Activision Reportedly Targets AI-Made Call of Duty Browser Games With DMCA Notices

Playing an old Call of Duty game in a browser sounds like a fun weekend project. But recreating parts of a major franchise without the publisher’s permission can quickly become a problem. That appears to be what happened to developer Luckey Faraday, who reportedly received DMCA takedown notices from Activision over AI-assisted browser versions of classic Call of Duty experiences.

The projects were built using a method commonly called “vibe coding.” Instead of writing every line of code manually, developers use AI tools and natural-language prompts to build software and get a working prototype up and running faster. In this case, the result was a pair of browser-based experiences that brought familiar Call of Duty gameplay to players without requiring a conventional installation of the original games.

The affected projects reportedly included Claude of Duty: Vibe Slops II and Kino der Toten. The former drew on the multiplayer experience of Call of Duty: Black Ops II, while the latter recreated elements of the Zombies experience associated with the original Black Ops.

Why Activision May Have Stepped In

The idea behind these projects is easy to understand. Classic Call of Duty games still have dedicated fans, and being able to jump into a familiar map through a browser is an appealing prospect. AI coding tools have also lowered the barrier to building these kinds of fan projects, making it easier for individual developers to experiment with ideas that would once have required considerably more time and technical knowledge.

The bigger question is what material the projects used to recreate those experiences.

Reports indicate that the browser games used assets extracted from the original PC titles, including maps, character models, and animations. That distinction matters. Recreating a general gameplay concept is not the same as distributing the original game’s artwork, models, or other protected content.

If copyrighted assets were used without permission, Activision could have grounds to challenge their distribution. Simply labelling a project as unofficial does not automatically resolve those concerns. Nor does using AI to produce the code give a developer permission to use material owned by someone else.

Activision has not provided a detailed public explanation of the reported takedowns in the material available for this article. The exact legal basis for its action therefore remains unclear.

AI Can Build the Game, but It Cannot Clear the Copyright

One reason projects like these are attracting attention is how quickly AI-assisted development can turn an idea into something playable. A developer can describe a mechanic, generate code, test it, and make changes without having to build every component from scratch.

That speed opens up plenty of possibilities for indie developers and gaming enthusiasts. It also makes it tempting to recreate well-known games, particularly when the original titles already have an established audience.

But getting a game to run is only one part of the process. Developers still need to consider where their assets come from, whether they have permission to use them, and how their projects are distributed.

Some browser-based game projects take a different approach by asking players to provide their own copies of the original game files rather than distributing those files themselves. That can change the legal analysis, but it is not a blanket exemption from copyright law. The details of the implementation and the rights involved still matter.

Will Other Call of Duty Browser Projects Face the Same Problem?

The reported notices could make developers think twice before launching browser recreations of established gaming franchises. Publishers have a clear interest in protecting their games, and AI tools are making it easier for fan-made projects to reach a playable state.

That does not mean every fan game or browser port will necessarily face a takedown. Projects built with original assets, properly licensed material, and independently developed code may present a very different situation from those that reproduce protected content taken from a commercial release.

For players, browser versions of classic games offer an appealing shortcut back to familiar maps and modes. For the people building them, though, the technical challenge may be the easier part. The harder question is whether they have the right to distribute what they create.

AI can help developers bring an idea to life in less time, but it does not replace the need to respect intellectual property rights. If browser-based gaming projects are going to keep growing, creators will need to find ways to capture the feel of familiar games without assuming that everything inside the originals is free to reuse.