On Copyright Infringement Concerning Video Games Reskinning
- 1 Law School, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing, China
Abstract
A reskinned video game replicates the core architecture of an original game, including its gameplay mechanics, game element design, and underlying rules, while only replacing superficial audiovisual elements such as art assets, music, and text. This form of infringement has long been a critical challenge for copyright protection in the video game industry, with the core controversy centering on the copyrightability of game design under copyright law. In current judicial practice in China, two core regulatory paths have been formed: regulation under copyright law and regulation under anti-unfair competition law. However, both paths face fundamental logical defects and systemic conflicts with intellectual property law, failing to effectively curb infringement in reskinned video games. This paper clarifies the connotation and copyright status of game design, confirms that systematic and detailed original expressions in game design are eligible for copyright protection, and proposes an optimized Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison (AFC) Test to establish a judgment rule for substantial similarity. It aims to provide a solution for the copyright infringement in reskinned video games that aligns with fundamental copyright law principles and judicial practice needs.
- (2016). Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, Civil Judgment . Hu 73 Min Zhong No. 190. (In Chinese)
- (2017). Shanghai Pudong New Area People ’ s Court, Civil Judgment . Hu 0115 Min Chu No. 77945. (In Chinese)
- (2019). Shenzhen Intermediate People ’ s Court of Guangdong Province, Civil Judg ment . Yue 03 Min Chu No. 2157. (In Chinese)
- (2020). Supreme People ’ s Court of the People ’ s Republic of China, Civil Ruling . Zui Gao Fa Min Shen No. 5551. (In Chinese)
- (2021). Guangdong High People ’ s Court, Civil Judgment . Yue Min Zhong No. 1035. (In Chinese)
- (2021). Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, Civil Judgment . Yue 73 Min Zhong No. 1245. (In Chinese)
- (2023). Beijing Haidian District People ’ s Court, Civil Judgment . Hai Min Chu Zi No. 27744. (In Chinese)
- (2024). Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People ’ s Court, Civil Judgment . Hu Yi Zhong Min Wu (Zhi) Chu Zi No. 23. (In Chinese)
- Casillas, B. (2012). Attack of the Clones: Copyright Protection for Video Game Developers. Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, 33, 137-170.
- Cui, G. B. (2020). The Dichotomy Between Picture and Content of Audiovisual Works. Intellectual Property, No. 5 , 22-39. (In Chinese) https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=ZO6hV6rGk-YCI073Z9gXW3F7XHVnVteXXlJ6hb4dj4_Bf3zH9HW7qjBZIA9hwChyMylNlbWf0Otkn9ZNbKNNNmul4xFgS5NDEMDVtf1nMAuJymQOWFBrBV3RDlAHE7GxzdvwFCbG1bteibW9BXp7W_4S6Jcf2GW8ju54e__Nd5_2IeWLbc5G7g==&uniplatform=NZKPT&language=CHS
- Hemnes, T. M. S. (1982). Adaptation of Copyright Law to Video Games. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 131, 171-233. https://doi.org/10.2307/3311832
- Lampros, N. M. (2013). Leveling Pains: Clone Gaming and the Changing Dynamics of an Industry. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 28, 743-776.
- Liu, P., & Wang, Q. (2019). Analysis on the Copyrightability of Online Game Rules. China Court. (In Chinese) https://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2019/12/id/4750526.shtml
- Lu, H. J. (2011). On the Object of Copyright (pp. 24-25). Intellectual Property Publishing House. (In Chinese)
- Lu, H. J. (2020). The Status of Online Game Rules under Copyright Law. Business and Economic Law Review, No. 1, 139. (In Chinese) https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=ZO6hV6rGk-bxl0edXQpN-gp9WLREqb9-ALQvYMDgGt2jxSuVM4Td2MYqcHs8hH-wmrKu3Ulfd5AO3J9phB2hO6a5ieYY5L9z74lw0lQhtH_XdAAcktUyDg9UYH_voMDlP3e6TYhR7EJB7MdsPpkMPJ9kQIZ2ZRYQM4S4mbl9ycpTRf-2MjubYg==&uniplatform=NZKPT&language=CHS