You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

February 3, 2017

Copyright Protection in Virtual Reality

Informed Counsel

Virtual reality (VR) describes a computer-generated simulation of a three-dimensional (3D) space, which allows users to feel as if they are exploring a physical environment. To achieve this effect, a user wears a headset that performs the dual functions of displaying the 3D images and blocking out physical reality. By tracking the movements of the user’s head, the displayed images may be adjusted to create the sense of being able to view an environment in 360 degrees.

The year 2016 was a watershed moment for virtual reality due to the release of several new VR systems for consumer purchase. Ranging from high-end systems, such as Oculus Rift, to inexpensive cardboard headsets designed to work with smartphones, there are now multiple options available for those interested in experiencing virtual reality firsthand.

While the rise of virtual reality thus far has been driven mostly by video games—exemplified by the recent release of the PlayStation VR headset—the investments currently being made by prominent tech companies signal that virtual reality will soon change the way we surf the Internet and engage with social media.

In addition, creative programs like Tilt Brush already offer artists new and unique ways to create genre-defying works in VR environments. As VR tools continue to improve and the number of VR adopters increases, there will be a marked proliferation of creative works in the VR context. For example, the Internet platform Second Life is a virtual world in which users explore and interact using avatars. Second Life has its own internal currency and a large market for “in-world” digital goods, including real estate, artwork, avatar clothing, and even pets. Strong protection for VR works will ensure that creators are incentivized to innovate in this new area.

This article discusses the applicability of copyright to virtual reality and some of the novel issues presented by intellectual property protection of VR works.

Copyright Protection

While virtual reality is still in its infant stages, artists are already finding that creating works in a virtual 3D space allows them to do things that were previously impossible. Virtual reality allows artists to “paint” using color and light, and incorporate motion and sound to create three-dimensional works that appear to float in the air. These creations defy categorization because they may combine elements of illustration, sculpture, music, and cinematography. In addition, the VR context allows users to interact with works in ways not possible in physical reality, such as by walking through an object to examine multiple layers.

The Thai Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) was designed to be adaptable so that it could encompass new types of works. However, the Act does not explicitly provide for protection of creative works in virtual reality, which raises the question of whether such works are protected under copyright.

Section 6 of the Copyright Act specifies that a “[c]opyright work under this Act means a work of authorship in the form of a literary, dramatic, artistic, musical, audiovisual, cinematographic, sound recording, sound and video broadcasting work or any other work in the literary, scientific or artistic field whatever the mode or form of  its expression” (emphasis added).

The above language demonstrates that the Copyright Act is not limited to the technologies that were in existence at the time of drafting. As long as a new work can be classified as part of the literary, scientific, or artistic fields, and the work satisfies the other requirements of the Act, it will be protectable by copyright. Further, Thailand protects software under copyright law as a literary work. As VR works are represented by software, they will be protected by copyright regardless of the form they take.

While works are automatically protected by copyright upon their creation, rights holders should undertake recordation of their works with Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property to establish prima facie evidence of copyright ownership and subsistence in the event they need to take legal action against an infringer.

Infringement

Copyright provides an associated bundle of exclusive rights for copyright owners, such as the right to reproduce, rent, assign, license, communicate to the public, and create adaptations or derivative works. Because VR works are protected under copyright, other parties may not make the above uses of a work without the permission of the copyright owner. The flip side of this is that a VR reproduction of a real-world work will also be considered infringement as a derivative work.

While we are still in the early days of virtual reality adoption, VR platforms should create clear Terms of Service stating that users may not use the platform to infringe the intellectual property rights of other parties. Users who violate these terms by creating infringing content may be blocked or removed from the service.

As adoption of virtual reality grows, VR platforms will also need to be protected against infringing uses of their services, much as user-generated content sites are today. If VR platforms allow users to interact with one another in virtual space via the Internet, VR platforms will fall under the broad definition of internet service providers (ISPs) found in the Copyright Act. Section 32/3 of the Copyright Act grants immunity to ISPs against infringing content placed on their services by other parties, provided that they comply with court orders to remove such content. This immunity should encourage VR platforms to allow robust innovation by their users without fear of being held liable for any infringing activity their users may undertake.

Enforcement

The intangible nature of VR works will make enforcement against infringing uses difficult, just as the Internet has presented numerous challenges for creators seeking to enforce their IP rights against online infringers. Jurisdiction over VR disputes will likely be tested early, and courts will have to determine whether to make jurisdiction dependent on the location of the creator, infringer, infringement, or servers hosting the virtual reality. These locations may be on opposite sides of the world, and each one will create different enforcement issues.

VR platforms can assist content owners by creating internal notification and removal procedures for infringing content. Creating these internal procedures will demonstrate the goodwill of the VR platform and encourage content creators to participate in virtual reality. Additionally, by creating dependable methods for removal of infringing content, content owners may protect their works while avoiding costly and lengthy litigation.

