[Conference Report] More Than Just a Game - London 2023

In April, this Kat, taking advantage of her status QMUL Alumna, had the opportunity to attend the flagship event of the More Than Just a Game (MTJG) conference series. The conference series was created by Dr Gaetano Dimita and the Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary University of London in 2015 to bring together creators, legal practitioners and researchers in the field of Interactive Entertainment. 

The 2023 “analog” conference on the Metaverse took place in London, lasted three days and hosted several panels and addresses on the different aspects of the IP legal regime concerning the Metaverse and the possibilities of regulation of this changing environment. Its main objectives were to consider the Constitution of the Metaverse and how the Proto-Metaverse and Videogames have changed the Creative Industries in the Interactive Entertainment sector. Everything surrounded by the fascinating architecture of the Old Hall of the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn.

More Than Just a Game 2023, image by MTJG

While the introductory day provided for the opportunity for the academics, professionals and people involved in the IP sector to discuss the IP and the Metaverse study at the Ashworth Centre, the conference officially started at the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn on the 20th April with Dr Gaetano Dimita’s and Dr Michaela MacDonald’s welcome remarks. 

1st Day – 20th April

The first panel covered the concept for the need for a blueprint for the Metaverse and analysed what is possible in relation to the different visions of the Metaverse and what would be desirable when building this environment. The main takeaways related to the possible uses that can be made of the Metaverse: e.g., how it could provide an interaction between the a State IT system and the private sector, the possibility of embassies in the Metaverse, a new digital justice system and the creation of tribunals and courts in the virtual world. Moreover, it could act as a useful tool to mix technology and policy, especially given its eventual accessibility and inclusivity. 

The panel discussed how many of the tools and technologies that are used in building the Metaverse had already been patented and how they could influence future infrastructures and future uses of the same technology. Indeed, nowadays, while the “basics” of the Metaverse are done and patented, it was suggested that the focus should be shifted to the user experience to ensure its success.

The second panel of the day identified interoperability as a key attribute of the Metaverse. Indeed, it defined this aspect as the possibility to replicate how things operate in the real world in order to be used in a virtual one. The speakers considered technological standards, IP and licences, especially by analysing who are the participants in interoperability, how contracts with the Metaverse operators work and which rights are provided to the users. 

The following panel analysed generative AI. The possibilities and challenges linked to what generative AI could could bring to the Interactive Entertainment sector highlighted that AI was able to enter everybody’s lives and radically change them. Different uses can be made of it, but it is necessary to take into account the policies concerning third party participants and data protection, and the impact of AI on the relationship between companies and their clients. The final remark of the panel evaluated the different approaches that jurisdictions are taking to regulate AI. The US provided that there is no copyright associated with the end result of an AI creation. Copyright can only be attached to what is input in the machine by a human being. The EU has a risk-based approach, which associates copyright in the case in which it is possible to identify the author and their personal choices behind the generative work (Cofemel (C-683/17) test for originality). Lastly, the UK is drafting specific provisions towards the author of the generated work, even though at the moment it only covers the human input in the machine, similarly to the US. 

Another aspect discussed was the involvement of user-generated content (UGC) in this specific environment and the advantages and challenges that user creativity could bring to the management of intellectual property in virtual worlds. It was stated that no Metaverse can exist without UGCs as it provides the only tool to give a platform user a way to be creative and express themselves. A specific consideration was highlighted in relation to the introduction of virtual influencers and their role in the same virtual worlds and the constant threat represented by influencer marketing and dark patterns.

The last panel of the day explored the fact that the Metaverse could provide another hurdle in the rights linked to the music licensing process. Indeed, while there are several opportunities related to the creation, performance and exploitation of music in the Metaverse, there are also difficulties - especially as the Metaverse has never been exposed to music in the same way as it happens in real life. The Metaverse, at the moment is seen as a gaming platform rather than a streaming services. Consequently, it would be necessary to build in creative tools for the musicians and artists that want to bring their music to virtual worlds. The Metaverse could represent the convergence of videogames and creative industries, since music represents a core of social experience. Nonetheless, it is necessary to take into account the complex licensing structure associated with, but not exclusively, Web3. The panelists underlined the importance and the role of the EU DSM Directive (arts 18-22) in ensuring protection associated with the reproduction of music on virtual platforms. 

2nd Day – 21st April

The second day brought to light other aspects linked to the Metaverse, especially in relation to the IP legal system. The first panel analysed the role of trade marks and designs in relation to several aspects of the digital and virtual environments. Indeed, NFTs (Hermes case), the facilitated commercial transactions and the different Metaverse marketplaces were considered in the discussion on the use of marks and the expansion of virtual designs. The challenges identified related to: (1) registration from physical goods to the digital market; (2) access to services; (3) enforcement; (4) issues linked to multimedia marks or to non-traditional marks; (5) designs that could provide for a solution to the risk of the loss of relevance of trade marks due to future uses in the Metaverse. 

Image by Riana Harvey

The second panel’s focus was on commercial and IP strategy linked to brands in the virtual environment including the fact that the approach to technology, when trying to enhance the reputation of a brand, has not changed when applied to the Metaverse. On the other hand, it was highlighted that the legal system is not ready to keep up with novel business opportunities created by the use of the Metaverse and lawmakers should examine this area. 

The next topic addressed the implementation of alternative dispute resolution, as there is the expectation that an increased number of disputes will take place when it comes to virtual worlds. On the other side, advantages where identified in the adoption of ADR methods in relation to the Metaverse, as they could provide for a speedy, efficient and affordable resolution. The main takeaways from the analysis related to the fact that jurisdiction can be a problem and it is not always easy to find the user behind a particular infringement. Nonetheless, ADR in the Metaverse can provide more harmonised and speedier resolutions to disputes.

Moreover, the possibility of a human centric Metaverse was considered in light of competition and antitrust, data protection and consumer protection laws. In particular, the question: if everybody is a creator, is it necessary to have a Metaverse regulator at a supranational level? The only solution that emerged was to let the technology develop and norms and legal standards will follow.

The conference concluded with a final discussion on the potential role of intellectual property as a guarantee of freedom and creativity in designing, creating and experiencing the Metaverse. Nobody was able to provide a general definition of Metaverse, as it was said that it was possible to recognise it but not to clearly define it. Nonetheless, it represents a high dimensional cultural artefact and it was said that IP protection only consists as a means to an end as it tries to balance the public interest and the protection of the author. 

Comment:

The MTJG conference provided an “analog” platform for academics, professionals, researchers and IP aficionados to discuss the recent, and possible future, developments of a concept that will reshape the virtual environment. The Metaverse can provide for different types of innovation and visions. Indeed, while there is no clear and specific definition of Metaverse, the different facets of this new aspect of the already existing broader concept of virtual reality were discussed in depth by professionals who deal on a daily basis with the issues that arise in relation to the Metaverse both in the legal field and in the gaming sector. The passion and curiosity for the Interactive Entertainment sector and the Creative Industries in both the organisation of the conference and in the contributions and remarks made by the speakers and the panelists was palpable.  With their passion, they also shared “optimism” at what the Metaverse could bring to society and to innovation.