tone was collaborative and solution-oriented, with WIPO representatives and industry experts working together to provide practical guidance. The atmosphere remained consistently informative and supportive, particularly when addressing audience questions about common IP challenges faced by content creators and tournament organizers.

Speakers

– **Richard Frelick** – Moderator from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

– **Alexia Gkoritsa** – Co-moderator from the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (AMC)

– **Sergi Mesonero** – Head of eSports at Video Games Europe, previously co-founder and public affairs vice president at LVP Liga de Video Jugos Profesional, and chairperson of international eSports chair at Universidad Católica de Murcia

– **Daniel Zohny** – IP lawyer with over 20 years of experience, former head of IP at FIFA (until end of 2023), partner and country manager at Albion’s Switzerland office, co-heading the company’s global brand protection business, currently co-chairing the 25th Presidential Task Force at INTA

– **Rafael Ferraz Vazquez** – Legal officer at WIPO’s Copyright Law Division, has worked on copyright and digital content issues at WIPO for over 10 years

– **Audience** – Identified as Kenneth, previously with a media and entertainment conglomerate focusing on public policy and government affairs

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond the speakers names list provided.

# Intellectual Property in Esports: Navigating Rights, Licensing, and Dispute Resolution

## Executive Summary

This comprehensive WIPO-hosted discussion examined the critical role of intellectual property in the esports ecosystem, bringing together experts from the World Intellectual Property Organization, Video Games Europe, and legal practitioners to explore how IP rights function across the complex network of stakeholders in competitive gaming. The session, moderated by Richard Frelick from WIPO and co-moderated by Alexia Gkoritsa from the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre, featured insights from industry leaders including Sergi Mesonero (Head of eSports at Video Games Europe), Daniel Zohny (IP lawyer and former head of IP at FIFA), and Rafael Ferraz Vazquez (Legal officer at WIPO’s Copyright Law Division).

Richard Frelick opened by explaining that WIPO is “the United Nations agency that serves the world’s innovators and creators,” establishing the international context for the discussion. The conversation revealed that intellectual property forms the foundational basis of the entire esports ecosystem, with video games representing complex multiverses of protected content encompassing software code, character designs, music, storytelling elements, and artistic creations. Unlike traditional sports where rules are collectively owned, esports operates within a framework where game rules, playing fields, and competitive parameters are protected by IP rights held by developers and publishers, creating unique dynamics for tournament organisation, broadcasting, and commercial exploitation.

## The Fundamental Role of IP in Esports

### Video Games as IP Multiverses

The panellists emphasised that video games themselves represent comprehensive collections of intellectual property protection. As Richard Frelick noted, these digital environments contain “a multiverse of IP from music and voice acting to code, character design, and storytelling.” This fundamental characteristic distinguishes esports from traditional sports in profound ways.

Sergi Mesonero provided a particularly insightful perspective on this distinction: “In contrast with sport, where the rules of sports are owned by no one, they are a collective creation… the rules of eSports for the most part are part of the intellectual property… The playing field. It’s an artistic creation the map where the players are competing… So you can imagine that through IP you also control the rules of the game, which is a very specific thing.”

This observation proved foundational to understanding why IP considerations permeate every aspect of esports operations, from grassroots community tournaments to major commercial competitions. The speakers agreed that this IP-centric structure enables creators to recoup the massive investments required to develop and maintain the sophisticated multiplayer games that serve as the foundation for competitive esports.

### Multi-Stakeholder IP Ownership

The discussion revealed a complex ecosystem where multiple parties have developed distinct IP assets. Daniel Zohny outlined how teams and players have evolved over time into “IP powerhouses,” protecting their brands, logos, and even catchphrases through extensive trademark portfolios. The example of professional player Tyler “Ninja” Blevins, who holds about 25 trademark registrations covering entertainment services, merchandise, and personal branding, illustrates the sophistication of modern player IP strategies.

Richard Frelick specifically mentioned WIPO’s Madrid system as a valuable tool for international trademark protection, noting its relevance for stakeholders operating across multiple jurisdictions.

**Developers and Publishers** maintain ownership of core game IP, including software, graphics, characters, and game mechanics. This foundational IP enables the entire esports ecosystem but also creates dependencies for other stakeholders.

**Tournament Organisers** have increasingly developed their own protected brands and competition formats through trademark registrations, creating valuable IP assets around their events and broadcast productions.

**Teams and Players** have developed sophisticated IP strategies that extend far beyond gameplay, encompassing personal branding, merchandise, and commercial partnerships.

## Licensing Framework and Commercial Thresholds

### Community Versus Commercial Activities

A significant portion of the discussion focused on the practical distinction between community and commercial activities within the esports ecosystem. The speakers achieved consensus that video game publishers generally adopt a permissive approach toward non-commercial activities whilst requiring explicit permissions for commercial exploitation.

Sergi Mesonero explained that “community tournaments often have automatic licenses with basic conditions, while commercial tournaments require negotiated contracts.” He provided specific examples of automatic license conditions, including prize limits and restrictions on TV commercialization. Importantly, he noted that for most regular players, IP issues are “transparent” and only become problematic when activities transition to commercial exploitation.

Daniel Zohny reinforced this perspective, noting that “most IP restrictions only apply to commercial exploitation, not casual gameplay sharing.” He emphasized that publishers want to “push” their games through fan engagement, recognizing that community activity drives long-term success.

### Licensing Complexity and Variation

The discussion highlighted significant challenges in navigating licensing requirements across the esports landscape. Sergi Mesonero noted that “licensing requirements vary by company, game, territory, and tournament size and scope,” creating a complex matrix that tournament organisers must navigate.

Rafael Ferraz Vazquez emphasised the importance of understanding these distinctions, particularly for players transitioning from casual to commercial activities: “The fact that they acquire a licence to play the video game as a consumer, as a user, does not mean that they can undertake a lot of different acts within the eSports activity… if they associate themselves and stream and have a sponsorship over their activities, that might trigger conditions that they are not allowed to undertake without the authorisation of the publisher.”

Rafael also highlighted specific IP elements commonly used in tournaments, including “trademarks, characters, images, art,” emphasizing that tournament organization and streaming activities are directly related to IP usage, contrary to some audience assumptions.

## Emerging IP Integration Trends

### Reverse IP Integration

One of the most fascinating developments discussed was the emerging trend of integrating player and team IP directly into video games themselves. Sergi Mesonero highlighted this phenomenon: “We are seeing lately even something that I find quite fascinating… how teams and players IP is even introduced inside the games… how can you buy Faker inside the video game as a skin. So this is something that I find that it’s very unique of the esports ecosystem.”

This reverse integration represents a unique circular relationship in IP usage that doesn’t exist in traditional sports. Professional players’ likenesses, team brands, and associated intellectual property are being incorporated back into the original games through cosmetic items, branded skins, and character representations.

### Diversification of Revenue Models

This IP integration trend contributes to diversifying the esports economy beyond traditional advertising and sponsorship models. Team brands integrated into games through cosmetic items provide direct monetisation opportunities for both teams and publishers, whilst creating new ways for fans to engage with their favourite organisations and players.

## Dispute Resolution Challenges and Solutions

### Inadequacy of Traditional Legal Systems

Alexia Gkoritsa provided compelling arguments for why traditional court litigation often proves inadequate for esports disputes. “Court proceedings take time… by the time a judgement is issued, the game or the competition in that case might already be in its next season or no longer relevant. Moreover, courts may not always have the specialised knowledge… judges in jurisdictions that do not fully understand the technical or commercial realities of the industry.”

