The video game industry has advanced from basic pixel formations to billion-dollar multimedia conglomerates that feature algorithmically composed, cinematic storylines, orchestral scores, and interactive physics simulations. Software on a computer is not a video game. Operations’ application software and traditional media are not video games. They are not audiovisual presentations. It is a complicated mixture of the two.
The composite entity offers a significant doctrinal question within the framework of Indian Intellectual Property (IP) law: What is the Indian law’s definition and protection of video games?
The video game is not one single, uniform class of work under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. Indian law adopts a distributive model. It encompasses at the same time the software of the game and the set of separate artistic, musical, and audiovisual outputs.
Multiple IP Layers in a Video Game
New to Copyright Law? Start with our complete Copyright Law Guide.
A single artistic work is not a video game. There are many elements that contribute to this outcome. Indian law allows for separate protection of intellectual property for each of these elements:
Works of literature Section 2(o): The literal expression of the code, including source code, generated object code, gaming engine scripting, dialogue, mission design documents, and textual world-building lore. Crucially, the textual code that implements a process is protected, but the abstract algorithm that underlies it is an uncopyrightable concept under the idea-expression dichotomy.
Artistic Works Section 2(c): Two- and three-dimensional character models, environment concept art, wireframes, textures, skins, and visual layout for the graphical user interface (GUI/HUD).
Musical Works (Section 2(p)) and Sound Recordings (Section 2(xx)): Creative musical scores, ambient compositions, and recorded audio assets (e.g., voice-over recordings and Foley sound effects).
Cinematograph Films (Section 2(f)): A cinematograph film is defined as “any work of visual recording on any medium made by any process from which a moving image may be produced.” This process is done fast using pre-rendered cutscenes. It promotes cinematic trailers and designed non-interactive visual sequences. But the visual sequence is not deterministic when real-time user inputs add dynamics and player-driven content. It is consequently an unknown territory within the ambit of Section 2(f).
First Ownership of Underlying Works: A game is made up of many works by different contractors (e.g., freelance 3D sculptors, composers, and external coders), so studios need express written assignments or service agreements under section 17(c) to consolidate title and avoid fragmented ownership claims.
Copyright of Software vs. Artistic and Audiovisual Works
The main tension in game protection is the separation between the code layer (software) and the expressiveness layer (audiovisual elements).
Software Dimension (Literal Protection)
The Copyright Act defines literary works in Section 2(o) to specifically include “computer programs, tables, and compilations, including computer databases.”
Software copyright prevents unlawful copying, decompiling, and distribution of the exact code of the software. But there are limits to this kind of protection. It cannot prevent a competitor from writing new source code that has a different implementation but the same functional logic, which is known as a clean-room copy.
The Audiovisual Dimension (Non-Literal Protection & “Look and Feel”)
Developers rely on the audiovisual and artistic elements because copyright law does not protect against functional copies.
In R.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films (1978), it was held that copyright protects the expression, arrangement, and working of the concept and not the idea, system, or subject matter.
The Delhi High Court promptly used this test in the gaming arena in Mattel, Inc. v. Jayant Agarwalla (2008) (the Scrabulous controversy). The judiciary said that copyright legislation cannot rule the laws, structure, and operational elements of a game. To support a claim of infringement, there must be substantial duplication of expressive visual, graphic, or linguistic elements.
So even if a competitor writes all new software code, if they copy the original character designs, the custom visual elements, the animation assets, the unique sound cues, and the user interface design, they are infringing on the artistic, musical, and cinematic components of the game.
Distributive vs. Unitary Protection Models
In jurisdictions such as the United States (see, e.g., Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman), courts generally view video games as a single audiovisual work.
However, the Indian legal system does not recognize multimedia compositions as independent entities. The Indian judiciary works on a distributive system, where the rights-holders need to obtain licenses, register, and pursue infringement under various statutory heads such as literary (code, lore), creative (graphics, UI), musical, sound recording, and cinematographic.
