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​ 

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