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​ 

July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to