A battle over surreal AI-generated characters like “Tung Tung Tung Sahur” and “Tralalero Tralala” is forcing regulators and courts to define ownership in community-driven digital art. As corporate entities race to trademark these internet phenomena, legal experts warn that the outcome could strip creators of control or turn free internet memes into private corporate assets.
The surreal, AI-generated characters driving viral trends across TikTok, Roblox, and Fortnite have triggered a high-stakes intellectual property dispute. At the center of the conflict is a fundamental question of modern digital law: When an artificial intelligence model generates a stick figure with a baseball bat or a shark in sneakers based on a human prompt, who actually owns the resulting creation?
Epic Games stepped into the fray by launching in-game skins based on characters like Tung Tung Tung Sahur and Ballerina Cappuccina. According to reporting by Jim Louderback in his creator economy newsletter, Epic licensed Tung Tung from a French firm named Mementum Labs. Mementum licensed the characters from an Indonesian TikToker, Noxa, who authored the characters with a prompt containing cultural references. However, SpyderGames, who has used these characters in Roblox since last October, contests these claims. The core debate centers on whether typing a prompt constitutes true authorship or mere curation of an internet-wide meme.
As detailed by El País, this creative wave has inundated brand offices with trademark applications worldwide. A search on TM View reveals a total of 41 applications for “Italian Brainrot,” while the United States Patent and Trademark Office and its Australian counterpart have received applications for trademark designations covering toys. Under systems like the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), exclusive rights typically default to the “first to file,” regardless of whether the applicant is the original creator. Trademark law focuses primarily on indicating commercial origin rather than artistic authorship.
Legal professionals emphasize that this framework leaves ample room for challenge. Enrique Jacobo, a lawyer at Elzaburu specializing in trademark and design protection, notes that the law permits challenges against registrations made in bad faith to harm third-party interests or misappropriate pre-existing rights. Meanwhile, Pablo López, director of trademarks and brand intelligence at Pons IP, highlights that the central hurdle remains determining whether these AI-generated character names qualify for copyright protection in the first place.
Violeta Arnaiz, director of Intellectual Property, AI, and software at Pons IP, points out that the phenomenon relies entirely on generative AI’s capacity to produce on-demand content cheaply and instantly. This technological efficiency creates a complex gray area regarding how much human intervention, or precise instruction, is required to secure copyright designation. Industry observers, such as Diana Williams, have drawn parallels to public resistance against attempts to trademark common cultural phrases like “Taco Tuesday,” noting that the public frequently views AI characters as built on stolen copyrights.
The stakes extend far beyond digital trading cards and plush toys. If firms successfully monopolize these characters, internet culture icons risk being locked behind corporate paywalls. Conversely, if courts rule that prompters hold no enforceable copyright over algorithmic outputs, these assets will remain in the public domain, leaving corporate licensees vulnerable to unauthorized widespread use.
In Plain English: The Clinical Takeaway
- Generative Attribution: Legal systems are currently struggling to determine if typing a prompt into an AI model grants the prompter true copyright ownership over the resulting art.
- First-to-File Rule: In many regional intellectual property offices, exclusive trademark rights are granted to the first applicant who files paperwork, regardless of who originally popularized the concept online.
- Public Domain Risk: The final legal outcomes will dictate whether viral internet memes become strictly controlled corporate properties or remain freely accessible to the global community.
The Mechanics of AI Authorship and Trademark Law
The conflict over Italian brainrot exposes the friction between rapid technological iteration and rigid statutory frameworks. Generative AI tools lower the barrier for visual creation, enabling viral distribution across platforms before traditional legal definitions can adapt. EUIPO emphasizes that applicants are not required to be the creator, since the primary function of trademarks is to indicate the commercial origin of a product or service.
Experts explain that proving bad faith remains the primary legislative safeguard for independent creators. Challengers must demonstrate that a trademark filer intentionally acted to usurp legitimate preexisting rights or inflict commercial harm. Yet, because generative tools rely on distributed community prompts and internet culture, isolating a single human author remains exceedingly difficult.
Contraindications & When to Consult a Legal Professional
Creators, developers, and digital entrepreneurs operating within meme-driven economies should exercise caution before commercializing AI-generated assets. Individuals and businesses must avoid assuming that viral popularity equates to unencumbered ownership. Anyone planning to monetize digital characters, in-game skins, or merchandise derived from community trends should consult a qualified intellectual property attorney to review platform terms of service, verify prior filings, and assess potential infringement liabilities before entering into licensing agreements.
Future Trajectory of Digital IP Regulation
As international patent and trademark offices process a mounting backlog of applications related to digital phenomena, courts will ultimately be forced to draw clearer lines around algorithmic creation. Whether the courts favor corporate asset consolidation or protect open-access digital culture, the decisions reached in these current disputes will establish foundational precedents for the entire creator economy.
References
- Louderback, Jim. “Who Owns Italian Brainrot? Fortnite’s AI Copyright Fight.” Louderback Creator Economy Newsletter.
- El País. “TikTok, Italian brainrot and trademarks: Who owns the rights to Tralalero Tralala.” Business and Economy Section.
- European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). Guidelines for Examination of European Union Trade Marks.
- United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) Guidelines.
