Who Owns a Meme Made With AI? -By Fransiscus Nanga Roka

The Indonesian creator uses generative AI to create a surreal character. Commercial rights, A french agency. The character made its way into a hit on Roblox from two American game developers. And just like that, an internet-created gag turns into a court battle in California. Who profits when AI-assisted image goes viral to the tune of millions? The answer can get quite complicated, as Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab shows with one deceptively simple question.

The character, named Tung Tung Tung Sahur is a wiry, humanoid figure anthropomorphised from the viral “Italian brainrot” phenomenon. On November 26, 2025 Spyder Games and Speedy Simulator Gaming filed a lawsuit against Mementum Lab before the US District Court for the Northern District of California in connection with Steal a Brainrot. Mementum has filed counterclaims. Still the case is just a battle of the parties’ respective allegations, not a court statement that either side actually owns the character.

The developers’ issue hits at the most vulnerable point of many claims to ownership of AI: creating an image means that whoever uses this machine is not automatically the creator of everything depicted by it. According to the US Copyright Office, prompts are not enough on their own; protection will depend on whether a human exercised sufficient control over the work’s expressive elements, including via creative editing or selection. And while that rule makes all of those names, recordings, stories or subsequently human-designed works available for free commercial use; There is evidence and analysis required for each claim of works.

That would have been different danger given Mementum’s position. A trademark can be a means of identifying the source of licensed products but is not in and of itself an eternal copyright on some aspect of a popular idea. An agency should not get a monopoly on the folklore of the internet by claiming ownership and shouting us into submission that we can’t push back against. Similarly, no creator’s unique human part should be able to turn out a profitable game and take all profits while calling it “AI.”

This is precisely why the court should require precision. What kind of image, sound text or design is claimed? What did a human do in fact? Which rights went to where and after what territories did Mementum acquire. What use of the character, if any would lead consumers to confuse the game with an authorized product in a case of trademark infringement? Even viral fame is proof of popularity but neither by itself are evidence of authorship or consumer confusion.

Fact discovery is to end in March 2027, Judge Noël Wise ruled, along with an August hearing on case-ending and expert-evidence motions and a jury trial slated for November 8, 2027. Those are dates on the schedule—not a prediction of the decision.

Before the next meme hits the courts, game platforms and licensing agencies should take action. They must retain prompts, source files and edits along with dates of publication; delineate rights specifically for images, names, audio and any subsequent adaptations; publish clear licensing terms; and create a prompt appeal mechanism when disputed claims result in removal of content. Contracts must also specify who created the content and the revenue share of each creator.

At worst, we have introduced an across-the-board rule that all AI-assisted meme are owned by whoever registers it first—or whoever copy the idea most profitably. The better rule is less exacting and more equitable: show the human ingenuity, demonstrate the chain of rights, and establish the controversial use.

Fransiscus Nanga Roka

Faculty of Law University 17 August 1945 Surabaya and Managing Partner Law Firm Victorious Indonesia