🔍 Read the full analysis: Take-Two’s CEO On AI Game Clones: ‘Ironic’ To ‘Stomp On Someone Else’s IP’. What The Rules Say 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 it was “ironic” for companies such as Anthropic and OpenAI to seek protection for their own intellectual property while infringing others’. He was answering an IGN question about game-cloning tools and Anthropic’s new Claude Code rule; he did not identify a specific company action, product or Take-Two game clone.
Take-Two Interactive CEO Strauss Zelnick said it was “ironic” for AI companies such as Anthropic and OpenAI to protect their own intellectual property while infringing on others’, responding to an IGN question about tools that can help users reproduce video games. His remarks, published November 9, did not accuse either company of cloning a specific Take-Two game or identify particular conduct he meant by “stomp on someone else’s IP.”
Zelnick made the comments in a phone interview with IGN managing editor Wesley Yin-Poole, published the evening Take-Two reported results for the quarter ended September 30. Yin-Poole first asked whether AI-assisted game cloning and attempts to jailbreak consoles could threaten the release of Grand Theft Auto VI. Zelnick said he did not see piracy as a financial threat to the business, but viewed it as a creative concern: Take-Two wants developers’ intended experience to reach players and, he said, protects its intellectual property vigilantly.
The interviewer then asked about Anthropic’s rule for Claude Code and whether OpenAI should take a similar step. Zelnick replied that all companies should protect their own and others’ intellectual property. He called it “ironic” for Anthropic and OpenAI, which he described as being in the intellectual-property business, to “stomp on someone else’s IP and hope that yours is protected.” The companies were named in the question; Zelnick’s answer did not set out a specific allegation against either one.
Anthropic’s Claude Code instruction, published in version 2.1.317 on November 2, tells the model not to recreate a specific existing game by using its name, characters, art, music, levels or look, including if the result is renamed or described as original. Anthropic grounds the rule in its usage policy against infringing third-party intellectual property. OpenAI’s usage policies also prohibit attempts to infringe others’ IP. The source report said it found no comparable 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
AI Rules Meet Game Piracy Concerns
The exchange puts a major game publisher’s concerns about generative AI into two distinct categories: the creative effect of unauthorized copies and the practical threat of piracy to sales. Zelnick said the former mattered to Take-Two, while describing the latter as not a financial threat to the business at that time. That distinction cautions against reading his comments as a claim that AI clones have already caused measurable commercial damage.
For game makers, the debate concerns whether AI coding tools can help users reproduce protected creative elements and how the companies behind those tools prevent or respond to such use. A rule against recreating a named game is one published safeguard, but it does not by itself establish how well the rule works in practice, how other tools handle similar requests or how responsibility would be determined in a specific dispute. Zelnick’s remarks express a broad expectation of reciprocal IP protection, not a legal finding.
Take-Two’s position also matters because Grand Theft Auto VI was approaching release when the interview took place. Zelnick’s answer indicated that the company was monitoring piracy and protecting its work, while stopping short of saying an AI-made clone had affected the game or its launch.
Products Worth Considering
Bose TV Speaker (2nd Gen) Compact Soundbar with Bluetooth and HDMI-ARC, Black
Samsung Odyssey G55C 32-Inch QHD 1000R Curved Gaming Monitor
DJI Osmo 360 Road Cycling First-Person Combo Action Camera
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What Zelnick Was Asked
The comments came during a wider discussion of AI, piracy and Take-Two’s business. Asked whether AI tools could accelerate game cloning, Zelnick said the company had historically been protected from piracy by factors including large file sizes, the complexity of copying games and connections to servers. He added that it would be difficult to reproduce the intended experience because of technical limitations, but said piracy would become “more of a challenge.”
On the company’s earnings call that same day, Zelnick said Take-Two was enhancing technical defenses and its legal activities in response. He also said technology benefits the company. These comments describe the publisher’s stated approach; they do not detail particular enforcement cases or name a specific AI-generated copy of a Take-Two title.
The wording of Anthropic’s published rule is narrower than the interview’s question about reverse engineering. It addresses recreating a specific existing game and its protected elements. The rule, as described in the source material, does not specifically refer to reverse engineering or decompiling. That difference matters when interpreting headlines that characterize the policy as a general block on reverse engineering games.
““I think all companies should be protecting intellectual property, their own and everyone else’s.””
— Strauss Zelnick, Take-Two Interactive CEO, speaking to IGN
The Target of His Criticism
Zelnick did not explain whether “stomp on someone else’s IP” referred to how AI models are trained, what users create with AI tools, or another practice. He also did not say that Claude, ChatGPT or another named product had been used to clone a Take-Two game. The remarks should not be treated as confirmation of a specific infringement or dispute.
As of the source report’s check at 21:30 UTC on November 14, it found no public response from Anthropic or OpenAI to Zelnick’s comments. The available material also does not establish how often users attempt to recreate games with these tools, whether the safeguards prevent such outputs, or what legal outcome would apply to a particular use.
Monitoring Safeguards and Enforcement
The next developments to watch are any public response from Anthropic or OpenAI, changes to their usage rules or coding-agent instructions, and details from Take-Two about its technical and legal measures against piracy. The source material does not report a scheduled follow-up or a specific enforcement action tied to Zelnick’s remarks.
For now, the confirmed development is a public statement of principle alongside Take-Two’s acknowledgment that piracy may become harder to manage. Whether AI-assisted cloning produces a concrete dispute involving a Take-Two game, or prompts further changes to the companies’ policies, remains unresolved.
Key Questions
What did Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick say about AI companies?
He said it was “ironic” for companies that protect their own intellectual property to “stomp on someone else’s IP.” He did not identify a specific incident or explain exactly what conduct he meant.
Did Zelnick accuse Anthropic or OpenAI of cloning a Take-Two game?
No specific accusation appears in the interview exchange described in the source material. The interviewer named both companies, and Zelnick responded with a general criticism about protecting intellectual property.
What rule did Anthropic add to Claude Code?
Anthropic’s 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 says the instruction appeared in version 2.1.317, published November 2, 2026.
Does OpenAI have the same game-specific rule?
OpenAI’s usage policies prohibit attempts to infringe others’ intellectual-property rights. The source report said it found no game-specific instruction in the open-source code of OpenAI’s Codex CLI; that finding does not establish that no other safeguards exist.
Does Take-Two say AI piracy is already hurting its sales?
No. Zelnick said he did not consider piracy a financial threat to Take-Two’s business at that point, while describing it as a creative concern. He also said piracy could become more challenging and that the company was strengthening technical and legal defenses.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