### The International Games and Esports Tribunal (IGET)

To address these challenges, WIPO developed the International Games and Esports Tribunal (IGET), a specialised alternative dispute resolution framework designed specifically for the gaming industry. Alexia Gkoritsa explained that IGET offers faster, more cost-effective, and industry-knowledgeable resolution processes compared to traditional litigation.

While Alexia mentioned collaboration with organizations like ESIC, she emphasized that IGET provides access to neutrals with specific gaming and esports expertise, enabling more informed decision-making on technical and commercial issues unique to the industry.

## Education and Awareness Initiatives

### Current State of IP Literacy

The discussion revealed mixed perspectives on the current state of IP awareness within the esports community. Sergi Mesonero noted that “there’s increased IP literacy among top-tier players compared to 10-15 years ago,” suggesting improvement at the professional level.

However, audience questions revealed ongoing challenges, particularly among content creators and smaller tournament organisers who may not fully understand when their activities require explicit permissions versus operating under automatic licences.

### Collaborative Educational Efforts

Rafael Ferraz Vazquez announced that “WIPO and Video Games Europe are developing educational guides for players and tournament organisers,” specifically targeting those engaged in “non-commercial or community-based” activities and those “starting a business.” These resources aim to provide practical guidance on IP management, licensing requirements, and best practices for different types of esports activities.

The speakers agreed that education represents a more effective approach than restrictive enforcement for building IP awareness and compliance within the esports community.

## Addressing Community Concerns

### Audience Perspectives

The discussion included important audience input that highlighted ongoing community concerns. An audience member questioned whether EULA restrictions might be legally void due to players’ lack of understanding, while industry representatives maintained that these restrictions are legitimate and directly related to IP usage.

Rafael specifically clarified that EULA restrictions ARE related to IP, contrary to the audience member’s suggestion, emphasizing the importance of understanding IP consequences for sponsorship and brand relationships.

Kenneth, an audience member, raised a particularly thoughtful concern about young people developing negative attitudes toward copyright due to streamer complaints about copyright strikes and demonetization. Daniel Zohny acknowledged this “weird interaction” where people complain about IP restrictions while potentially benefiting from the same protections later in their careers.

### Balancing Protection and Access

The speakers demonstrated understanding of these concerns while maintaining that current approaches generally balance IP protection with community accessibility. Daniel emphasized that publishers recognize the value of fan engagement and generally adopt permissive policies for non-commercial activities.

## Practical Recommendations and Action Items

### For Tournament Organisers

The discussion emphasised that tournament organisers should develop proactive IP strategies and secure proper licensing before events. This includes understanding the distinction between community and commercial activities, researching specific licensing requirements for relevant games and territories, and establishing clear contractual relationships with all stakeholders.

### For Players and Content Creators

Players transitioning from casual to commercial activities need to understand how this transition affects their licensing requirements. The upcoming WIPO-Video Games Europe educational guide should provide practical guidance for navigating these transitions and understanding when explicit permissions are required.

### For the Industry

The speakers recommended continued collaboration on educational initiatives, development of clearer licensing frameworks, and adoption of specialised dispute resolution mechanisms like IGET. These efforts should focus on building understanding rather than restricting activities, particularly for community and non-commercial uses.

## Conclusion

This educational discussion revealed that intellectual property serves as the fundamental enabler of the esports ecosystem, creating both opportunities and challenges for stakeholders across the industry. The unique characteristics of esports—where the playing field itself is an artistic creation protected by IP rights—distinguish it fundamentally from traditional sports and require specialised approaches to licensing, dispute resolution, and stakeholder management.

The strong consensus among industry experts suggests a maturing ecosystem with shared understanding of best practices and common challenges. The development of specialised tools like IGET and collaborative educational initiatives demonstrates the industry’s commitment to addressing these challenges constructively.

The discussion maintained a collaborative, educational tone throughout, with speakers demonstrating remarkable alignment on fundamental issues. All agreed that IP forms the foundation of the esports ecosystem, that different licensing requirements exist for community versus commercial activities, and that better education and awareness are needed throughout the industry.

The emerging trend of reverse IP integration, where player and team brands are incorporated into games themselves, represents an exciting evolution that could further diversify revenue models and deepen stakeholder relationships. As Richard Frelick noted in closing the session before the coffee break, this type of collaborative dialogue between industry stakeholders and international organizations provides a strong foundation for addressing current challenges whilst enabling continued innovation and growth within this dynamic ecosystem.

Richard Frelick: A very good morning to a very good afternoon, a very good evening, depending on from where you are connecting. But a very good morning still here to all who have gathered here in all beautiful Oslo. Welcome sincerely to our event where we will explore IP and resolving disputes in esports. I’m Richard Frelick from the World Intellectual Property Organization, in short WIPO. And I will have the pleasure of being your moderator for the next 55 minutes or so. For those who don’t know, a quick plug in WIPO is the United Nations agency that serves the world’s innovators and creators, ensuring that their ideas travel safely to the market and improve lives everywhere. We all are also a forum for addressing cutting edge IP issues. And of course, our data and IP information guide decision makers and our projects and initiatives and our projects and technical assistance ensure that IP benefits everyone everywhere. This includes, of course, the video game developers and stakeholders involved in esports from players to to tournament organizers and everyone in between. I will have the pleasure to moderate this event with Alexia, who is joining us online. Alexia, for a moment, over to you.

Alexia Gkoritsa: Thank you very much, Richard. And good morning, everyone. It’s great to be with you from Geneva. to join you all in Norway and online. As Richard mentioned, I’m Alexia Goritsa from the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, or AMC for short, and it’s a real pleasure to join you all today. So I will say more about this later, but just in short here, the AMC is the WIPO Center for Resolving IP and Tech-Related Disputes, and this includes more and more cases in the esports space. I’m really happy to co-moderate this session with Richard today, and I look forward to sharing more shortly about how dispute resolution tools can support growth in the industry. So looking forward to a great discussion and back to you, Richard.

Richard Frelick: Thanks, Alexia. So a quick overview from my side of what you will hear today. So first, the session will be divided into three parts. First, we’ll have a discussion with Sergi and Daniel, who are joining us here on-site on the importance of IP and esports. Second, we’ll connect with Rafael to hear about managing IP and esports with an overview around that. And finally, we’ll hear back from Alexia, who will tell us about preparing and resolving disputes. You will have the chance to ask questions after our discussion with Sergi and Daniel here on-site, and then at the very end, you will also have the opportunity to ask your questions. Let me just start by underlining perhaps one thing, and I love doing it, that IP is at the heart of each video game, and every video game is basically a multiverse of IP. From the music and voice acting to branding and marketing, from the code of the software to the design of the characters, from storytelling and innovative gameplay that shapes the experience, all of it is protected and enabled by IP, ranging from copyright, trademarks, patents, and many, many more. I just mentioned video games themselves, and the topic of our today’s session focuses on and this opens another huge and very important dimension on intellectual property. We have with us two excellent panelists today, who could probably talk for hours and hours about these issues, but we don’t have that much time. Let me quickly introduce them. So first is Sergi, who is head of eSports at Video Games Europe, representing the video game industry. Previously, Sergi was co-founder and public affairs vice president and LVP Liga de Video Jugos Profesional. I am very sorry for my Spanish, which is not there.

Sergi Mesonero: It’s fine.

Richard Frelick: Which is the biggest eSports company in the Spanish-speaking market and the chairperson of international eSports chair at Universidad Católica de Murcia. Daniel, on the other hand, is an IP lawyer with over 20 years of experience and until end of 23, he served as the head of IP at FIFA, overseeing all IP matters, including global brand protection efforts to all FIFA World Cup tournaments. He’s also, of course, a leader in INTA, currently co-chairing the 25th Presidential Task Force, and he leads Albion’s Switzerland office as partner and country manager, also co-heading the company’s global brand protection business. All right. Great to have you here, Sergi and Daniel, for joining us. Thank you for joining us. And let me start with Sergi. Let’s kick this off with that endless question. How valuable is IP and the eSports ecosystem?

