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​ 

February 26, 2026
Thailand is preparing to offer new tools for intellectual property enforcement as the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) recently released for public consultation a draft notification requiring social media platforms to verify user identities and conduct know-your-customer (KYC) checks on advertisers. The draft Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers, which is to be issued under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023), as amended in 2025, primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes. However, its new obligations also provide IP owners with valuable tools to identify anonymous infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The draft notification imposes several verification requirements on social media platforms operating in Thailand. These requirements also strengthen IP rights holders’ ability to identify anonymous infringers, as platforms must: Verify user identities through registered phone numbers and link all accounts to verifiable identities. Conduct KYC checks on advertisers, including individuals, companies, and any third-party payers. Perform heightened identity checks for high-risk or repeat offenders before publishing advertisements. Promptly remove content flagged by the Anti-Technology Crime Division and prescreen advertisements for prohibited or high-risk content. How IP Owners Can Use This Notification for Enforcement The phone number–based verification requirement enables IP owners to work more effectively with enforcement authorities in tracing individuals or entities responsible for infringing content. The comprehensive advertiser KYC obligations, including mandatory disclosure of third-party payment sources, create a clear audit trail even when bad actors attempt to obscure their identity through intermediaries or shell accounts. This traceability is essential for pursuing damages and dismantling organized counterfeit operations. The ETDA is now considering adjustments to the draft notification after receiving comments during the public consultation period, which ended on February 2, 2026. Following finalization
February 23, 2026
On February 17, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) released its draft Guidelines on Personal Data Protection in the Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. The draft guidelines, which translate data controller and data processor compliance obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) into measures tailored to AI development and deployment, are open for public comment until February 25, 2026. At a public hearing session on the draft guidelines held on February 19, the PDPC emphasized that its approach to AI is not to hinder innovation but to develop practical guidance supporting safe deployment while ensuring data protection. Although the guidelines are not legally binding, they indicate the regulator’s expectations and the likely direction of interpretation and enforcement. Scope of Application and Role of Stakeholders The guidelines will apply to all data controllers and data processors in Thailand, and to overseas data controllers and data processors whose data processing falls within the extraterritorial scope of the PDPA. The draft guidelines distinguish the roles of parties involved in AI deployment. Users of AI who determine the purpose of use and designate the input data, and retain outputs generated by the AI, are considered data controllers. In contrast, AI model providers or system integrators that process personal data under the instructions of the data controller are generally regarded as data processors. However, if an AI model provider utilizes user data for its own purposes, such as model fine-tuning or training, it may instead be classified as a data controller. Key Obligations for AI Data Collection and Use The basic principles of data processing under the PDPA must be maintained throughout the AI implementation lifecycle, from design to decommissioning, emphasizing accountability and privacy-by-design principles. The draft guidelines also stipulate the following: Data processing agreements (DPAs) should include model training prohibitions,
February 10, 2026
Data center and cloud investments are forming a major focus of private-sector investment in Thailand, with tech giants like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and TikTok, as well as numerous telecom and data center companies, committing significant outlays to data center and cloud development. The country’s Board of Investment (BOI) approved projects worth THB 1.87 trillion in 2025, and THB 746 billion of this was from planned data center investments—by far the largest amount from any single industry. Thailand’s swift rise as a regional data center hub is fueled by surging demand for cloud, AI, and digital services, as well as large-scale investments from global tech firms. The country’s strategic location, competitive power costs, robust fiber infrastructure, expanding IT talent, and supportive government policies—including BOI incentives and streamlined approvals—have made it an attractive destination for scalable and sustainable digital infrastructure investments. The BOI’s proactive approach in updating promoted categories and providing both tax and non-tax incentives further ensures Thailand’s continued growth in this sector. 2025 BOI Changes for Data Centers In the middle of 2025, the BOI responded to the remarkable trend by updating investment‑promotion categories across various sectors (e.g., machinery and electrical equipment, public utilities, digital and innovative industries) to accommodate growing investment in data‑center projects. Before the change, which was detailed in a notification that has applied to investment promotion applications submitted from July 1, 2025, onward, data‑center projects under BOI promotion were granted a single A1 incentive (an eight‑year corporate income‑tax exemption) and subject to one uniform set of conditions. The July 2025 notification restructured promotion for data centers into two categories based on power‑usage efficiency: high‑efficiency data centers and other data centers. Under these rules, qualified high‑efficiency data centers are eligible for an eight‑year corporate income tax (CIT) exemption, while for other data centers this exemption is
February 4, 2026
On November 18, 2025, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance released for public consultation a draft decree on administrative sanctions in the field of crypto assets and crypto asset markets (the “Draft Decree”), intended to implement Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP dated September 9, 2025, on the pilot crypto asset market in Vietnam (“Resolution 05”). While Resolution 05 sets out who may participate and under what conditions, the Draft Decree addresses a more practical question for market participants, i.e., what happens if those conditions are not met. In doing so, the Draft Decree offers important insight into how Vietnamese regulators intend to supervise, discipline, and ultimately shape the crypto market during the pilot phase. Regulatory Scope and Overall Sanctions Architecture The Draft Decree applies to both domestic and foreign organizations and individuals engaging in crypto-related activities in Vietnam’s market. Covered entities include: (i) crypto asset issuers; (ii) crypto asset service providers, including trading platforms and market operators; (iii) Vietnamese and foreign investors participating in the pilot market; and (iv) other organizations involved in the offering, issuance, or provision of crypto-related services in Vietnam. The breadth of this scope is deliberate. It appears to reflect a regulatory view that cross-border structures, offshore platforms, and indirect participation may not necessarily insulate market actors from compliance obligations once they operate within the pilot framework. For the crypto industry, this may mark a shift from regulatory ambiguity toward a more explicit articulation of jurisdictional reach. At first glance, the Draft Decree’s monetary penalties appear restrained. The maximum fine per administrative violation is capped at VND 200 million (approx. USD 7,700) for organizations and VND 100 million (approx. USD 3,800) for individuals. However, focusing solely on fine levels risks missing the point. The Draft Decree also places great regulatory weight on supplementary sanctions and corrective measures, including: (i)