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​ 

June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review
June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
June 5, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security released a draft Child Protection Act (“CPA”) for public review. The draft CPA would completely repeal and replace the current Child Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003). This represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Thailand’s child protection framework in over two decades, reflecting the government’s stated objective of modernizing the law to address evolving social challenges—including those arising from digital technology—and to promote greater coordination among government agencies, local authorities, and civil society. The public review period closes on June 9, 2026. Key changes introduced by the draft CPA that could have significant implications for businesses, particularly online platform providers, media companies, and entities operating child-related services in Thailand, are set out below. Expanded Definition of “Child” Under the current CPA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, excluding those who have attained legal majority through marriage. The draft CPA removes the marriage exception entirely, broadening the scope of the law’s protections to include all individuals under 18 without exception. Replacement of “Abuse” with Broader Concept of “Violence” The current CPA uses the term “abuse/cruelty,” which covers acts causing harm to a child’s liberty, body, or mind; sexual offenses against children; and using children in harmful or immoral activities. The draft CPA replaces this with the broader concept of “violence,” which encompasses any act or omission causing harm to a child’s body, mind, or development; abandonment or neglect; improper exploitation; and sexual abuse. Notably, the new definition adds developmental harm as a recognized category of injury and captures all forms of misconduct regardless of the child’s consent. New Standalone Definition of Sexual Abuse, Including Online Conduct One of the most significant additions in the draft CPA is the introduction of a standalone definition