Game Mechanics and Patent Barriers: The Section 3(k) Obstacle
Copyright protects visual artistic representation just as it protects written code. There is a giant gap in the domain of game mechanics such as basic functional principles, interactive logic, and gaming loops.
Legal Restrictions: Section 3(k) and Section 3(m)
The statutory restrictions to patentability are enumerated under Section 3 of the Patents Act, 1970:
Section 3(k) excludes “a mathematical or business method, a computer program per se, or algorithms.”
Section 3(m) states, “a simple structure, rule, or procedure for the performance of a mental act or of playing a game.”
Subsection 3(m) bans any fundamental rules of the game, such as the order of turns, the conditions for winning, or the methods of scoring. Section 3(k) excludes from the definition of a computer program, as such software-based gameplay loops, unless they reach a higher threshold.
The “Technical Effect” Requirement
The applicant has to satisfy the criteria as mentioned in the Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure and as explained by the Delhi High Court in Ferid Allani v. Union of India (2019) to overcome Section 3(k). The innovation carried out on a computer should have a basic technological influence or a technical improvement increasing the operating efficiency of computer hardware, data processing, or memory distribution.
Thus, while agencies like the USPTO have issued patents for game-design methodologies (e.g., Nintendo’s directional targeting, Bandai Namco’s supplementary loading-screen mini-games, or Warner Bros.’ dynamic NPC hierarchy in the Nemesis System), attempting to file similar patents with the Indian Patent Office (IPO) is laden with almost insurmountable hurdles unless the mechanism specifically deals with a technical issue related to engine rendering efficiency, network latency, or hardware synchronization.
Synthesis: Software or Copyright?
Under Indian law, a video game is protected both as software and as an audiovisual work. The legal standing is determined by the jurisdiction in which it operates:
Storage or source repository: It is a literary creation comprising source code, object code, and development documentation combined with independent digital asset repositories.
Interactive audiovisual assemblage: It is an interactive audiovisual assemblage in performance (screen) presenting synchronous creative, musical, sound recording, and cinematic elements.
Commercial branding: The Trade Marks Act (1999) gives special protection to various non-copyrightable components, such as franchise names, logos, and studio identifiers within Nice Classes 9 (game software), 41 (interactive entertainment services), and 42 (software infrastructure).
Conclusion
Indian law does not treat video games as one homogenous asset of intellectual property. Conversely, Indian legal principles are based on a multi-layered and complex structure where software copyright is used to protect against the real appropriation of code, binary de-compilation, and illicit extraction of valuable resources. This is the methodology that programmers use. They copyright art, music, and movies so that they can prevent artistic copying, visual copying, and commercial copying. The two legal restrictions in the Patents Act, Sections 3(k) and 3(m), make it almost impossible to patent purely logical mechanics.
The Indian gaming industry is no longer just a consumption market, and with the growth of local studios and esports initiatives, the distribution system comes with a significant price tag in licensing, asset validation and legal difficulties. The Copyright Act needs to be amended to cover interactive multimedia works, and Indian intellectual property rules need to be updated to reflect the current technical and economic reality of video games.
References
- The Copyright Act, 1957 (Act No. 14 of 1957)
- The Patents Act, 1970 (Act No. 39 of 1970)
- Office of Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM), Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRI) (2017).
- R.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films & Ors., (1978) 4 SCC 118; AIR 1978 SC 1613.
- Mattel, Inc. & Ors. v. Jayant Agarwalla & Ors., (2008) 38 PTC 416 (Del); 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1059.
- Ferid Allani v. Union of India & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11867; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90686424/.
- Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Electronics,_Inc._v._Kaufman.
- Ramos, A., López, L., Rodríguez, A., Meng, T., & Abrams, S., The Legal Status of Video Games: Comparative Analysis in National Approaches, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO, 2013).
- Reddy, P. T., & Chandrashekaran, S., Create, Copy, Disrupt: India’s Intellectual Property Dilemmas, Oxford University Press (2017).
