Distinguishing Between Copyrightable Graphics and Unprotected Gameplay Concepts in Video Games (Philippines)

Introduction: Why game studios must separate “mechanics” from “expression”

International game studios commonly worry that a competitor can copy a game’s rules, progression system, or match format and release a “look-alike.” Under Philippine copyright law, that concern is partly valid: copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. In practice, this means many gameplay concepts (rules, systems, methods of play) are outside copyright, while the game’s artwork, audiovisual content, and code are often protected from creation.

This article explains how Philippine law draws the line between (a) copyrightable game expression (art, animations, UI assets, music, story, code, audiovisual sequences) and (b) uncopyrightable gameplay concepts (mechanics, rules, systems), and what international studios can do to protect their creative investment even when the rules remain free for others to emulate.

Governing Philippine law on copyright and “unprotected subject matter”

The principal statute is the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 8293, 1997). It lists protectable “literary and artistic works” and confirms that protection exists from the moment of creation, regardless of form or quality (RA 8293, 1997, Section 172).

For video games, the most relevant categories include computer programs, pictorial/graphic works, musical compositions, and audiovisual works (RA 8293, 1997, Section 172).

At the same time, the IP Code expressly removes from copyright protection any idea, procedure, system, method of operation, concept, principle, discovery, or mere data as such, even if described or embodied in a work (RA 8293, 1997, Section 175). This statutory rule is repeatedly applied by the Supreme Court in the “idea versus expression” line of cases.

The doctrine: idea/expression dichotomy applied by the Supreme Court

Philippine jurisprudence follows the principle that copyright extends to expressions, not to ideas or methods. In Republic v. Heirs of Tupaz (2020), the Court reiterated that copyright protects only the expression of an idea and not the idea itself, emphasizing that a person who merely supplies concepts does not become an “author” of the resulting work.

The Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Joaquin, Jr. v. Drilon (1999) is especially instructive for entertainment products: the Court held that the format or mechanics of a television show are not among the enumerated copyrightable works, and that copyright protection cannot be extended to cover the show’s general concept. The Court further explained that what may be protected are the audiovisual recordings of particular episodes, not the abstract “format.”

Applied to games, the same logic supports the baseline rule: game mechanics (rules, systems, formats) are generally not protected by copyright, while the game’s specific audiovisual and written expression may be protected.

What parts of a video game are usually copyrightable in the Philippines

Under RA 8293, many core deliverables of a game production are within protectable subject matter (RA 8293, 1997, Section 172). Typical examples include the following:

• Graphics and art assets: character designs, environment art, icons, textures, splash art, illustrations, posters, and in-game promotional art (as pictorial/graphic works).
• Audiovisual sequences: cutscenes, animation sequences, trailers, and recorded gameplay footage as an audiovisual work (depending on how fixed and presented).
• Computer code: source code and object code, including original code architecture and literal code expression (as computer programs).
• Music and sound: music tracks, compositions, and certain original sound recordings (as musical works and related protected works).
• Story and text: dialogue, lore text, quests, character backstories, and written narrative elements (as literary works).

Two practical points follow from the statute:

(1) Protection begins at creation. The work does not need registration to exist, because works are protected by the sole fact of creation (RA 8293, 1997, Section 172.2).

(2) Protection is for expression. The law protects the particular artwork, code, writing, or audiovisual content that embodies creative choices—not the general idea of “a battle royale,” “a match-3 puzzle,” or “a stamina system.” (RA 8293, 1997, Section 175; Joaquin, Jr. v. Drilon, 1999; Republic v. Heirs of Tupaz, 2020).

What is usually not protected: gameplay rules, systems, and methods of operation

Philippine law expressly excludes from copyright an idea, procedure, system, or method of operation (RA 8293, 1997, Section 175). In game terms, items typically falling on the “unprotected” side include:

• Game rules and scoring (e.g., “first to 100 points,” “capture zones for 60 seconds”).
• Progression systems (e.g., XP curves, ranks, battle pass logic as a concept).
• Combat mechanics (e.g., timing windows, stamina drain rules, cooldown systems as concepts).
• Match formats and modes (e.g., “3v3 rounds,” “draft pick,” “roguelike runs”).
• Economy logic as a general system (e.g., currency sinks, crafting formula concepts).

This does not mean a studio has “no protection.” It means the studio must focus enforcement on what the law actually covers: copying of protected expression (visuals, text, audio, code, and specific audiovisual content), rather than the abstract concept of the gameplay.