Sergi Mesonero: Well, I’m glad that you asked me that question. Well, you’ve basically mentioned it. eSports are based on the public use and communication of a work protected by intellectual property, so the video games themselves. That’s the base of eSports, the use of a video game. So you can imagine… that intellectual property is the way first to ensure that eSports happen because video games happen. The creators need the control over intellectual property to ensure that they can do a series of things first, recoup the investment that they make into those products, making video games and even more video games that are a service, such as these big multiplayer video games that are used in eSports competitions. It’s, as you can imagine, not only extremely expensive to produce, but also extremely expensive to keep on going, to maintain. So, through intellectual property rights, the creators are able to recoup the financial investment. But it goes further than that. Through IP rights, they also control the way their products are used in these eSports competitions. So, to ensure that the games are presented in a way that does not conflict with values, that does not conflict with other objectives, that the creation is respected. That is also a very important matter. But I will go even further, and this is something that is not super well understood of the sector, but in contrast with sport, where the rules of sports are owned by no one, they are a collective creation. So, there’s no intellectual property over the rules of any sport. The case is that that’s not true for eSports for the most part. the rules of eSports for the most part are part of the intellectual property and I will put a An example that that I hope it illustrates it in an easy way, you know In the case of I don’t know FIFA for example, no or the key in the case of football the national federations will follow international rules to establish the size and of Football field and what characteristics it will have no I’m not the biggest Football, okay, but The size or what marks should be the goalpost and so on. Okay in the case of eSports The playing field. It’s an artistic creation the map where where The players are competing. It’s not just it has a double a double reality as a first a Program a software that is protected by intellectual property and then as well and graphic creation That so The the video game developer of the publisher will decide how it how the size of it how it looks and that’s part of a Graphic design, okay So you can imagine that through IP you also control the rules of the game, which is a very Very specific thing so IP is very important for publishers developers for the video in companies But as well for the other stakeholders tournament organizers the team organizations the players Which of course on one hand they have to respect the IP of the creators but on the other hand they can also create their own IP their own brands their own content which That alignment with the intellectual property of the video game creators sometimes can bring a series of you know of tensions, but for the most part is what is bringing the eSports sector forward what is moving it forward IP

Richard Frelick: Thanks. And that’s a very good segue for me to still move to the next slide, which gives it a very good overview of a very simplified, although in many ways, because it’s much more complex, but it’s still a very good first overview of the whole ecosystem and how IP can play its part. So, Daniel, could you give us this overview of the different stakeholders that can own IP in esports?

Daniel Zohny: Sure. Thank you. And thanks for having me. And thanks, Sergi, for the very good introduction. And you already talked about the big and obvious one, that the software, the IP behind it, the graphics, etc., are typically owned by the developers and publishers of the video games. And those are the first ones that people often think about. But there’s a whole ecosystem built around it, that in esports drives the whole movement, but also the commercial aspects of it. So it being a sport, there has to be some kind of competition. And competitions are normally organized in tournaments, leagues, as in regular sports. They might look quite different as regular sports is used to, because often they take place online, etc. However, these competitions have brands, have setups that are protected by intellectual property rights when it comes to the brands, typically trademarks, that the organizers secure, protect, in order to be able to license them out, but also, as you said, to have control over their product, if you so want to call it. And there can be other aspects if you actually have on-site events where you might have intellectual property rights instead of the stages, etc., etc. So that’s to tournaments and leagues. They, of course, then also use broadcasting, streaming, which is a separate kind of intellectual property, right, that is commercialized to create income. And typically, in traditional sports, the biggest one, actually, how you make sure you can stage your events. Now, if you go to the other side, more on the participant side, there you have the teams and the players. And the teams and the players have, over time, really evolved into IP powerhouses because they realized, okay, we have an opportunity outside of just through the competition, through prize money, et cetera, to commercialize our brands and to actually support what we’re doing. And that typically also is done through the avenue of trademarks.

Richard Frelick: Thanks so much. Maybe back to you, Sergi. So as a tournament organizer, what do you need to take into account from an IP perspective, vis-à-vis especially, for example, of the developers?

Sergi Mesonero: Well, vis-à-vis the video game companies, you basically have to have the permission to organize and to communicate, to broadcast the tournament at the end of the day. From that ownership, the rest of the chain value is created. So you not only need the permission in the form usually of a license to play a video game. Most players would not be that aware. They are aware from a subconscious way that you have to tick, you know, like, yes. Nobody really reads, except for lawyers, nobody really reads the whole end user license agreement. But actually… You need to agree to a series of things that give you the permission to use that video game and that extends for the whole sector. You need a license or a permission, either tacit or explicit, to publicly communicate the game, which means to organize a tournament. You need it to broadcast it, you need it to create content around it, to exploit it in any way. So, there’s though quite a bit of a difference between what would be commercial, professional tournament organizers and what would be community, grassroots tournament organizers. And this is generally speaking because at the end of the day, every company may have a different policy and it goes worse than that. Every company may have a different policy for different games in different territories. So, this makes the landscape a bit tricky and complicated to navigate sometimes. But, generally speaking, for all that is community tournaments, grassroots tournaments, many companies have automatic licenses that allow you to use that video game and to broadcast that video game without any explicit permission. You just need to follow a series of very basic conditions. Like, for example, I don’t know, if you are giving prizes, you cannot give prizes higher than a specific quantity. Or you cannot commercialize that on television, for example. Okay, something very basic. That has a double objective. On one hand, you are creating your own community. building it, and on the other hand, it’s free marketing as well for your video game. For commercial tournament organizers, things tend to be quite different, okay? And also generally speaking, there are different types of licenses depending on the origin and the size of the tournament. So again, I’m generalizing because every case is different. But for tournaments that, for example, have a price that goes between one quantity and another and that are shown on free platforms on the internet that are not organizing any live event, but they are not having ticketing, for example, so automatic licenses may apply as well. But the bigger a tournament, and for example, the more international it gets, usually the more explicit that needs to be the license to the point that for the bigger ones, you need to actually negotiate a specific contract with the video game company. Again, this may vary from company to company, from game to game, and territory to territory, but this is generally speaking what tournament organizers have to have in mind, that they need to have some kind of permission to operate their tournaments.

Richard Frelick: Thanks. And by the way, another thing comes to my mind when I see some of the amazing shows which are being the tournaments themselves with the stages, with musicians, with the cups themselves being designed by famous companies. And all these things, by the way, are also going to be protected by intellectual property. So that amazing music we can hear during the tournament, the amazing design. whether virtual or real, can also be protected by various IP rights. And of course, then we move to the teams and the players themselves, which are an important part, of course, of the ecosystem. And they do own IP rights. And Daniel, can I turn to you about that?

