Epic plans to lift AI-training limits on Unreal Engine outputs
Developers would retain the power to permit or bar training on their individual games.
Epic Games plans to remove contractual restrictions that bar artificial-intelligence training on material produced with Unreal Engine and MetaHuman, while allowing the developers of individual games to set their own terms for their projects.
Tim Sweeney, Epic’s chief executive, disclosed the planned change in a post on X on Oct. 27. The company’s current agreement prohibits training generative models on Epic-licensed technology’s outputs, including digital MetaHuman characters, animation data and certain rendered material.
The proposed revision would apply to outputs from the engine and MetaHuman tools, rather than require game makers to make their own work available for training. Sweeney said each game made with the tools is released under terms chosen by its developer, who can permit or prohibit AI training. Authors offering assets through Epic’s Fab marketplace can also use a NoAI tag to restrict training use.
The announcement followed an Oct. 26 Kotaku article that challenged Epic and Microsoft over their support for AI development while seeking removal of unofficial AI-made recreations of their games. Epic issued a DMCA notice on Oct. 10 against a vibe-coded browser port of Fortnite.
Sweeney rejected the comparison, saying use of Fortnite intellectual property requires permission or compensation and that infringement of a game and AI training on material are separate questions. Epic’s Terms of Service had prohibited using code or content extracted from licensed products as training input for a generative-AI programme.
The scope and timetable of the revision remain unclear. Epic had not identified the EULA clauses it would change or when new conditions would take effect, and Game Developer reported that the company did not respond to follow-up questions.
A 2023 Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law article said copyright treatment of training on video-game material, and of models producing similar games, remained fact-specific and unresolved by courts; it noted that explicit contract terms can preserve remedies while the law develops.