Outlook

Due to its ability to create the impression of visiting new worlds, virtual reality has the potential to transform areas as disparate as entertainment, education, and tourism. While we cannot predict the path that virtual reality will eventually take, the innovative ways that virtual reality is already being used demonstrate that new markets for creative VR works will continue to proliferate. VR works need to receive strong protection under intellectual property laws in order to encourage creators to adopt virtual reality as their medium of choice.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 10, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have issued regulations broadening the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “major shareholder” of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Under relevant SEC regulations, major shareholders of a regulated entity must obtain regulatory approval and undergo screening by the SEC. The revised framework introduces both shareholding-based and control-based tests to determine which shareholders require regulatory approval for a wider range of indirect ownership structures and de facto control. The Ministry of Finance notification took effect on February 21, 2026, while the SEC’s clarifying rules took effect on March 4, 2026. These changes aim to enhance transparency around beneficial ownership and strengthen regulatory oversight of entities operating in Thailand’s capital markets. Expanded Definition Under the revised framework, a “major shareholder” now includes persons who directly or indirectly hold more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company, as well as persons who exercise control over the regulated company or its shares. This system of two separate tests, based on both shareholding and control, differs from the prior regime, which focused primarily on shareholding thresholds and applied a more limited method for determining indirect shareholdings. The two tests (detailed below) operate independently of each other, and any person identified by either of the tests will be deemed a major shareholder. Shareholding-Based Test Broadens Indirect Ownership Attribution For the shareholding-based test, the SEC recognizes two existing methods for identifying indirect ownership, together with a new proportional attribution method. Any person captured under these methods, which are described below, will be regarded as a major shareholder of the regulated company and must obtain SEC approval as a major shareholder. First, the existing framework continues to apply to both first-tier and chain ownership structures. Approval is required for (1) first-tier
March 6, 2026
Thailand’s Legislation Consideration Committee of the Ministry of Interior has ruled that in-game loot boxes in online games do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935). This first-of-its-kind ruling provides useful guidance for online game operators and digital entertainment companies operating in Thailand. Background The ruling came in response to an inquiry concerning an online role-playing game operator that launched a campaign featuring a loot box mechanism. The mechanism allowed players to purchase a token in exchange for the opportunity to receive a virtual loot box containing randomized in-game items. The key features of this were as follows: The items received were digital, noncash items usable only within the game. The items could not be exchanged, redeemed, or converted into cash with the game operator. Items may differ in rarity but remain purely virtual. The central question was whether paying money to obtain randomized in-game items constituted a risk-based activity involving the chance to receive money or property of monetary value, which would constitute gambling under the Gambling Act. Committee Ruling The committee reached the following conclusions regarding the characteristics of the game’s loot-box mechanism: No cash or monetary equivalent: Players did not receive cash or property that could be exchanged for cash. The in-game items were merely usage rights within the online game ecosystem. No real-world monetary valuation: There was no determination of item value in real currency, and no mechanism for redeeming or converting items into money with the game operator. Any off-platform trading of in-game items between players is irrelevant to online game operators, as any value arising from such transactions is determined by the market rather than by the operators themselves. Service fee characterization: Payments made by players purchasing in-game loot boxes constituted fees for online game services. Accordingly, the committee concluded
March 5, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a criminal complaint against a licensed digital asset broker, its overseas trading platform, and its executives for allegedly operating an unlicensed digital asset exchange targeting Thai customers. The case marks an escalation in the SEC’s enforcement efforts against unlicensed offshore platforms that attempt to serve Thai users through local licensed entities. Criminal Complaint On February 20, 2026, the SEC filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division against a local licensed digital asset broker, its overseas global trading platform, and its executives. The SEC alleges that the parties violated the Digital Asset Business Emergency Decree B.E. 2561 (2018) by cooperatively operating a digital asset exchange business on a cross-border basis since 2023 without the required SEC license. According to the SEC, the local broker promoted the overseas platform’s services to the public through Thai-language posts on social media channels, with services available exclusively to customers residing in Thailand. Access to the global platform was provided through the local broker’s website and mobile application. Customers who registered for the local broker’s services were automatically granted access to the global platform without having to undergo a separate identity verification process. The SEC also found that the local broker provided back-office system support services to the global platform. The SEC considers these activities to constitute joint operation of an unlicensed digital asset exchange. The former executives of the local broker are being held liable as the responsible persons during the relevant period. The SEC emphasized that the complaint initiates the criminal process, and the decision to prosecute or convict the accused parties will ultimately be made by law enforcement authorities and the criminal courts. Platform Blocking The SEC has also coordinated with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to block public
February 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has officially implemented a new regulatory framework supervising systemically important retail payment systems (SIRPS), effective February 21, 2026, with PromptPay being the first payment system designated as a SIRPS. Under this new set of regulations, the BOT may designate payment systems under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) as SIRPSs based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Once a system is designated as a SIRPS, the operator becomes subject to expanded supervisory obligations beyond the general requirements of the Payment Systems Act. Enhanced Supervisory Requirements SIRPS operators must comply with a heightened supervisory regime across three key areas, outlined below. 1. Governance SIRPS operators must maintain robust and transparent governance structures, including: Balanced board composition, with at least one-third of the board comprising independent directors who represent stakeholders in the system (such as payment service providers, consumers, and experts). Independent directors may serve for no more than two consecutive terms. Subcommittees to assist the board in overseeing compliance, policy implementation, and operational strategy. Clear separation between executives responsible for risk and information security and those overseeing day-to-day business operations. Risk Management and System SecuritySIRPS operators must implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, including: Clear service agreements between the SIRPS operator and its direct participants (payment service providers who connect directly to the SIRPS), defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. These agreements must include obligations for direct SIRPS participants to supervise any indirect participants they onboard to ensure compliance with service agreements and business rules. A business continuity plan covering both IT and non-IT aspects, with annual review. The SIRPS must target service availability comparable to international payment infrastructures, including the ability to recover operations within two hours of a disruption and to maintain scalable operational capacity. Tools and controls to monitor and manage material or