Daniel Zohny: Sure. Yeah. And you’re right. I mean, the teams and the players, especially in recent years, have become much more professional in how they can go about using their brands that they’ve built over the years and making sure that they are self-sustained also, that they don’t rely that much on maybe the publishers and the developers, apart from, you know, what they’re playing, of course. But they’re brands of their own right. They use that, especially teams, or it started with the teams more. But in recent years, as in regular sport again, went shifted a lot to players also as they became more notorious and they realized, OK, we we should engage in protecting our IP, because it’s important in brand building and in commercialization that you can get sponsorships, you can have licensing deals that on the other side, your partners see, oh, you’re doing something about it and you have some kind of exclusivity. You’ve seen it a lot with some of the players and probably the most prominent one who who really went full throttle and realized what he can do with his brand. Tyler Bevins Ninja, who started very early on to protect his IP, mainly through trademark registrations. He has for one person, I think about 25 registrations, which is not bad. That range from. you know, what he does. Entertainment in the end, because largely his income comes from endorsement deals, from streaming on Twitch, etc., but also clothing, merchandise. He does not only have a trademark in his name, Ninja, or his game tag. He has a logo, has an additional logo for his company, but also in a claim time in that he uses a lot to exemplify how much time he puts into his craft. So he did protect all this, also to make sure, and it’s I think very important especially in eSports or in gaming overall, that most of it happens online. There’s a lot of other people that would like to benefit off of this, and you as the player can then at least control how your brand is used and act against imposters. You know, if somebody’s impersonating you, has their own social media accounts up, runs their own Twitch streams, and people might think it’s you, of course looking for followers, you can shut that down pretty quickly if you have the tools in place, which again are based on IP.

Sergi Mesonero: We are seeing lately even something that I find quite fascinating on the topic of teams and players, is that up until now, or since recently, the intellectual property of the games and the intellectual property of the players did not interact that much, except at the time of playing, or sorry, except at the time of broadcasting and so on. But now we are seeing how teams and players IP is even introduced inside the games. And for example we’ve seen how, this is mostly of course for the top tier of competitions, but how teams may have their brands applied to cosmetics inside games, so their fans can play the video game using a skin as a cosmetic for their character, for their tools, their weapons, that it’s branded with their favorite team brand. So this is a recent development, but even more, we are also seeing how the brands in the form of name tags and likenesses of video game players are also being put inside the video games. One probably the best example is in the case of League of Legends with Faker, which is traditionally considered the best ever League of Legends players in history, how his likenesses have been put in skins inside the video game, how can you buy Faker inside the video game as a skin. So this is something that I find that it’s very unique of the esports ecosystem. It has also been applied more generally in video gameplay with influencers, with streamers in games such as Fortnite and others, but in the case specific of professional esports players and teams, this is something that is pushing as well forward the economy of the whole ecosystem. Before, for the most part, and it still is, the economy of esports is very much based into advertising and sponsorship, but now it’s diversifying also in this way that is using the intellectual property of teams and players.

Richard Frelick: No, thanks. And just for me to do this a bit of a shameless plug as well, in a way. So by using some of many of WIPO services, the players, wherever they are in the world, they can really more easily and cost effectively, by the way, protect their brands. For example, the Madrid system, which is based on an international treaty agreed by many, many countries. So there’s there’s there’s a lot of tools out there that can be used to to protect your brands as a player, as a team. But of course, this goes way beyond. I promise a moment of seeing if there’s any questions from the audience. And that is the moment where I’m looking at all the participants here in Oslo. Sorry, not in Oslo, in Norway, but as well as looking online. And if there are no currently questions, I’m I’m gathering that everybody is thinking on all the things they want to ask until the very end. We’ll also have a moment for that. And in that case, let me still turn now to Alexia, who will moderate a part of the event down the road now. Alexia, over to you.

Alexia Gkoritsa: Thank you, Richard, and thank you, everyone, for the great discussion so far. So we will now turn to the second part of our session where we will hear a bit more about how IP is managed in the sports space. For that, I’m very happy to welcome my colleague, Rafael Ferraz Vazquez, the legal officer at WIPO’s Copyright Law Division. Rafael has worked on copyright and digital content issues at WIPO for over 10 years, and he’s joining us online today to talk about how copyright and IP rights are applied, licensed and sometimes even challenged in the world of esports. So over to you, Rafael. Thank you.

Rafael Ferraz Vazquez: Thank you very much, Alexia. and thanks to you and Richard for moderating the session. It’s a pleasure to share this panel with Sergio and Daniel. So as we already heard, the video games are at the center of the eSport activity. Even also now we have a number of growing IP from other stakeholders, right? Such as tournament organizer that might register the trademark, the players that might seek protection for IP for some of their content that it has a growing commercial value. So eSports, although again, the video game is a fundamental requirement and it has a number, a multitude of IP protecting this content from different elements of the video game in order to ensure that this multimillion investment, not only in creating, but curating and maintaining this video game to enable the eSports activity leads to a number of IP that those stakeholders might sometimes find themselves on asking themselves on how to harmonize the different ownership and the different IP in an eSports event. So the very basic thing is that everyone that is part of this eSports environment needs to have clear and specific understanding of the conditions on especially the commercial activities that they undertake in eSports, be it for example, a content creator, be a tournament organizer or even a sponsor and brands. So for players. It’s very important to understand that the fact that they acquire a license to play the video game as a consumer, as a user, does not mean that they can undertake a lot of different acts within the eSports activity. And they need to make sure that when they go beyond playing the video game in their private environment, that they understand the acts that they are doing from an IP perspective and even from a business perspective, right? So if they, for example, associate themselves and stream and have a sponsorship over their activities, that might trigger conditions that they are not allowed to undertake without the authorization of the publisher or the video game company. So this is very important as the number of content creators related to eSports and video games in general is growing significantly, especially around the world. And also the importance of the commercial significance of those activities are also growing as the fan base continues to expand. And of course, sponsors and brands also like to jump in the opportunity to communicate to this fan base that are highly involved in the eSports. So with the growth of eSports, a number of team organizations and tournament organizers are involved and also protecting the IP and managing the IP around eSports. Some of those activities are authorized by the video game publishers. And he said he mentioned that it varies according to the publisher, to the right owner, and also to the territory. to the video game and even to the type of activity. Some of those activities, especially if they have a community aspect and with lower commercial significance, they are actually allowed, and that is made clear in the website of the publisher, where they say the conditions where the organization of the tournament is already allowed with all the need to ask for further authorization. So those small tournaments are mostly allowed, and if someone is organizing a tournament, they need to seek and understand those conditions in order to apply in practice. In other conditions, there is a way to seek that authorization, and there are preconditions to facilitate the authorization from a publisher. So certainly, we see that a number of video game publishers and the right owners, of course, would like to foster the development of eSports around the world, and in some cases, it’s quite straightforward for stakeholders to actually obtain and ensure that they are following and respecting the IP rights of the video game publishers, with the conditions being very clear in terms of participation, in price, in broadcasting, streaming, and in the type of sponsorship that the tournament organizer might have. So this is also important for those stakeholders that engage into commercial relationship with sponsors or brands in order to avoid infringement that can actually bring a damage either to the team, the player, and the other tournament organizer in case there is a lack of… for example, for the cancellation of a tournament or for an IP infringement on the part of one of those stakeholders. Having said that, being protected by IP rights that are owned by those that created the video game, there’s a number of relationships between the different stakeholders of the eSports environment, from the publisher to the developer that created and maintained, for example, the servers of the video game, to the players, teams, tournament organizers, sponsors, brands. And they all have, of course, entered into contractual relationships in order to enable this exploitation of the different business models in the eSports. For example, in entering or fostering different business models such as sponsoring and advertising, and this could be a number of different sponsorships, from sponsorship to the tournaments, sponsorship to teams, private and personal sponsorships to players and so on. You also have, of course, the possibility of merchandising, the broadcasting and streaming, and cases where there is agreement related to data involved in the eSports. And as I mentioned, depending on the conditions of those agreements and the characteristics of the business models or how the video game is being used in that business model, either the IP of the video game is not used or used according to one of those licenses that are pre-approved by the publisher, or the right owner of that IP need of course to authorize the exploitation of their IP rights, some of the exploitation of their IP rights, establishing of course the conditions and here the typical conditions in IP contracts such as the territory, the time, another type of conditions such as remuneration and so on will need to remain clear for those involved in the exploitation and authorization of those IP rights. And again as esports become more and more relevant around the world, especially with different activities and tournaments being created and expanded, it’s important that everybody involved in the esports understands the consequences, the importance and also how to manage the IP in order to successfully exploit the esports activity and that’s why we’re at WIPO with a partnership with the Video Game Europe who are looking to make it clear for example for players and tournament organizers on how to manage that IP in a successful way to foster business models and to foster the continuation of the expansion of esports around the world. So in terms of players managing the IP, there are a number of key issues for example to understand the content ownership and licensing, the issues of monetization and revenue sharing for example, the cases of foreign art and game modifications and of course understanding when it is an authorized use of material protected by copyright from the video game and the cases of trademark infringement that is of course very much important for brands and sponsors. And from the perspective of tournament organizers A number of key elements that are important for them related to IP is, of course, to secure the license to use the video game in the way that they had foreseen in the tournament, to develop a proactive IP strategy, not to, of course, have last minute problems because they did not obtain the authorization for the type of uses they foreseen, to have contracts in place and, of course, by the time all those stakeholders beyond the video game publisher also protect the IP, become right owners of IP, of course they also start to have an interest in protecting the IP and enforcing to avoid that other stakeholders use the IP without the authorization. For example, a tournament organizer might have the interest to control the trademark of the name of the tournament to avoid that third parties, for example, associate themselves with the tournament without being true. So those two stakeholders, the teams and players and the tournament organizer will certainly benefit from the upcoming publication that we are finalizing between WIPO and Video Game Europe. I hope all of you have access to that in the near future and, of course, I’m available for any question you might have. Back to you, Alexia.

