🔍 Read the full analysis: The IP Questions Behind AI-Generated Game Clones on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on office and shipping supplies
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
In a November 9 interview with IGN, Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick said companies should protect their own and others’ intellectual property, responding to a question about Anthropic’s new Claude Code rule on recreating existing games. He said he did not view AI-assisted piracy as a financial threat to Take-Two at present, though he expects piracy to become more challenging. The interview did not identify a specific cloned game or establish that either AI company had enabled infringement.
Take-Two Interactive CEO Strauss Zelnick said AI-assisted game cloning poses a creative concern for the publisher, while arguing that companies developing AI tools should protect others’ intellectual property as well as their own. His comments came in an IGN interview published November 9, after a question about Anthropic’s new restriction on recreating existing games in its Claude Code tool; Zelnick did not identify a specific clone or accuse either AI company of enabling a particular infringement.
Asked whether he wanted other AI companies, including OpenAI, to follow Anthropic’s step, Zelnick said: “I think all companies should be protecting intellectual property, their own and everyone else’s.” He added that it seemed ironic for companies in the intellectual-property business to “stomp on someone else’s IP” while hoping their own rights would be protected. The interviewer, not Zelnick, named Anthropic and OpenAI.
In the preceding exchange, Zelnick said he did not consider AI cloning a financial threat to Take-Two’s business, but called it a creative issue. He said the company wants developers’ intended experience delivered to consumers and that it protects its intellectual property. He did not specify whether his criticism referred to how AI models are trained, what users create with them, or another practice.
On Take-Two’s earnings call the same day, Zelnick said piracy was likely to become “more of a challenge” and said the company was strengthening its technical defenses and legal activity. He also described technical obstacles that had historically made piracy harder, including game file sizes, complexity and server connections. Those remarks address piracy broadly; they do not establish that a Take-Two game has been cloned using an AI tool.
AI coding agents and existing games · as of Nov 14, 2026
Prompt in, game out: where the line runs
Three example requests (illustrative, not real cases) and what each vendor’s published rules say about them.
- Example request
“An original racing game with my own art”own idea, own assets
Claude Code (Anthropic)AllowedRule text: build original games and games from the user’s own designs and assets
Codex / policies (OpenAI)No objectionNothing in the published usage policies against it
- Example request
“A heist game with mechanics like [a named hit]”a game named as a reference
Claude Code (Anthropic)Allowed since v2.1.317Builds an original game in that genre, per Anthropic
Codex / policies (OpenAI)No game rule foundNo game-specific instruction in the Codex CLI code
- Example request
“Rebuild [a specific game], just rename it”a copy under a new name
Claude Code (Anthropic)Not allowedCovers its name, characters, art, music, levels or look; offers to build something similar
Codex / policies (OpenAI)General IP banUsage policies bar attempts to infringe IP; no game-specific rule found
Outside the tools: Take-Two says it relies on its own “technical defenses” and “legal activities”. Copyright and trademark law apply whichever tool writes the code.
The requests are our own illustrations. The rows summarize published rules, not tests of how the tools behave. ChatGPT’s and Codex Web’s server-side instructions are not public.
Sources: Claude Code program text, versions 2.1.317 to 2.1.325, and Anthropic’s statement of Nov 4, 2026 (via Tom’s Hardware); OpenAI usage policies, version effective Nov 20, 2026 (Internet Archive copy of Oct 28, 2026); Codex CLI repository on GitHub, checked Nov 14, 2026; Take-Two fiscal Q2 2027 earnings call, Nov 9, 2026.
Graphic: Powered by Thorsten Meyer AI
AI Game Clones Test IP Boundaries
The exchange concerns how AI coding tools may be used to reproduce elements of existing games and how developers seek to protect their intellectual property. A rule against recreating a named game may limit one type of assistance, but it does not determine whether a particular output infringes intellectual-property rights or how responsibility would be allocated among a tool provider, a user and a rights holder.
Zelnick described the issue as one of creative control and the intended player experience, as well as piracy. His comments draw attention to the distinction between AI companies’ published rules and how tools respond in practice. The available material does not establish whether such rules prevent infringing outputs or how consistently they are applied.
