In the push to meet milestones and impress publishers, development teams often treat intellectual property (IP) as a box to tick rather than a strategic asset. The result can be costly detours exactly when momentum matters most: disputed titles, ownership surprises or stalled funding rounds. Understanding where misunderstandings typically arise helps studios safeguard creativity, preserve revenue streams and maintain leverage at the negotiating table.

1. “Contractors Transfer IP by Default”

Fast-growing teams routinely bring in freelance artists, composers, and programmers on a tight turnaround. Many development agreements focus on deliverables, payment terms, and deadlines, but omit an express assignment of IP or a work-made-for-hire clause. Without a clear contractual provision on ownership or transfer, ownership of art assets or source code can remain with the contractor, not the studio. This gap in ownership later surfaces during publishing or financing deal diligence. For many funding sources, confirming ownership is mandatory. A robust engagement template details work-made-for-hire status, assigns all IP, includes broad failsafe licenses and anticipates moral rights issues under foreign law. This eliminates last-minute uncertainty and strengthens the studio’s negotiating position.

2. “Open-Source Licenses Are Always Free to Use Commercially”

Open-source components accelerate production and lower costs, but licenses differ dramatically in how they permit commercial exploitation. Permissive licenses such as MIT or Apache typically require minimal obligations. Copyleft licenses, including GPL and LGPL, may impose source disclosure or reciprocity duties that clash with keeping  game assets proprietary and code confidential. Development teams sometimes drop code snippets into production builds without tracking the original license or documenting modifications. A structured open-source review process avoids inadvertent breaches that could force public release of proprietary systems or trigger takedown demands from rights holders. This could look like scanning dependencies, cataloging license terms, and seeking counsel when obligations appear.

3. “The Studio Name Automatically Covers All Projects”

A common assumption holds that registering a single trademark (often the studio name) blankets every future title under that umbrella. In reality, trademarks protect specific goods or services identified in the registration. A mark for the studio name in connection with entertainment services does not automatically shield a new game title, downloadable content series, or merchandise line, especially if those have titles that are different from the studio name. Each asset or product category may require its own registration to secure exclusive rights and to ensure enforcement tools are available. Early brand clearance searches and a comprehensive filing strategy prevent conflicts with earlier marks in overlapping classes, reduce re-branding costs, and increase valuation during investment conversations.

Final Thoughts

Intellectual property questions rarely fit neatly at the end of a sprint. Proactive brand and content clearance, formal intellectual property assignments and disciplined open-source vetting integrate legal safeguards directly into the development pipeline. Studios that treat these steps as recurring milestones, rather than emergency chores, position themselves for smoother launches, stronger partnerships and durable competitive advantage.

For tailored guidance on integrating IP safeguards into ongoing projects, the team at Odin Law & Media stands ready to assist.