Alexia Gkoritsa: Thank you, Rafael. So I will take the next few minutes to talk about, as you may have seen in the schedule, how we can prepare for disputes in games and the sport sector in general and how we can resolve them better. I will continue along the same vein as Rafael and I will mention some tools also that WIPO makes available for stakeholders to use. But let me start with a quick observation. I mean, all the speakers have mentioned so far. along several lines that we’re talking here about an industry that moves fast, faster than most really, an industry that nowadays is almost 100% digital and it’s deeply collaborative. So let me add to that, that we’re also talking about an industry where conflicts are inevitable. Now, in many industries, when there is a dispute, the first instinct is to go to court. But in games and e-sports competitions in particular, this is not always the best option and often it is not a realistic option for reasons that have already been mentioned so far, let me add. So there are a few reasons for that. We have discussed quite extensively that this is a global industry. So studios, platforms, players and organizers often work across borders or even fully online as Daniel mentioned. So that creates confusion over which country’s courts will have jurisdiction or even on which law applies. We can have, let’s say, a developer in Tokyo, a publisher in LA, a player in Germany, a tournament which took place fully online. So the question arises, where would you even file a claim in the case that there is a dispute? Second, court proceedings take time. So in most jurisdictions, they can last for years. And by the time a judgment is issued, the game or the competition in that case might already be in its next season or no longer relevant. Moreover, courts may not always have the specialized knowledge. So we may encounter judges in jurisdictions that do not fully understand the technical or commercial realities of the industry. about which the previous speakers have already talked. And finally, litigation is often costly. So for indie studios, for example, or mid-sized tournament organizers, or even individual streamers or players, pursuing a claim in court may not be a viable option at all. So in short, litigation, it can be slow, sometimes too expensive, other times too complex, or too rigid even for what the sector needs. And this is where alternative dispute resolution or ADR may come in as a more realistic option. I mentioned already in the beginning that I work with arbitration and mediation center of WIPO. So here we have worked for quite a few years, for almost 30 years now, on resolving IP and tech related disputes through ADR. ADR may encompass a variety of methods. So we talk about mediation, arbitration, expert determination. I will not delve into the specifics of its procedure. Suffice to say here that we have also noticed with these years of experience that games and esports in particular bring unique challenges. And this is why we identified the need for tools that are even more specialized. And this is where a new tool comes in that is called the International Games and Esports Tribunal or IGET. So IGET is a relatively infant initiative by the joint initiative by WIPO and the Esports Integrity Commission or ESIC. It’s a sector-specific ADR framework that we created following also consultations with stakeholders from across the… industry. So contrary to what I mentioned a few minutes ago about court litigation and contrary to what applies on ADR in general, if I may say, there are some things that make IGIT different and perhaps a bit more suitable for disputes that may arise here. So first of all we have put together a specific rule set which draws inspiration to a great extent from the WIPO ADR rules that have been in place for a couple of years but adapted specifically for games and esports. So we have tried to reflect there the realities of digital content, licensing models, cross-borders activities and platform-based ecosystems in particular. Moreover the cases that are brought for resolution before IGIT are handled by neutrals with knowledge of the sector, so we have put together a list of arbitrators, of mediators and experts which have been selected not only by virtue of their legal skills but also based on their industry-specific expertise. The proceedings are also confidential to a great extent which may matter a lot as you understand in an industry where the reputational risks are quite high and they are also flexible in the sense that based on what the parties tell us we can have fast-tracked proceedings, proceedings that take place fully online and in general proceedings that are adapted a little bit too much the scale of the dispute and the subject matter at hand. Moreover we have tried to put together the proceedings in the way that are cost-effective and accessible, I mean I mentioned already that this is a not-for-profit initiative and the costs are usually scaled based on the nature of the dispute and the value of the subject matter that is brought for resolution. We try to encourage the conduct of the proceedings fully online especially when parties come from all over the world and that encompasses the filing of the case to the hearings to the resolution which is also another factor that can keep the barriers quite low and lastly and maybe most importantly if I may say the IGET offers a forum that is neutral and international and also avoids to some extent the risks and the uncertainties even of going to court in foreign jurisdictions. Now that in terms of the proceedings in terms of subject matter we have tried to design a forum that will be able to handle basically all types of disputes that may arise in the industry so we talk of course about IP related disputes such as the ones Raphael talked about and the previous speakers including copyright, licensing, trademarks, characters etc etc. Classical commercial issues such as revenue sharing, merchandising or sponsorships. Contractual disputes and here we see quite a few disputes which involve players and teams or players and tournament organizers. Platform related issues also such as issues pertaining to streaming or takedowns, content removal etc etc and what we characterize are strict sense of competitive or integrity related issues where we have leveraged quite a lot the experience that the Esports Integrity Commission brought to the table because we as the part of WIPO at the EMC, as you understand, brought the biggest chunk of expertise when it comes to IP and commercial issues. So to circle a bit back and to wrap up what I wanted to say, I mean you saw in the title of my presentation that we talked about preparing for the resolution of these features as well. So in all honesty, I mean you understand already by the multiplicity of stakeholders involved that this will happen and that is also part of doing business, not only in the esports field but in general. But if we are smart about preparation, we can make sure that they are handled quickly, fairly and with the right expertise. So my first advice is simple, that preparation is key. Stakeholders need not wait for a conflict to appear before thinking about the resolution. Being proactive, using clear contracts which include clear dispute resolution clauses and in particular clear ADR clauses is key. Dispute resolution clauses that will specify where the disputes will be resolved, under what rules, in what language. To that end, for example, we as WIPO-EMC but also IGET provide model clauses that the users can easily adapt. It’s also important for stakeholders to know their options. I mean I spoke quite a bit about ADR in general and IGET in particular, but it is important for stakeholders to be aware of these options and in that sense being able to choose the process that makes more sense. For example, when it comes to ADR, mediation can be great for preserving relationships and reaching a more… amicable resolution, while arbitration can be more akin to court litigation and provide the final or binding decision when needed. So all in all, planning early saves time, it can protect relationships and help projects move forward when there is a disagreement. And that was all on my side. So thank you very much. Looking forward for your questions later on, and I will give the floor back to Richard.

