Part 1: Introduction (5 mins)

Part 2: Interactive Session (115 mins)

o    Participants will be divided into 3 groups (names inspired by the Digital Dragons Conference).

o    Each group will rotate through different roles across three scenarios. Scenarios are industry-specific and designed so that the “fairness” assessment may differ from the legal assessment.

o    Roles: (1) Party A in the dispute, (2) Party B in the dispute, (3) Party C as the “Community”.

o    Groups receive a short case study and have 10 minutes to prepare. Parties A and B prepare logical, business, ethical, and legal arguments. Party C prepares two questions regarding the facts or arguments.

o    Parties A and B present their arguments (to be displayed on a projector). Party C asks questions (15 mins segment).

o    Party C evaluates who is right and why. Votes are collected to declare a “winner” (approx. 5 mins).

o    Legal Analysis: Presentation of the legal assessment, comparison with the Community’s verdict, discussion of legal tools and key moments where early legal intervention could have changed the outcome (approx. 5 mins).

Part 3: Summary (30 mins)

o    Discussion of key takeaways. Identifying when not to surrender and how legal tools can reverse a situation. Emphasis on the importance of early legal involvement.

Through rotation, each group will experience all three perspectives, allowing participants to understand that in disputes there is rarely a clear black and white side. Furthermore, confronting their assessments with legal provisions will show that intuition and a sense of justice do not always align with how a case would appear before a court or in formal proceedings. This aims to demonstrate that one should not give up simply because it “seems” as though they are in the wrong, as available legal tools can completely change the assessment of the situation.

Workshop Structure

Part 1: Introduction (5 mins)

• Why reclassification is a real risk in GameDev.
• The “substance over form” approach: how the law views the actual relationship vs the contract name.

Part 2: Interactive Session (120 mins)

Work organisation:

– Participants are divided into 4 groups

– The groups work through 1 scenario

The scenario will be industry-specific and constructed such that:

o   an intuitive assessment of the situation may differ from the legal assessment,

o   neither side is clearly “bad” or “good”.

Roles

Party A – Studio 

Party B – Contractor (B2B / Service Provider)

Party C – Supervisory Body

Party D – The Court

Course of events

Case Study and Preparation of Arguments (30 mins)

– Groups receive a short description of the facts and the contract.

– They have 30 minutes to familiarise themselves with the materials and prepare.

Preparation of arguments:

– Sides A and B prepare arguments:

• business
• organisational
• ethical
• legal (if they are able)

– Note: Side B may choose whether their goal is reclassification or not, and must not reveal their intention to Side A. Side A must answer Side B’s questions!

– Role C prepares a set of 10 questions regarding the facts or the parties’ arguments. They do not see the facts or the contract.

– Role D may move between participants, looking at documents and notes, but may not speak with the groups.

– Role B may write a complaint to the authority, informing them of the three circumstances they believe most strongly indicate whether reclassification is occurring.

Presentation and Questions (30 mins)

– Role C asks Roles A and B questions, but only the 10 previously written down.

– Roles A and B present their most important arguments. Role A attempts to guess Role B’s position. Role B reveals their position and can no longer change it.

Review (approx. 30 [10 + 10 + 10] mins)

– Role C receives the contract and has 10 minutes to ask 3 additional questions about it (or the facts), which Side A or B must answer. [10 mins]

– Role C then has 10 minutes to deliberate on the decision, which must be communicated along with a summary of 5 main arguments. [10 mins]

– Role C must then prepare a more detailed justification for the decision, while Roles A and B prepare counter-arguments. [10 mins]

Court Proceedings (approx. 30 mins)

– Role D has the right to ask each group (including C) 2 questions.

– Roles A, B, and C have the right to a closing statement (Role C – max 7 minutes, Roles A and B – 4 minutes each).

– Role D then deliberates and issues a ruling – whether to overturn Role C’s decision or uphold it; they must provide 5 main arguments for their ruling.

Determining the Winner:

o   Role A is the Winner if Role C’s decision was in their favour, or if an unfavourable decision was overturned by the court, AND they correctly guessed Role B’s intentions.

o   Role B is the Winner if Role C’s decision was in their favour, or if an unfavourable decision was overturned by the court, AND Role A failed to guess Role B’s intentions.

o   Role C is the Winner if the court upholds their ruling and at least 3 out of 5 arguments from the decision and its justification align.

Part 3: Commentary and Summary (30 mins)

Commentary:

– Lawyers’ commentary on the decision and the court ruling.

Practical-Theoretical Session:

– Most common “red flags” leading to reclassification.

– How to design cooperation so that it does not rely solely on “faith that it will be fine”.

– The importance of early lawyer involvement and conscious management of the relationship, rather than just the contract.

There are three certainties in life: death, taxes, and the fact that you cannot escape cross-licensing when creating and commercializing a game. This involves the exchange and merging of Intellectual Property (IP) regarding engines, tech, assets, brands, and content. Reaching a game’s release is just the beginning; a new IP opens doors for further commercialization where merchandising is just the tip of the iceberg.

During the workshops, we will briefly discuss contract models (mutual licences, sub-licences, barter of rights, revenue share), key clauses, and typical risks: the scope of fields of exploitation, territories, platforms, modifications, rights to sequels/DLC, user-generated content, and third-party IP integrations. Participants will practise on practical examples how to negotiate terms, secure the chain of title, and avoid conflicts with open-source licences and marketplace obligations, as well as how to properly plan a licensing strategy for their IP to avoid limiting their room for manoeuvre.

