GHOST CITADEL
Ghost Citadel sets a strict standard for corporate governance. This policy details our ethical business practices, our integration of AI, and the legal foundations behind our Linux-first games and enterprise data analytics solutions.
Our governance framework codifies Ghost Citadel's commitment to ethical business by embedding human rights into all aspects of our work—from initial design to final deployment and the services we offer.
We expect all directors, employees, and business partners to operate strictly within the law. Our corporate governance is built on the core principles of fairness, accountability, transparency, openness, and total adherence to United Kingdom legislation.
We maintain a strict, zero-tolerance stance regarding discrimination, labor exploitation, and intellectual property theft.
Ghost Citadel fiercely guards its independence. We will not hesitate to aggressively litigate to protect our team, our assets, and our work against bad-faith corporate overreach.
Our research and programming are heavily dependent on AI — but we do not outsource programming services. Everything we ship is curated, directed, and integrated by our own engineers.
We maintain high ethical standards: our games, analytics pipelines, and tools are based on our own storytelling and system architecture, and we are committed to not knowingly infringing copyright laws.
We use a wide range of third-party AI models, including ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Claude, and Grok, strictly in compliance with their respective terms of service.
These systems accelerate iteration, but they never replace human judgment, accountability, or authorship.
Potential similarities between any code or graphics used in our products and any third-party work are a by-product of AI and common design patterns — not deliberate copying.
Under the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), section 16, infringement occurs only where a person, without permission, reproduces the whole or a substantial part of a copyright work. The assessment is qualitative: it focuses on the importance of the copied expression, not just the quantity.
Mere resemblance in style, general ideas or overall “vibe” is not protected by copyright and does not amount to infringement. Independent creation is a full defence.
UK case law, including Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2000] UKHL 58, confirms that a work infringes only if the claimant demonstrates reproduction of a substantial part of the original expression; similarity in style, theme, or unprotectable elements alone is irrelevant.
The burden of proof lies on the accuser.
Where human input — detailed prompts, selection, editing and refinement — contributes to our AI-assisted works, those works qualify as original under CDPA s.9(1), with first ownership of the copyright automatically vesting in Ghost Citadel as the employer under CDPA s.11(2).
For elements that are purely computer-generated, CDPA s.9(3) deems us the author as the persons by whom the necessary arrangements were undertaken, subject to the work meeting the originality threshold — an area of ongoing legal debate. Anyone who challenges that must prove otherwise.
We publish only our own games, proprietary datasets, and analytic models. We do not operate as a neutral hosting provider for third-party content.
Because of this, the liability-limitation rules for hosting services in the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002, regulation 19, and their associated notice-and-takedown duties, do not apply to us in the same way they apply to platforms.
Our default position is that our works are independently created by a combination of human designers and AI tools. Similarity alone does not imply copying, and any allegation of infringement must be supported by evidence that a substantial part of protected expression was actually reproduced.
We are fully willing to discuss concerns and reach reasonable understandings. If you believe any asset in a Ghost Citadel product infringes your rights, please contact us at [email protected] with enough detail for us to investigate.
However, where any submitted takedown or infringement notice is later shown to be unfounded or submitted in bad faith, we reserve the right to seek full compensation for all losses and costs in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court.
This may include remedies under CDPA 1988 §§ 96–97 (damages, injunctions and other measures) and cost orders under Civil Procedure Rules Part 44, including indemnity costs in cases of unreasonable or abusive conduct.
We use AI heavily, but we respect copyright, we stand on clear legal foundations, and we are open to good-faith dialogue. If you bring us a real concern, we will listen. If you weaponise infringement claims in bad faith, we will defend ourselves.