Richard Frelick: Thank you so much, Alexia, and thank you so much, of course, Rafael. This is the moment we promised to open the floor up also to questions from the audience, both the ones here, both here and with us, as well as those joining online. I’m first having a look at the room here. If there are any raised hands, there is someone coming up over to the mic.

Audience: Hi, my name is Kenneth, and I’ve previously was with a media and entertainment conglomerate focusing on public policy and government affairs. But I wanted to ask my question as someone who observed eSports tournament and catch streamers’ live stream. So one of the most common complaints that stands out to me most during their live stream is lamenting about how they couldn’t use their copyrighted music, they couldn’t use all those tools, et cetera, because their video will get demonetized when they upload to certain platforms or do the live stream. So my question is, how can the eSports ecosystem or the IP community help elevate each other so that the entire ecosystem are more aware about the value of the copyright or intellectual property, because IP is sort of interlinked. So I guess it’s also important for them to understand. how limiting one part of the intellectual property could eventually impact, let’s say, the income, and especially when, especially eSport players might not be there for creation. They just want to have fun or have some economic value. So this mindset going into sort of creation might be different from what we have been looking at for artists or authors. So I would love to have your take on how to increase their awareness, especially when they have such a global reach and their global reach to young audiences. And when the young people grow up, hear about all those complaints and lamenting about copyrights, I don’t think it’s a good development and prospect for the IP community. So I would love to have your take on that.

Sergi Mesonero: I don’t know if this question also connects a bit with the one that we had online. Don’t you think so?

Richard Frelick: Yes, and I can read the question which you also already received online. So EULAs and user license agreements are treated as licenses imposing restrictions on various aspects of the game. These restrictions might not always relate directly to the game’s underlining IP, but can include things like requiring permission to upload gameplay video, even if the footage is the player’s own, or to organize tournaments. Can these restrictions be considered void, given that EULAs are usually written in a way that an average player would love to have constructive knowledge of the restrictions imposed on them?

Sergi Mesonero: So I will start with this final one, which probably I cannot answer because I’m not an IP lawyer. Maybe I don’t know if Daniel will be brave enough, because it’s a very, very highly, highly technical. But from a practical point of view, actually, there’s not an issue. Because, as I’ve mentioned before, for the most part, And I would say it’s practically universal. Video game companies will allow the use of the game for broadcast reasons and for free online streaming reasons and for community tournaments for free and automatically. You will only face a problem, basically, if you are simplifying. But basically, if you are commercializing that, and if you are commercializing that, I’m sorry, but you are not just an individual player that is just having fun. You are planning to have like you’re basically acting as a business. And on the other hand, if you are doing something that is basically catastrophically bad, like, I don’t know, like using, for example, adult content together with the game, even in that case, it will not apply. It will not directly involve the video game company. It will involve mostly the streaming service. So the question is, I think, from a point of view of a theoretical, very interesting. But currently, it has very limited practical implications because the players are allowed to do all that, and they are not seeing any issue. And answering to the in-person question here, I think that the situation has changed a lot in the previous 10, 15 years. I think that there’s more literacy right now among players, and especially the top tier on the topic of intellectual property. As our colleague Rafael from WIPO has mentioned, together with us, with Video Games Europe, we are helping with the publication of a guide. for players and tournament organizers, which of course it’s aimed mostly to the either the non-commercial or the more community-based or to those that are, let’s say, starting a business more than to the elite and to the professional, to the professional tier. So, wrapping up, I think that what I would say is that the sector has adapted quite well to a situation where there’s a highly engaged community that just wants to share their passion for that, for those games, and that does not, and does not feel, I mean, all those licenses, all those issues are actually transparent for them. The issues come when you are trying to commerce, mostly when you are trying to make a business out of it.

Daniel Zohny: And maybe adding to that, and I fully agree, we also, in my practice, we don’t see a lot of issues when people come and ask, what can we do, right? And then you look into the restrictions that maybe publishers put on their games, it’s always about commercialization. It’s never, or ethics, right, or inappropriate behavior. Otherwise, the publishers are aware, you’re the customer, you’re the fan, right? They want to push that, and they also know that you’re disseminating their games, you know, you’re making them more popular. And driving their profit, or their community. However, I think there’s this weird interaction where a lot of people online will complain about, oh, my stream got shut down for one reason or another. Oh, I only used something that might be protected by IP, and suddenly it got taken offline. But people should also be aware, why are you doing it? A lot of them are trying to commercialize. So they have to be aware of IP and the restrictions, because on the flip side, they would use the same rules. reasoning once their business takes off. So there is an interaction between the two. And sometimes, but it can be unfortunate when really people are trying just to have fun that through automated processes, some, you know, IP protection kicks in and just shuts things down that happens. But, you know, there has to be found the right balance, I guess.

Rafael Ferraz Vazquez: I see that Rafael also raised his hand over to you for a moment. Thanks, Richard, just along the same lines of Sadi and Daniel mentioned. And I just wanted to to thank both questions. I think they’re very interesting regarding the question in the chat. I just when when he mentioned that the end user license agreements restrict some issues that are not really related to to IP. I think it’s quite the opposite. When we talk about organizing events and streaming, that is very much related to the IP in the game. So tournament organizers will, of course, want to associate themselves with the video game by using the trademark, by using the characters, by using all the images and art created for the video game, and that is protected by IP, either by trademark, either by copyright, either by other means. So you know, someone undertakes that they are using the IP in the in the video game. And same as broadcasting or streaming the gameplay of the video game, even if it is tolerated in many occasions, as Sadi and Daniel mentioned, is still the use of the IP on the video game. Right. In the same way that broadcasting a movie or broadcasting a TV show, it’s using the IP over that movie or that video show. So it’s very much related to the IP. And I think what is clear and what is mentioned in the licenses for user when you. purchase a license to play is that what you authorize does not include those activities, but it is very much linked to the IP. And related to the question from the gentleman in there, in the venue, I think it’s the same question we came up with, how can we make clear the role and how to better use IP in esports to avoid the pitfalls, for example, for a content creator to have the content demonetized, or for a player to not longer to be able to compete professionally because of an IP infringement, for a tournament organizer to avoid any problem in organizing the events or making agreements with sponsorships and brands. And we hope we’re gonna provide at least a partial answer, a partial solution, if not a full solution to that need to bring IP into discussion for the esports community.

Richard Frelick: Thanks, Rafael. Daniel, I’m sorry, I would love to give you the voice, but I’m very aware of that red clock going almost over time. So before finishing, just let me also underline that one important part always for us in WIPO is that we make sure that everyone everywhere is aware of how they can benefit from intellectual property. And that means also the small game developers from every corner of the world who are developing esports titles. This is the players from all corners of the world who are creating their brands and they all can and should be very much benefiting from the intellectual property system. So aside from the upcoming guide, we have also a lot of materials that are available from WIPO and we are trying to empower those small developers, the beginning players who don’t yet have the knowledge on how to protect their brands, how to protect their images. This is something, the materials there, you have the links as well. So I’m putting up that on the on the screen. And with that, we are past the time, it’s 00.00, I’m having the signs being shown. So just let me end by, first of all, thanking my panellists here who have joined us, and of course thanking also my colleagues from WIPO who have also joined us online. Let me just end by emphasising and underlining that in WIPO we really continue to provide initiatives that will help all the innovators, all the creators, all the entrepreneurs in eSports and beyond. And we look forward to working with all our partners from across the world, from across the industries, to make sure that also everyone, everywhere can benefit from IP. Thank you for your participation and looking forward to some coffees. Thanks. Thank you.

