🔍 Read the full analysis: How Much Can AI Borrow From An Existing Game? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the latest gadgets delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
TL;DR
Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick said companies should protect their own and others’ intellectual property after an interviewer asked about AI tools and game cloning. He described the issue as a creative concern rather than a direct financial threat, while Take-Two says it is strengthening technical and legal defenses against piracy. Neither Anthropic nor OpenAI had publicly responded by November 14, according to the source.
Take-Two Interactive CEO Strauss Zelnick said AI companies should protect their own and other people’s intellectual property, responding to an interviewer’s question about AI tools that could help clone games. In the November 9 interview with IGN, he called the issue a creative concern, but said he did not view it as a direct financial threat to Take-Two’s business.
The exchange came as the interviewer asked about Anthropic’s new rule for Claude Code and whether OpenAI should adopt a similar restriction. Zelnick replied: “I think all companies should be protecting intellectual property, their own and everyone else’s.” He added that it seemed “ironic” for companies in the intellectual-property business to “stomp on someone else’s IP and hope that yours is protected.”
Zelnick did not identify a particular AI product, user, cloned game or infringement case. The names Anthropic and OpenAI were introduced by the interviewer, and the available interview transcript does not establish what conduct Zelnick meant by “stomp on someone else’s IP.” It also does not show him saying that either company had cloned a Take-Two game.
Anthropic’s Claude Code instruction, added in version 2.1.317 on November 2, tells the model not to create a recreation of a specific existing game using its name, characters, art, music, levels or look, even if the request calls it original or renames it—a limit explored in AI game-cloning restrictions. OpenAI’s usage policies prohibit attempts to infringe others’ intellectual-property rights. The source reports finding no game-specific instruction in the open-source code of OpenAI’s Codex CLI.
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
Creative Risks and Piracy Defenses
Zelnick said he viewed AI-assisted game cloning as a creative concern, but not as a direct financial threat to Take-Two. He discussed the experience developers intend to create and consumers receive, as well as the company’s efforts to address piracy. His comments did not identify a specific financial impact or a particular cloned game.
On Take-Two’s earnings call the same day, Zelnick said piracy would become “more of a challenge” and that the company was enhancing technical defenses and legal activities. He also said technical limits, file sizes, complexity and server connections had historically made piracy harder. The remarks describe planned preparation; they do not establish that AI has caused a specific loss or that a particular clone has been made.
Anthropic’s policy against generating a recreation is distinct from a technical ban on reverse engineering. A written company policy also does not, by itself, establish how consistently requests are blocked. The discussion concerns both the outputs AI tools may generate and the options available to rights holders when outputs resemble protected games.
Popular right now
Breville Barista Express Espresso Machine with Built-In Grinder, Brushed Stainless Steel
Dyson Ball Animal 2 Upright Corded Vacuum Cleaner, Fuchsia
Vitamix VX1 Professional-Grade Blender, 64 oz, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What the Interview Actually Covered
IGN published its phone interview with Zelnick on November 9, 2026, the evening Take-Two reported results for the quarter ending September 30. The interviewer first asked about hackers using AI to clone games and about the possibility of an unofficial PC version of Grand Theft Auto VI. Zelnick answered that he saw a creative concern, said Take-Two protected its intellectual property, and said the company was focused on the issue.
The follow-up specifically asked about Anthropic’s move to block Claude from reverse engineering games and whether OpenAI should do likewise. The wording of Anthropic’s instruction is narrower and different: it bars requests to recreate a specific existing game. The source says that instruction does not refer to decompiling or reverse engineering. Those terms appeared separately in an analyst’s earnings-call question about AI-assisted reverse engineering and decompilation.
In that earnings-call exchange, Zelnick said it would be difficult to replicate the experience of consuming Take-Two’s games as intended because of technical limitations, while acknowledging piracy could become more challenging. The source reports that Anthropic and OpenAI had issued no public response to his remarks as of 21:30 UTC on November 14.
“I think all companies should be protecting intellectual property, their own and everyone else’s.”
— Strauss Zelnick, Take-Two Interactive chairman and CEO, speaking to IGN
The Scope of the IP Criticism
Zelnick did not specify whether his phrase “stomp on someone else’s IP” referred to AI-generated outputs, the data or methods used to train models, or another practice. The interview does not document a particular infringement allegation against Anthropic or OpenAI, nor does it establish that a Take-Two game was cloned using either company’s tools.
It is also unclear how the companies’ written rules are applied in practice, how often users can get around them, or whether any alleged game recreation would infringe a specific right. The source’s account of the open-source Codex CLI does not establish that OpenAI has no relevant safeguards elsewhere. No public response from either AI company was found by the stated November 14 check.
Policy Enforcement and Piracy Measures
The next developments to watch are whether Anthropic or OpenAI responds publicly, and whether either company changes or clarifies its policies for game-related requests. Take-Two has said it is improving technical defenses and pursuing legal measures, but the interview and earnings-call remarks do not provide a schedule, specific tools or details of any enforcement action.
Any later claim about a cloned game, a blocked request or a legal dispute would need separate evidence. For now, the confirmed development is a public exchange about the principles and risks involved—not a disclosed case involving a named game or an announced new restriction by OpenAI.
Key Questions
What did Strauss Zelnick say about AI and game cloning?
He said companies should protect their own and others’ intellectual property. He described game cloning as a creative concern, rather than a direct financial threat to Take-Two.
Did Zelnick accuse Anthropic or OpenAI of cloning a Take-Two game?
No specific case was identified in the interview. Zelnick did not name a cloned game, product or user, and the source says he did not state that either company had cloned a Take-Two title.
What does Anthropic’s Claude Code rule prohibit?
The instruction tells Claude Code not to create a recreation of a specific existing game using elements such as its name, characters, art, music, levels or overall look, even if the request renames it or calls it original.
Has OpenAI adopted the same game-specific rule?
The source says OpenAI’s usage policies prohibit attempts to infringe others’ intellectual-property rights, but it found no game-specific instruction in the open-source Codex CLI. That finding does not establish what safeguards may exist elsewhere.
What is Take-Two doing about piracy?
Zelnick said on the earnings call that Take-Two was enhancing technical defenses and legal activities. He did not provide specific measures or a timetable in the cited remarks.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
