The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →To assess whether one game’s ship design or artwork may have been copied, compare specific visual choices—not just the overall resemblance—then check what was public when, whether the later creators could have encountered it, and what evidence may show independent creation. A similar silhouette, a shared science-fiction convention, or access to an earlier work does not by itself establish copying. This guide focuses on U.S. copyright principles; laws and tests vary among countries and U.S. courts.
Start by identifying what you are comparing
“Ship design” can mean several different things: a concept-art sheet, an in-game 3D model, a promotional illustration, an animated scene, or even a physical product. Identify the particular works and versions before drawing conclusions. A screenshot of a ship in motion is not necessarily a direct comparison to a clean concept-art image.
Record differences in viewpoint, lighting, color grading, damage, animation, image compression, and cropping. These can make the same design look different—or make different designs look more alike than they are. Keep the comparison focused on the actual material at issue, rather than treating every appearance of a ship in a game as the same work.
Preserve the works and the evidence around them
Save copies of the images or captures where you are legally allowed to do so. Note each URL or publication location and the date you accessed it; keep nearby credits, captions, and other context. If you are involved in creating a design, preserve original files, dated exports, layered drafts, design notes, and relevant communications. Do not alter or overwrite the only copy of a file.
Recommended Free Tools
#1 Best Overall
These records can help establish chronology and context, but no single screenshot, timestamp, or draft proves copying. U.S. courts may consider access and evidence of independent creation, among other facts; the applicable analysis depends on the court and case posture.
Compare visual expression, not just the general idea
U.S. copyright can protect original visual expression fixed in a tangible form, including artwork and audiovisual material in games. It does not give someone ownership of the general idea of a spaceship, a fighter role, or a game concept. The Copyright Office identifies composition, depiction, and the use of design elements as places where visual creativity may appear. Describe what matches and what differs in concrete terms.
- Silhouette and proportions: Compare the outline, relative length and width, and distinctive asymmetries.
- Arrangement: Look at how wings, engines, cockpit, weapon mounts, and other major parts relate to one another.
- Distinctive details: Note particular surface features, markings, shapes, or color placement—not simply that both ships have engines or a cockpit.
- Illustration choices: If the works are images, compare composition, viewpoint, pose, lighting, and the placement of the ship in the frame.
A useful comparison identifies both similarities and differences. “They have the same vibe” is a reaction, not an explanation of which expressive choices appear alike.
Filter out genre conventions and functional constraints
Some resemblance comes from shared ideas, practical constraints, or familiar conventions rather than appropriation of another creator’s expression. A feature that is standard for a genre may be treated as a convention of that genre—sometimes described as scènes à faire. Features dictated by function or technical constraints also deserve separate consideration from expressive choices. The U.S. Copyright Office likewise explains that ideas and concepts are not protected by copyright.
Rank #3
For example, the fact that two fictional fighters have wings, engines, and a forward cockpit is not, by itself, a strong basis for concluding that one copied the other. The more useful question is whether the works share a specific, original arrangement or depiction beyond those broad elements. Do not dismiss an entire design just because individual components are familiar: a distinctive selection and arrangement of common elements may still be relevant.
Consider the combination and the chronology
After separating common, functional, and otherwise unprotectable features, consider whether the remaining choices combine into a distinctive visual expression. U.S. opinions illustrate different ways courts approach that comparison. The Ninth Circuit’s 2025 Biani opinion describes an objective extrinsic comparison of protectable expression after filtering, alongside a more holistic intrinsic comparison left to the fact-finder. A 2017 Southern District of New York opinion in Horizon Comics v. Marvel discusses filtering and whether similarities arise from original aesthetic expression, including a potentially distinctive combination of choices. These are illustrations of particular courts’ approaches, not a universal test or a formula for lay comparisons.
Rank #4
Then build a timeline. When did the earlier work become public? When did the later design appear? Is there a plausible route by which the later creators could have encountered the earlier work? If creators have dated drafts or other process records pointing to an independent route, that evidence may help explain the resemblance. The Fifth Circuit’s 2025 Huffman v. Activision opinion discusses access, independent creation, and the demanding “striking similarity” concept in its context. Access and resemblance do not alone settle whether copying occurred, and independent creation can explain even a strong resemblance.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Keep the conclusion proportionate to the evidence
A careful first-pass conclusion might be: “These specific similarities warrant closer review.” A quick side-by-side is not enough to conclude that a studio stole a design. There is no universal visual score or “percentage copied” threshold established by the cited sources. For a specific commercial dispute, ask qualified intellectual-property counsel in the relevant jurisdiction to assess the actual works and evidence before making public accusations, sending a demand, or filing a takedown request.
Best Value
Know which kind of intellectual property may be relevant
Copyright is only one category of intellectual property. Brand identifiers may raise trademark questions, while qualifying functional technology may involve patents. Those protections address different subject matter from copyright in artwork. U.S. law also has a specialized chapter for certain original vessel hull and deck designs, with “vessel” defined in relation to watercraft; the cited statute does not establish that this protection applies to fictional ships or digital game artwork. WIPO’s overview of video games and intellectual property provides international background, not one worldwide infringement test.
Sources and jurisdiction
- 17 U.S.C. § 102 states that copyright protection does not extend to ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries. The current preliminary U.S. Code page states the text in effect September 10, 2026.
- The U.S. Copyright Office’s guidance for visual and graphic artists discusses originality and visual creative choices.
- The Copyright Office’s Compendium, Third Edition explains that game artwork may be protected while game ideas and methods are not, and that a claimant should identify the specific authorship being registered. It is administrative guidance, not a substitute for the statute.
- 17 U.S.C. Chapter 13 covers specialized protection for certain vessel hull and deck designs.
The U.S.-centered principles here are not a determination about any particular design. The governing law and the facts that matter can vary by jurisdiction, including among U.S. circuits.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