How courts test copying: why concrete materials matter

In infringement disputes, the recurring problem is proof: describing similarities at a high level often shows only an overlap of ideas. In Joaquin, Jr. v. Drilon (1999), the Court agreed that mere description by words of a show’s general format is insufficient; the master videotape (the concrete audiovisual material) was considered indispensable for determining probable cause where the protected subject was the audiovisual recording.

For video games, an equivalent evidence approach is usually needed. Studios should preserve and be ready to present materials that allow a direct comparison of protected expression, such as:

• Original asset files (PSD/AI/3D model sources, texture files, rigging/animation files).
• Build versions with timestamps and commit histories.
• Screen captures / recorded footage showing the allegedly copied graphics, animations, UI, and cinematic sequences.
• Code repositories and diffs if code copying is alleged.

Video game graphics versus gameplay concepts: summary table

Game element	Likely status under Philippine copyright	Why
Character artwork, skins, environment art	Usually protected	Original artistic expression within RA 8293, Section 172
UI icons, HUD layout as a specific design	Often protected (as expression)	Specific graphics/arrangement can be creative expression (RA 8293, Section 172)
Source code and compiled code	Protected	Computer programs are expressly covered (RA 8293, Section 172)
Cutscenes, trailers, recorded sequences	Protected	Audiovisual works are covered; proof often requires direct comparison (Joaquin, Jr. v. Drilon, 1999)
Game rules (win conditions, scoring, cooldown rules)	Not protected	Excluded as “procedure/system/method of operation” (RA 8293, Section 175)
General game concept (e.g., “dating game show format” analogy; “battle royale concept”)	Not protected	Format/mechanics treated as non-copyrightable concept (Joaquin, Jr. v. Drilon, 1999)

Typical scenarios and how copyright claims should be framed

Scenario 1: A competitor copies your game’s rules but uses different art

If the competitor copied only the mechanics (e.g., same stamina logic, same weapon balancing philosophy, same progression pacing) while creating new art, music, code, and text, a copyright case is difficult because Section 175 excludes systems and methods of operation (RA 8293, 1997, Section 175). The studio’s better response is usually commercial (differentiation, marketing, faster updates) and contractual (publisher, platform, and talent agreements), rather than copyright litigation.

Scenario 2: A competitor copies your character designs and UI assets, but changes the rules

This is closer to classic infringement because it targets copyrightable expression (graphics and visual assets) rather than a method of play (RA 8293, 1997, Section 172; Section 175). Evidence should highlight substantial similarities in the protected visuals: silhouettes, distinctive details, textures, original icons, and specific UI artwork.

Scenario 3: A competitor “recreates” your game using different code, but the on-screen look and animations match

Even if the code is rewritten, copying may still exist at the level of audiovisual expression (animations, cutscenes, character movement, visual effects), which can be shown via side-by-side video comparisons. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on comparing the concrete audiovisual output (Joaquin, Jr. v. Drilon, 1999) supports building the case around what is actually seen and heard, not only what is described.

Compliance and risk controls for international studios releasing in the Philippines

Studios can reduce enforcement friction by planning documentation and ownership from the start. The following steps are commonly useful in Philippine-facing enforcement and due diligence:

• Maintain clear authorship and ownership documents for art, music, code, and story (contracts with employees, contractors, and outsourcing studios).
• Preserve dated creation records: source files, version histories, art bibles, and build archives to prove independent creation and timelines.
• Prepare an “infringement comparison pack”: a curated set of screenshots and clips showing copied protected expression (not just “same mechanics”).
• Separate what you claim: when sending demand letters, clearly identify copyrighted assets (e.g., “Character X concept art,” “UI icon set,” “Animation set,” “Cutscene sequence”), and avoid arguing that the “game idea” is protected (RA 8293, 1997, Section 175; Joaquin, Jr. v. Drilon, 1999).

Final observations

Philippine copyright law draws a firm line: the rules of play and other gameplay concepts are generally outside copyright, while the game’s original visuals, music, text, code, and audiovisual content are protectable from creation (RA 8293, 1997, Sections 172 and 175). Supreme Court decisions reinforce that enforcement should target copying of protected expression, supported by concrete comparison materials, rather than broad claims over a “format” or “mechanics” (Joaquin, Jr. v. Drilon, 1999; Republic v. Heirs of Tupaz, 2020).

For international studios, the strongest approach is to (1) document ownership and creation, (2) package evidence around copied assets and audiovisual outputs, and (3) be disciplined in characterizing mechanics as unprotected concepts while asserting rights over the specific expressive content that makes the game recognizable.

About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices

 Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines.  You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines.  You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.