Agreement points

IP is fundamental to the esports ecosystem

Speakers

– Sergi Mesonero
– Richard Frelick
– Daniel Zohny
– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Arguments

Video games are fundamentally protected by IP and esports are based on public use of IP-protected works

Video games contain a multiverse of IP from music and voice acting to code, character design, and storytelling

Developers and publishers own the core IP including software, graphics, and game elements

Streaming and tournament organization involve using protected IP elements like trademarks and copyrighted content

Summary

All speakers agree that intellectual property forms the foundational basis of esports, with video games being complex IP-protected works that enable the entire ecosystem

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Different licensing requirements exist for community versus commercial activities

Speakers

– Sergi Mesonero
– Daniel Zohny
– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Arguments

Community tournaments often have automatic licenses with basic conditions, while commercial tournaments require negotiated contracts

Most IP restrictions only apply to commercial exploitation, not casual gameplay sharing

Players must understand that consumer licenses don’t automatically permit commercial esports activities

Summary

There is consensus that video game companies generally allow community and casual use while requiring explicit permissions for commercial exploitation

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Need for better IP education and awareness in esports

Speakers

– Sergi Mesonero
– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez
– Audience

Arguments

There’s increased IP literacy among top-tier players compared to 10-15 years ago

WIPO and Video Games Europe are developing educational guides for players and tournament organizers

The esports ecosystem should work together to increase IP awareness, especially given streamers’ global reach to young audiences

Summary

All parties recognize the importance of improving IP education and awareness within the esports community, with collaborative efforts underway to address this need

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that from a practical perspective, video game publishers are generally permissive of non-commercial use and community activities, with restrictions primarily targeting commercial exploitation

Speakers

– Sergi Mesonero
– Daniel Zohny

Arguments

Video game companies generally allow free streaming and community tournaments but restrict major commercial exploitation

Most IP restrictions only apply to commercial exploitation, not casual gameplay sharing

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Both speakers recognize that teams and players have become sophisticated IP owners who need proper contractual frameworks to manage their relationships with other stakeholders

Speakers

– Daniel Zohny
– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Arguments

Teams and players have evolved into IP powerhouses, protecting their brands through trademarks for commercialization

Clear contractual relationships are essential between publishers, developers, players, teams, and sponsors

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Both speakers emphasize the importance of proactive planning and preparation in managing IP and potential disputes, rather than reactive approaches

Speakers

– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez
– Alexia Gkoritsa

Arguments

Tournament organizers need proactive IP strategies and proper licensing to avoid last-minute problems

Proactive preparation with clear dispute resolution clauses in contracts is essential for stakeholders

Topics

Intellectual property rights | Alternative dispute resolution

Unexpected consensus

Practical permissiveness of video game publishers toward community use

Speakers

– Sergi Mesonero
– Daniel Zohny
– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Arguments

Video game companies generally allow free streaming and community tournaments but restrict major commercial exploitation

Most IP restrictions only apply to commercial exploitation, not casual gameplay sharing

Players must understand that consumer licenses don’t automatically permit commercial esports activities

Explanation

Despite the complex legal framework around IP rights, there is unexpected consensus that publishers are quite permissive in practice for non-commercial activities. This contradicts common perceptions about restrictive IP enforcement and shows industry pragmatism in balancing rights protection with community building

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Integration of player and team IP into video games themselves

Speakers

– Sergi Mesonero
– Daniel Zohny

Arguments

Team brands are being integrated into games through cosmetic items and branded skins for fans

Professional player likenesses are being incorporated into games, as seen with Faker in League of Legends

Teams and players have evolved into IP powerhouses, protecting their brands through trademarks for commercialization

Explanation

There is unexpected consensus on the emerging trend of reverse IP integration, where player and team brands are being incorporated back into the original games. This represents a unique circular relationship in IP usage that doesn’t exist in traditional sports

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the fundamental role of IP in esports, the practical approach of publishers toward community versus commercial use, the evolution of players and teams as IP owners, and the need for better education and proactive management of IP rights

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary expertise. The agreement spans both theoretical understanding and practical implementation, suggesting a mature and collaborative approach to IP management in esports. This consensus indicates the industry has developed shared best practices and understanding, which bodes well for continued growth and professionalization of the esports ecosystem

Different viewpoints

Legal validity of EULA restrictions

Speakers

– Audience
– Sergi Mesonero
– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Arguments

EULAs may contain restrictions unrelated to underlying IP that could be considered void due to lack of constructive knowledge by average players

Video game companies generally allow free streaming and community tournaments but restrict major commercial exploitation

Streaming and tournament organization involve using protected IP elements like trademarks and copyrighted content

Summary

The audience member questioned whether EULA restrictions might be legally void due to players’ lack of understanding, while Sergi argued this has limited practical implications since companies allow most activities, and Rafael maintained that these restrictions are directly related to IP usage and are legitimate.

Topics

Intellectual property rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Practical impact of IP restrictions on content creators

Speakers

– Audience
– Sergi Mesonero
– Daniel Zohny

Arguments

Content creators and streamers face copyright restrictions that limit their ability to use music and other copyrighted materials, leading to demonetization

Video game companies generally allow free streaming and community tournaments but restrict major commercial exploitation

Most IP restrictions only apply to commercial exploitation, not casual gameplay sharing

Explanation

This disagreement was unexpected because it revealed a gap between the industry perspective (that IP restrictions are minimal and practical) and the content creator experience (frequent demonetization and restrictions). The industry representatives viewed current policies as accommodating, while the audience member highlighted ongoing practical problems that affect the community’s perception of IP rights.

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed minimal direct disagreements among the main speakers, who largely aligned on the importance of IP in esports and the need for education. The primary tensions emerged between audience concerns about practical IP restrictions affecting content creators and the industry representatives’ view that current policies are generally accommodating.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The main speakers (industry representatives and WIPO officials) showed strong consensus on core issues, while audience questions revealed some disconnect between industry policies and content creator experiences. This suggests the need for better communication and education rather than fundamental policy disagreements, though it highlights important practical challenges in IP implementation within the esports ecosystem.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that from a practical perspective, video game publishers are generally permissive of non-commercial use and community activities, with restrictions primarily targeting commercial exploitation

Speakers

– Sergi Mesonero
– Daniel Zohny

Arguments

Video game companies generally allow free streaming and community tournaments but restrict major commercial exploitation

Most IP restrictions only apply to commercial exploitation, not casual gameplay sharing

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Both speakers recognize that teams and players have become sophisticated IP owners who need proper contractual frameworks to manage their relationships with other stakeholders

Speakers

– Daniel Zohny
– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Arguments

Teams and players have evolved into IP powerhouses, protecting their brands through trademarks for commercialization

Clear contractual relationships are essential between publishers, developers, players, teams, and sponsors

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Both speakers emphasize the importance of proactive planning and preparation in managing IP and potential disputes, rather than reactive approaches

Speakers

– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez
– Alexia Gkoritsa

Arguments

Tournament organizers need proactive IP strategies and proper licensing to avoid last-minute problems

Proactive preparation with clear dispute resolution clauses in contracts is essential for stakeholders

Topics

Intellectual property rights | Alternative dispute resolution

Key takeaways

IP is fundamental to esports, with video games representing a multiverse of protected intellectual property that enables the entire ecosystem

