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

July 21, 2017

Copyright Reality in Virtual Reality

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

The technology used to view media is constantly being improved. Over the past few decades, the resolution of screens has vastly increased alongside the computing power necessary to play high-definition video through them. Similarly, video players have progressed through the formats of Betamax, VHS, LaserDisc, DVD, and Blu-ray (alongside some more ill-fated counterparts), and Internet speeds have risen to the point where content providers are now able to offer high-definition video streaming services to mass-market consumers. Continuing this progression, virtual reality (VR) represents a new stage in media technology advancement.

Emerging VR Technology

VR is the first technology to provide a truly immersive experience, allowing users to feel as if they are in another reality simply by putting on a VR headset. With multiple platforms now available for retail purchase, VR is poised to become the number one method of visual media consumption in the near future.

Due to its immersive nature, VR has the potential to dramatically change the way we access creative works and think about travel. For widespread adoption of VR technology to take place, VR developers will need to ensure that there is robust content available for consumers who purchase a VR system.

To maximize the potential of VR, developers will need to have a deep understanding of how VR content may be protected under existing intellectual property laws. In addition, they will need to learn which uses of existing non-VR content are permissible and which uses will give rise to infringement claims by content owners.

Copyright Law Implications

Copyright law protects creative content such as books, music, and movies. The Thai Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) grants authors of creative works the exclusive right to reproduce, rent, assign, license, communicate to the public, and create adaptations or derivative works. Other parties may not use works in these ways without the permission of the copyright owner, and doing so can be deemed as infringement of the owner’s copyright, making the violator liable for damages and/or imprisonment.

However, the Copyright Act also carves out limited exceptions for uses of protected works that will not be considered infringement. For these special cases, the public benefit of allowing the use of a protected work outweighs the owner’s interest in the work, provided that the new use does not conflict with the owner’s normal exploitation of the copyright work, and does not unreasonably prejudice the owner’s legitimate rights in the work.

One such exception to infringement that was recently added to the Copyright Act at section 32(9) governs the reproduction or adaptation of a copyright work for the benefit of people with visual, auditory, or mental disabilities. Under this section, protected copyright works may be reproduced by parties other than the author as long as they obtain the permission of the author and the reproduction is done for a non-profit purpose. VR has the potential to greatly assist those whose disabilities make it difficult for them to enjoy works in their original forms by adapting them to a medium that is more accessible.

Similarly, VR applications for education can have a huge advantage over traditional textbooks by providing customized lessons to students with learning disabilities or other impairments. VR can provide lessons that are individually tailored to the learning style of each particular student, in order to hold their interest and aid in retention of the material.

Travel is another area where VR is expected to flourish, by providing immersive experiences for those who cannot journey to a given location due to either monetary or practical restrictions. Imagine experiencing a simulated moonwalk to see how the first astronauts traversed the moon, or sitting in the stands of the Coliseum during a gladiator match in ancient Rome.

Creators who are interested in offering travel experiences in VR should be aware that architectural works, like buildings, are often protected under copyright in the same way as other creative works, like art. Reproducing a currently protected building or artwork in a VR travel experience could land a VR developer in legal trouble with the copyright owner. Fortunately, the copyright laws of many countries recognize a so-called “freedom of panorama,” which allows for the photographing, filming, or painting of publicly accessible buildings and artwork. However, not all countries’ copyright laws are the same in this regard.

Italy’s laws prohibit the commercial reproduction of ancient buildings or works of art, so a VR developer would need to obtain permission from the relevant ministry before offering an experience featuring the Coliseum or other famous landmarks.

In France, while the Eiffel Tower is now part of the public domain and may be reproduced, the light shows that are exhibited on the tower every night are still under copyright protection. Thus, VR developers may reproduce images of the tower during the day, but may not reproduce the illuminations of the tower at night.

In Thailand, it is not an infringement of copyright to reproduce images of an architectural work, so VR developers may feel free to create simulated walking tours of famous Thai travel destinations. However, they should be aware that artwork associated with a building might still be protected even if the building itself is not.

There are many exciting applications for VR in the areas of travel and education. VR developers should familiarize themselves with local copyright law and enlist the advice of experienced legal counsel in order to ensure that their hard work does not expose them to lawsuits by disgruntled copyright owners.

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