Tung Tung — a bat-wielding wooden log man born of viral “brainrot” memes — gently disappeared from the hit Roblox game Steal a Brainrot, and players noticed almost instantly. It wasn’t a balance adjustment, or a bug. This was an intellectual property battle over who owns an AI-enhanced character now built into one of Roblox’s most popular experiences.
Inside the IP dispute over a meme-born Roblox character
Fans noticed Tung Tung’s absence while following a stream by YouTuber KreekCraft, who attempted to find answers in the game’s community channels. That character — which used to be a purchasable collectible and let you spin tracks from the DJ booth — was missing without explanation.
Clarity came from Mementum Labs, a French company that publishes Tung Tung’s creator, Noxaasht, in Indonesia. The game’s developer, whom the firm identified as Sammy, made “millions” in revenue with Tung Tung and pulled the character after Mementum sought a legal discussion, according to the firm. Earlier, Sammy informed fans he had to get rid of the character because it infringed on copyright. The developer and game team did not provide additional public comment.
The backlash was swift. Many argued that an AI-original character cannot be owned at all. But that assumption runs headlong into a much more nuanced legal landscape, one that is changing under creators’ feet.
Can AI-made works be copyrighted, and when do they qualify?
Artworks when created by machines alone don’t qualify for protection, the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) has said — while citing a registration of a popular comic book where artwork produced through an AI system wasn’t eligible due to human authorship being absent. But the same agency later suggested a more nuanced take: If a creator can demonstrate significant human contribution — planning, selection, curation, editing — portions of AI-enriched work could qualify. The USCO has already registered more than a thousand works that incorporate some elements of AI, so long as a human documented their contribution.
That “how much human in the loop is OK?” threshold remains unsettled. Entertainment lawyers say creators are safest when they can demonstrate significant intervention beyond posting — iterations, compositing, redrawing or other original expression. Mementum claims Noxaasht did just that, recounting days spent iterating on Tung Tung’s look and identity by colliding a Minecraft-ian mass of cultural references — like the kentungan (a wooden object used for early-morning wake-up calls) — text fragments and shape outlines until the character was there.
There’s also a cross-border dimension. A legal memo provided by Mementum’s French counsel argues that under the country’s law, limited use of AI as a drafting assistant would not strip authorship from the human who dreamed up the work. The Berne Convention and similar international copyright treaties ensure that protections in one member country are legally recognizable abroad, including in the U.S., subject to some local conditions being met.
Why Roblox creators are watching this case closely
Steal a Brainrot has gone viral, racking up reported peak concurrency in the tens of millions and an economy based on collecting meme-born beasts — many born from trends buoyed by AI like Italian brainrot. If even one widely beloved character is potentially a legal risk, what about the others?
Roblox’s economy creates an incentive for UGC creators to move quickly — items can become hits overnight and top games can monetize at scale. Roblox also runs a DMCA flow and deems developers responsible for clearing rights to the things that they upload. Ever-higher revenues mean ever more at stake. Industry estimates indicate that hundreds of millions of dollars go to Roblox creators each year, and a single character can be the difference between a fun side project and a studio-size business.
Mementum says it took a light touch — reaching out to legal counsel rather than filing takedowns — while also licensing Tung Tung elsewhere, including a party game built around the Pudgy Penguins brand and an official mobile release.
That licensing push reflects a strategic pivot: Treat meme-native, AI-assisted IP as you would any character franchise — with contracts and revenue sharing — so that developers don’t wait to encounter scandal before taking action.
Culture, remix — and the ‘line in the sand’
Tung Tung is remix culture in action: a log with glowing eyes, a bat and a name that plays off the rhythmic wake-up of predawn drumming. He came through a TikTok that racked up views in the nine figures and soon was a regular presence in a game that celebrates viral curios — sharks with shoes, raccoon–tile hybrids and so on.
But it is also the very same remix ecosystem that births them which complicates ownership. If a creator can demonstrate that their character arises from heavy human authorship and branding, they may have an actionable character. Otherwise, competitors and platforms will consider it meat for public domain piranhas. That gray area begs for disputes, especially as piles of money and prominence grow.
What’s next for Tung Tung after removal from Roblox
Since the cancellation, Mementum and Noxaasht have been campaigning to get the character reinstated, posting videos in Tung Tung’s voice to galvanize fans.
The comments are divided — some think it’s the fault of rights holders for lawyering up here, others believe that if a character was going to feature in the game they should have already licensed it.
Practically, the way forward is nothing new: documentation and licensing. If Mementum can prove human authorship and both the parties come to an agreement, Tung Tung may be back — with Steal a Brainrot or any of their upcoming projects. If not, Roblox developers everywhere may have to re-examine the way they find and verify AI-generated assets.
The bigger lesson is clear. AI can spark global fandom overnight, but fandom isn’t ownership. In an age of Roblox where any single meme can mint a king’s ransom, creators — and the platforms that host them — have to start treating AI-assisted characters as real IP from day one: Track human input, lock down permissions, and assume success will bring lawyers as quickly as it does Likes.