The most significant difference is that Polish copyright law doesn’t recognize the US work-for-hire doctrine. In the US, creative work produced by an employee within the scope of employment is owned by the employer by default. In Poland, the author (the person who created the work) is the default owner of copyright, and transfer requires an explicit written agreement. For employees, Polish copyright law allows a specific exception: an employer owns the economic rights to software created by an employee in the course of employment duties, but this exception applies specifically to computer programs and requires the employment agreement to be correctly structured. For non-software creative assets — art, music, writing, game design documents — the author’s rights must be explicitly transferred by written agreement. Freelancers and contractors have no equivalent of work-for-hire regardless of what the contract says about ownership — the transfer must be explicit and cover the specific fields of use.

Under Polish copyright law, a transfer of copyright or a license must specify the “fields of use” — the specific ways the transferee can exploit the work. A transfer that doesn’t enumerate specific fields of use is incomplete. The enumerated fields of use are defined in the Polish copyright law and include: reproduction, distribution, public performance, broadcasting, digital transmission, and others. For game IP, the relevant fields include: digital distribution (covering Steam, Epic, GOG, mobile platforms), recording and reproduction for physical distribution, broadcasting for streaming, and derivative works for DLC, sequels, and ports. A US publisher agreement that transfers “all rights” without correctly enumerating the Polish law fields of use may not actually transfer the distribution rights the publisher needs.

Games distributed to EU players face several regulatory layers: GDPR applies to player account data, analytics, and behavioral profiling; the Digital Services Act applies to platforms hosting user-generated content or operating in-game marketplaces; the EU Consumer Rights Directive applies to in-game purchases, subscriptions, and virtual item refund rights; the Digital Content Directive applies to the conformity standards for game software and updates; and national consumer protection laws regulate loot boxes differently across EU member states (some treat randomized paid item mechanics as regulated gambling). Marketing for EU-distributed games is subject to EU advertising law, Omnibus price display rules, and national influencer disclosure requirements. PEGI content rating is the EU standard for game content classification.

The legal status of loot boxes varies by EU member state. Belgium and the Netherlands have determined that certain loot box mechanics constitute gambling and require gambling regulation compliance. Several other EU member states have issued regulatory guidance suggesting similar treatment is possible. EU-wide, the Consumer Rights Directive’s rules on digital content — refund rights, conformity standards, and pre-purchase disclosure — apply to in-game purchases and virtual item sales. A US game publisher distributing a game with randomized paid item mechanics in the EU needs a country-by-country assessment of the regulatory treatment, clear in-game disclosure of item probabilities where required, and terms of service that address the EU consumer rights framework for digital purchases.