Zelnick said he did not see a direct financial threat to Take-Two at the time. His statement that piracy may become harder to manage describes a potential concern; it is not evidence that AI cloning has caused measurable financial harm to the publisher.
Popular right now
Hisense 40-Inch QD4SR Series Hi-QLED FHD Roku Smart TV
eufy E25 Robot Vacuum and Mop with HydroJet Roller Mop
De'Longhi Stilosa Compact Manual Espresso Machine with Milk Frother
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What the Policies Actually Say
Anthropic’s Claude Code instruction, included from version 2.1.317 published November 2, tells the model not to create a recreation of a specific existing game by using its name, characters, art, music, levels or overall look—even if the result is renamed or presented as original. Anthropic grounds that restriction in its broader usage policy against infringing third-party intellectual property.
OpenAI’s published usage policies also prohibit attempts to infringe others’ intellectual-property rights. The source material reports no comparable game-specific instruction in the open-source code of OpenAI’s Codex CLI. That observation applies to the code examined; it does not establish what instructions may exist in other products or systems.
The wording matters. The Claude Code rule described here concerns recreating a specific existing game; it does not expressly refer to reverse engineering or decompiling. Those subjects appeared in the interviewer’s framing and in an analyst’s question on Take-Two’s earnings call, but they should not be treated as identical to the published rule.
“I think all companies should be protecting intellectual property, their own and everyone else’s.”
— Strauss Zelnick, Take-Two Interactive CEO, in an IGN interview published November 9, 2026
No Specific Clone Identified
The interview does not identify a Take-Two game cloned with Claude, ChatGPT or another AI tool, nor does it name a legal case or concrete incident behind Zelnick’s phrase “stomp on someone else’s IP.” It remains unclear whether he meant user-created outputs, the development or training of AI systems, or a broader industry concern.
The source material also reports no public response from Anthropic or OpenAI to Zelnick’s remarks as of 21:30 UTC on November 14. The scope and real-world enforcement of the Claude Code instruction are not established by the policy wording alone. Nor does the absence of a game-specific instruction in the examined Codex CLI code prove that no relevant controls exist elsewhere in OpenAI’s products.
Finally, the available account gives no figures for AI-related piracy, no evidence of financial losses tied to game cloning and no legal determination about when an AI-assisted recreation would infringe a particular game’s rights.
Policy Enforcement and Piracy Response
The next developments to watch are whether Anthropic or OpenAI publicly address Zelnick’s comments, and whether either company provides more detail about how its policies apply to game-recreation requests. Further evidence about enforcement—such as how tools respond to requests involving identifiable games—would help distinguish written restrictions from their practical effect.
Take-Two has said it is strengthening technical defenses and legal activity in response to piracy concerns. The company has not, in the material available here, announced a specific new measure or timetable tied to AI cloning. Any assessment of the threat will depend on future examples, enforcement actions or company disclosures rather than the interview alone.
Key Questions
What did the Take-Two CEO say about AI-generated game clones?
Strauss Zelnick said he viewed AI-assisted cloning as a creative concern, not a financial threat to Take-Two at that time. He also said companies should protect their own and others’ intellectual property.
Did Zelnick accuse Anthropic or OpenAI of cloning a Take-Two game?
No specific accusation appears in the interview. The interviewer named the two companies, and Zelnick made a general point about intellectual-property protection. He did not identify a game, product or cloning incident.
What restriction did Anthropic add to Claude Code?
The instruction tells Claude Code not to recreate a specific existing game using its name, characters, art, music, levels or look, even if the result is renamed or called original. The source material says the instruction appeared in version 2.1.317, published November 2, 2026.
Does OpenAI have the same game-specific rule?
OpenAI’s published usage policies prohibit attempts to infringe others’ intellectual-property rights. The source material reports that the examined open-source Codex CLI code did not contain a game-specific instruction; that finding does not establish what controls may exist in other OpenAI systems.
Has AI cloning caused confirmed financial losses for Take-Two?
The source material provides no confirmed loss figures or specific AI-cloning case. Zelnick said he did not view the issue as a financial threat to the business at the time, while warning that piracy could become more challenging.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
