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​ 

April 3, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has established a comprehensive governance framework for the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) in the capital markets. The framework provides guidance to capital market business operators on understanding the risks associated with AI/ML implementation and adopting appropriate practices to build public confidence in Thailand’s capital markets. While the guidelines are principle-based rather than prescriptive, they reflect the SEC’s expectations for responsible AI/ML governance and are likely to inform supervisory activities and industry standards going forward. Scope The framework applies to capital market business operators supervised by the SEC. This includes, for example, securities and derivatives firms, asset management companies, mutual fund and private fund managers, investment advisors and investment consultants (including robo-advisory service providers), derivatives intermediaries, and other licensed intermediaries and market operators in the Thai capital markets that deploy AI/ML in their operations. Core Principles of the Guidelines The framework is presented as a best-practice manual rather than prescriptive regulation, providing guidance that regulated entities may apply to their AI/ML governance and risk management as appropriate. While currently nonbinding, the guidelines signal the SEC’s expectations for the sector, particularly in relation to other binding SEC regulations such as those covering IT risk management and market conduct. The guidelines name four core principles for AI/ML deployment: Fairness: Design and develop AI/ML with consideration for fairness, equality, and social diversity to prevent discrimination against individuals or groups. Legal and ethical compliance: Ensure AI/ML use aligns with applicable laws, ethical standards, and organizational values and policies. Accountability: Establish clear responsibility—both internally and externally—for AI/ML activities and outcomes. Transparency: Provide adequate disclosure to users about AI/ML use, including explainability of decisions and traceability of activities. AI/ML Best Practices The guidelines prescribe best practices across four stages of the AI/ML lifecycle, as described below.
April 2, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) enforcement has entered a new phase, and the insurance industry is squarely in the regulatory spotlight. The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) considers insurers “large-scale” processors of sensitive data—including health records, financial information, and biometric data—making the sector a focal point for enforcement action. In August 2025 alone, the PDPC issued administrative fines totaling THB 21.5 million, and fines for individual violations have ranged from THB 50,000 to THB 2 million. The PDPC has also deployed its “Eagle Eye Crawler,” an AI-driven surveillance tool that monitors websites around the clock for data leaks and noncompliant privacy notices. This article highlights the key regulatory developments directly affecting insurers and outlines practical steps toward compliance. What Has Changed: OIC and PDPC Alignment The Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) has synchronized its sector-specific rules with the PDPA through the Notification on Customer Personal Data Protection (No. 2) B.E. 2568 (2025). The combined effect of the PDPC’s general enforcement push and the OIC’s sectoral guidance creates four critical compliance areas for insurers. Consent unbundling. Consent for marketing must be strictly separated from the core insurance contract; bundling marketing consent into the policy application is no longer permissible. Agent and intermediary oversight. Insurance intermediaries are generally classified as data processors, meaning that insurers—as data controllers—must provide specific written instructions and security protocols to all agents and brokers. A 2026 enforcement trend shows controllers being held liable for the “weak security” of their vendors and downstream processors. Enhanced privacy notices. Insurers must provide a summary privacy notice alongside the full policy, plainly stating categories of data, purposes, lawful bases, disclosure recipients, cross-border transfers, retention periods, data subject rights, and easy marketing opt-out channels. DPO registration and ROPA. All organizations involved in “regular or systematic monitoring of data subjects on
March 30, 2026
On March 24, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) published its long-anticipated Guidelines on Multi-Sided Platforms and E-Commerce Businesses in the Government Gazette, following the conclusion of a public hearing conducted last year. The guidelines entered into force on March 25, 2026, and significantly expand the application of Thai competition law to digital platform ecosystems. These rules introduce targeted restrictions on platform conduct, such as price-ranking algorithms and tying and bunding, that leverages network effects, and will have far-reaching implications across Thailand’s digital economy—affecting not only platform operators but also platform participants, including sellers, logistics providers, advertisers, and payment service providers operating on or alongside such platforms. The guidelines clarify how existing prohibitions under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA)—including abuse of market dominance, cartel conduct, and unfair trade practices—apply in the context of platform-based business models. While many provisions reflect earlier draft guidelines, the final version delivers more precise definitions and clearer enforcement parameters, increasing regulatory certainty while also raising compliance expectations. Applicability The guidelines introduce core definitions that determine their coverage: Multi-sided platform: A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting two or more groups of users, enabling them to have direct interaction in order to exchange or rely on services from one another. Examples include digital platforms for trading goods or services (e-commerce), as defined below. Digital platform for trading goods or services (e-commerce): A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting the distribution, purchase, sale, or exchange of goods or services. This includes operations carried out to facilitate transactions or interactions between business operators through an electronic transaction system, regardless of whether a service fee is charged. Operator of a digital platform business for trading goods or services: A provider of digital platform services for trading goods or services, as described
March 27, 2026
Thailand’s National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) has publicly indicated that it is preparing a new regulatory framework for data center operators that may introduce foreign-ownership restrictions. In particular, the NBTC is considering reclassifying data center operations from a type 1 telecommunications business license to a type 3 license. If implemented, this change would subject data center operators to a significantly more stringent regulatory regime, especially in relation to foreign ownership and control. The NBTC has indicated that it intends to propose a draft framework to the NBTC board. This would be followed by a public hearing process, with a view to implementing the new rules within 2026. Under the Telecommunications Business Act B.E. 2544 (2001), as amended, telecommunications businesses operating under type 3 licenses are subject to foreign ownership restrictions, including a requirement that less than 50% of the total issued shares be held by foreign shareholders. In addition, type 3 licensees are subject to foreign dominance restrictions, which prohibit arrangements that allow foreigners to dominate the business. These foreign dominance restrictions are broad in scope and may capture various forms of direct and indirect control or influence. This includes circumstances in which a foreign national is able to influence or control the formulation of policy, management, or business operations, or the appointment of directors or senior executives. At this stage, the exact scope of the proposed rules remains unclear. Businesses with existing or planned data center operations in Thailand should therefore monitor upcoming NBTC developments in this regard and prepare for the expected public hearing process.