An AI brainrot character became a Roblox hit: can seven prompts create copyright?
The maker of the Roblox hit Steal a Brainrot is fighting French company Mementum Lab, which represents creators of Tung Tung Sahur. Do Big argues that AI-generated material lacks a human author; Mementum asserts character rights and trademark claims. The case is ongoing, so neither side's argument is a final legal ruling.
The bottom line
After AI-generated “Italian brainrot” characters became Roblox hits, copyright moved from theory to a real-money lawsuit. One side says seven prompts cannot create copyright; the other says a young creator supplied culture, choices and commercial value.
NPR reported on August 21 that Do Big Studios, the maker of the Roblox hit *Steal a Brainrot*, is in court with French company Mementum Lab. The dispute centers on Tung Tung Sahur, an AI character built around a wooden stick, limbs and a baseball bat.
One lawsuit, two kinds of rights
Do Big argues that AI-generated material lacks a human author, so Mementum's claimed copyright does not exist. Mementum represents the character's creators and has countersued over trademark infringement.
Copyright protects expressive works; trademarks identify the source of goods and services. The two legal paths show why US law has no simple answer for a human writing prompts and a model generating a character.
Can seven prompts make someone an author?
Court records say creator Fernanda Bagas Indrastata made Tung Tung Sahur with seven prompts in about 15 minutes. He also gave the character an Indonesian kentongan drum and a cultural connection to sahur during Ramadan.
That is not the whole “press a button” story. The legal question is how much protectable human expression came from the cultural setting, character choices, selection and later development.
The US Copyright Office says AI-assisted works can be protected, but whether human contributions are sufficient must be decided case by case.
Why take the question to court?
*Steal a Brainrot* is a major Roblox game, and licensing could involve millions of dollars. If nobody owns an AI character, a game can use it for free. If a creator can establish rights, an AI meme becomes entertainment IP.
The outcome could affect games, video, merchandise, advertising and training data. Today it is Tung Tung Sahur; tomorrow it could be a prompt-generated mascot or virtual performer.
Our judgement: the first image may not be the most valuable asset
Even if a court refuses copyright in one AI image, a character name, trademark, setting, recurring story and commercial recognition may still create rights. Cultural inspiration also does not automatically grant complete copyright in every generated image.
Creators should preserve prompts, sketches, versions, character bibles, publication dates and licensing records rather than relying on a verbal claim of ownership.
What to watch
- Whether the court resolves authorship first or lets the trademark claim proceed;
- How the Copyright Office's human-contribution standard applies to character cases;
- Whether Roblox and other platforms require proof of rights for AI characters;
- Whether Tung Tung Sahur becomes licensable global IP rather than a meme.
The case is not really about an absurd wooden stick. It is about who gets to turn a character into a business in the AI era.