The esports ecosystem involves multiple IP stakeholders including developers/publishers, tournament organizers, teams, and players, each with distinct IP ownership and licensing needs

Tournament organizers require explicit or tacit permission from game publishers, with licensing requirements varying by company, game, territory, and commercial scope

Traditional court litigation is often unsuitable for esports disputes due to the global, fast-moving, and specialized nature of the industry

Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like IGET (International Games and Esports Tribunal) provide more appropriate sector-specific solutions

Most IP restrictions only apply to commercial exploitation rather than casual gameplay sharing or community activities

There is growing integration of team and player IP directly into video games through cosmetic items and character likenesses

Proactive IP management and clear contractual relationships are essential for all stakeholders in the esports ecosystem

Resolutions and action items

WIPO and Video Games Europe are finalizing a publication/guide for players and tournament organizers on IP management

WIPO will continue providing educational materials and tools to help small developers and players understand IP protection

Stakeholders should use clear contracts with dispute resolution clauses and consider ADR options like IGET

Tournament organizers need to develop proactive IP strategies and secure proper licensing before events

Unresolved issues

The technical legal question about whether EULA restrictions unrelated to core IP can be considered void due to lack of constructive knowledge by average players

How to achieve the right balance between automated IP protection systems and allowing legitimate non-commercial use

Specific implementation details for the upcoming WIPO-Video Games Europe educational guide

Standardization challenges given that licensing requirements vary significantly by company, game, and territory

Suggested compromises

Video game companies generally allow automatic licenses for community tournaments and streaming with basic conditions while requiring explicit licensing for major commercial activities

Publishers balance IP protection with community building by being transparent about what uses are automatically permitted versus requiring authorization

The esports industry can address IP awareness issues through education rather than restrictive enforcement, focusing on commercial rather than casual use cases

In contrast with sport, where the rules of sports are owned by no one, they are a collective creation… the rules of eSports for the most part are part of the intellectual property… The playing field. It’s an artistic creation the map where the players are competing… So you can imagine that through IP you also control the rules of the game, which is a very specific thing

Speaker

Sergi Mesonero

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it identifies a fundamental structural difference between traditional sports and esports that has profound implications for the entire ecosystem. By highlighting that esports rules are IP-protected rather than collectively owned, Sergi reveals how this creates unique power dynamics and control mechanisms that don’t exist in traditional sports.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from viewing esports as simply ‘sports with video games’ to understanding it as a fundamentally different category with unique IP implications. It provided the conceptual foundation for understanding why licensing, permissions, and IP management are so critical in esports, influencing how subsequent speakers framed their discussions about licensing requirements and stakeholder relationships.

We are seeing lately even something that I find quite fascinating… how teams and players IP is even introduced inside the games… how can you buy Faker inside the video game as a skin. So this is something that I find that it’s very unique of the esports ecosystem.

Speaker

Sergi Mesonero

Reason

This observation is thought-provoking because it identifies an emerging trend that represents a new form of IP convergence – where player/team brands become integrated into the very games they compete in. This creates a recursive relationship between the game IP and player IP that doesn’t exist in traditional sports.

Impact

This comment introduced a new dimension to the discussion about IP ownership and monetization, showing how the esports ecosystem is evolving beyond traditional sponsorship models. It demonstrated the innovative ways IP can be leveraged and cross-pollinated within the ecosystem, adding complexity to the revenue models discussion.

Court proceedings take time… by the time a judgment is issued, the game or the competition in that case might already be in its next season or no longer relevant. Moreover, courts may not always have the specialized knowledge… judges in jurisdictions that do not fully understand the technical or commercial realities of the industry.

Speaker

Alexia Gkoritsa

Reason

This comment is insightful because it identifies the fundamental mismatch between traditional legal systems and the fast-paced, digital nature of esports. It highlights how the speed and technical complexity of the industry creates unique challenges that require specialized solutions.

Impact

This observation provided the logical foundation for introducing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like IGET. It shifted the conversation from theoretical IP discussions to practical implementation challenges, leading directly to the presentation of sector-specific solutions and demonstrating why traditional legal approaches may be inadequate for this industry.

When we talk about organizing events and streaming, that is very much related to the IP in the game… even if it is tolerated in many occasions… is still the use of the IP on the video game. Right. In the same way that broadcasting a movie or broadcasting a TV show, it’s using the IP over that movie or that video show.

Speaker

Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it reframes streaming and tournament organization as fundamentally IP-based activities, challenging the common perception that these are separate from IP concerns. The analogy to movie broadcasting makes the IP implications clear and accessible.

Impact

This clarification directly addressed audience confusion about why EULAs restrict seemingly non-IP activities. It provided conceptual clarity that helped bridge the gap between technical IP law and practical esports activities, reinforcing the central theme that IP is at the heart of all esports activities, not just game development.

The fact that they acquire a license to play the video game as a consumer, as a user, does not mean that they can undertake a lot of different acts within the eSports activity… if they associate themselves and stream and have a sponsorship over their activities, that might trigger conditions that they are not allowed to undertake without the authorization of the publisher

Speaker

Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Reason

This comment is insightful because it distinguishes between personal use and commercial exploitation, highlighting how the transition from casual player to content creator/professional involves crossing important legal boundaries that many participants may not recognize.

Impact

This observation helped explain the practical implications of IP licensing for individual players and content creators, providing context for audience questions about streaming restrictions and demonetization. It clarified why seemingly simple activities like streaming can become complex IP issues when commercialization is involved.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing esports as a unique IP ecosystem rather than simply traditional sports conducted digitally. Sergi’s insights about rule ownership and IP convergence provided the conceptual framework that distinguished esports from traditional sports, while Alexia’s observations about legal system inadequacies justified the need for specialized solutions. Rafael’s clarifications about the IP nature of streaming and the distinction between personal and commercial use provided practical grounding that connected abstract IP concepts to real-world esports activities. Together, these comments created a progression from theoretical understanding to practical application, culminating in the presentation of specialized tools like IGET. The discussion evolved from basic IP education to sophisticated analysis of emerging trends and practical solutions, largely driven by these pivotal observations that challenged conventional thinking and introduced new perspectives on the intersection of IP law and esports.

Can EULA restrictions that don’t directly relate to a game’s underlying IP (like requiring permission to upload gameplay videos) be considered void given that average players lack constructive knowledge of these restrictions?

Speaker

Online participant

Explanation

This raises important legal questions about the enforceability of complex licensing agreements and whether restrictions beyond core IP rights are valid when users cannot reasonably understand them

How can the esports ecosystem and IP community better educate stakeholders about the value of copyright and intellectual property to reduce complaints about content restrictions?

Speaker

Kenneth (audience member)

Explanation

This addresses a fundamental challenge in building IP literacy within the esports community, particularly among content creators who may not understand the business rationale behind IP protections

How can licensing policies be standardized across different companies, games, and territories to reduce complexity for tournament organizers?

Speaker

Implied from Sergi Mesonero’s discussion

Explanation

The current landscape where every company may have different policies for different games in different territories creates navigation challenges that could benefit from standardization efforts

What are the long-term implications of young audiences hearing constant complaints about copyright restrictions on their future relationship with IP rights?

Speaker

Kenneth (audience member)

Explanation

This touches on generational attitudes toward IP and whether current friction points might undermine respect for intellectual property rights among future creators and consumers

How can automated content protection systems be improved to better distinguish between commercial and non-commercial use?

Speaker

Implied from Daniel Zohny’s response

Explanation

Current automated systems sometimes inappropriately flag non-commercial content, suggesting a need for more sophisticated detection mechanisms that consider context and intent