The workshops are aimed at producers, business development and finance professionals, in-house lawyers, as well as PMs and technical leads who wish to organise their knowledge of cross-licensing and learn practical tips on how to better and faster regulate cooperation with third parties in this regard and minimise project-related IP risks.

After the workshop, participants will:

• Understand the business logic behind cross-licensing.
• Be able to map what they are licensing (IP, tech, data, etc.).
• Identify key contract elements and common traps.
• Know how to prepare a Term Sheet and navigate negotiations.

Workshop Structure:

Part 1: Introduction (10 mins)

The purpose of this part is to establish the participants’ level of understanding of the issues and to introduce them to the workshop.

Following a very brief welcome, a quick show-of-hands survey: “who has done a deal with a publisher / co-dev / outsourcing / marketplace / film studios etc.”. A short presentation of key concepts and differences: cross-licence vs sub-licence vs “asset swap” vs co-ownership.

Mini-exercise (2 mins within this part): everyone reflects on examples of cross-licensing, e.g. one situation from their work.

Part 2: Theory in a Nutshell – The 6 Pillars of Cross-Licensing (20-30 mins)

The purpose of this part is to provide participants with a “framework” that they will then apply in practice (no theory, only what is important from a negotiation perspective).

Example scope:

Subject of the licence: what exactly? (source code, binaries, 2D/3D assets, animations, audio, tools, trademarks, lore/characters, documentation, data/analytics).

• Fields of exploitation / scope: platforms, territories, channels (Steam/console/mobile), use-case (game, marketing, merch, trailer).
• Duration and persistence: term, revocation of licence, “survival” after termination, versions/updates.
• Exclusivity / competition: exclusive/non-exclusive, carve-outs, “most-favoured”, restrictions regarding genre/region.
• Remuneration and economics: royalty, revenue share, barter (mutual licences), minimum guarantees, porting/QA costs, settlements and audit.
• Risks and safeguards: warranties (IP ownership, non-infringement), indemnity, limits of liability, takedown procedure, confidentiality, security.

Examples from game dev: short cases of “why it hurts” (e.g. use of assets in marketing without the right to modify; blockade on a sequel/DLC; lack of sub-licences for a porting house; granting an excessive scope of rights to third parties).

Part 3: Interactive Session (120 mins)

Exercise 1: IP Mapping and “what we are actually giving / taking” (25 mins)

Format: work in pairs or threes, using a prepared “IP map” sheet.

Task – participants choose a scenario (A/B/C) and fill in the table:

• What are we bringing in? (assets/tech/brand/know-how)?
• What do we need from the other party?
• What is third-party? (Unity/Unreal, marketplace, open-source, stock audio)?
• What could block the licence? (lack of commercial use rights, no right to modify, prohibition of sub-licensing)

Scenarios to choose from:

• A: Co-dev: Studio A has an engine plugin and toolchain; Studio B has an animation pipeline + asset pack.
• B: Crossover IP: a joint event in two games; mutual use of characters and logos.

• C: Port + marketing: a partner ports the game to a console and runs a campaign with trailers and influencers.

Output: A one-page “Licence In / Licence Out” map.

Exercise 2: Cross-license Term Sheet (45 mins)

The goal is to learn how to write down the deal assumptions so that a lawyer does not have to “guess” later.

Format: the same groups; they receive a term sheet template (points to be completed).

Term sheet – sections to be completed:

• Parties and definitions: (what constitutes “Assets”, “Game”, “Derivative Works”).
• Licence scope: (platforms, territories, channels, media).
• Rights to modify and create derivative works.
• Sub-licensing: (porting house, QA, platform holders, marketing agencies).
• Attribution / credits / brand guidelines.
• UGC and moderation: (if applicable).
• Remuneration: barter vs royalty; settlement model; minimum threshold; audit.
• Terms: commencement, duration, termination, “survival”.
• Warranties/indemnity; limits of liability.
• “Carve-outs” and non-compete clauses: (what is permitted outside of the deal).

Output: A completed term sheet (1–2 pages).

Exercise 3: Role-play Negotiations (35 mins)

The aim of the exercise is to feel the dynamic and learn “business-legal” argumentation without using legalese.

Format: role-play; one group = Studio A, the other = Studio B, the presenter as “mediator”/publisher. 

Instructions:

• 10 mins preparation: each team receives “secret objectives” (e.g. A wants console exclusivity, B wants the right to use in marketing and merch).
• 15 mins negotiation: reaching a “deal-ready” version.
• 10 mins summary: what was a “must-have”, what was a “nice-to-have”, and where the risks were overlooked.

Negotiation checklist:

• What is a “deal-breaker”?
• What are the alternatives (BATNA)?
• How to define “derivative” and “marketing use” so as not to block the roadmap etc.?

Part 4: Summary

The goal is to consolidate the findings and provide ready-to-use tools.

Discussion of the 5 most common mistakes, e.g.:

• lack of sub-licensing rights (subcontractors/porting),
• marketing “in the bundle” without clear rules (modifications, brand safety),
• overly broad derivatives (who is allowed to create “something similar”),
• lack of rules following contract termination (what remains, what disappears),
• third-party/IP compliance (marketplace/open-source).

“When to call a lawyer” – clear risk thresholds (e.g. exclusive + high revenue + key IP).

Handouts: term sheet template + IP map + negotiation checklist (optional).