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​ 

May 6, 2026
Thailand has introduced new requirements for online social media platforms to verify the identity of paying advertisers before publishing their advertisements. On May 5, 2026, the Electronic Transactions Commission published the Notification on Measures for Prevention of Technology Crime for Online Social Media (No. 2) in the Government Gazette. The notification, which aims to prevent technology crimes such as fraud and scams, takes effect 180 days after publication (i.e., on November 1, 2026). Mandatory Advertiser Identity Verification Online social media service providers must verify the identity of every advertiser before publishing an advertisement. Verification remains valid for up to one year from the most recent verification date. The notification requires social media providers to use either of the following methods when verifying advertisers: Document-based verification: Examine government-issued identity documents (e.g., national ID, passport, or juristic person registration certificate), cross-check the connection between the advertiser and the identity documents (e.g., facial comparison with photo ID), and ensure that the identity documents are verifiable against reliable sources. Digital identity verification: Use an identity verification system with a level of assurance no lower than that prescribed by the Electronic Transactions Commission. Advertiser Data Collection and Retention Service providers must collect and retain certain data—including name, identification number, and contact details—from the start of the advertising service and for a minimum of 90 days after the end of the advertising service relationship. The same requirements apply where there is a third-party payer, such as an ad agency. Implications for Affected Businesses The notification raises two key areas of concern for affected businesses: Social media platforms must implement know-your-advertiser (KYA) onboarding as described above, including document upload and identity matching processes. The 180-day implementation window requires immediate technical and operational planning. The collection and retention of national ID cards, passport copies, and other personal
April 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,
April 23, 2026
Vietnam has progressively positioned blockchain as a strategic technology within its broader digital transformation agenda over the past decade. From early policy orientations to more recent legislative developments, the regulatory approach has gradually shifted from high-level recognition to more concrete legal integration. Against this backdrop, a new draft decree regulating activities relating to product and goods identification, authentication, and traceability (the “Draft Decree”) marks a notable turning point. Rather than merely referencing blockchain as a policy priority, the Draft Decree incorporates blockchain directly into a nationwide regulatory system, positioning it as part of the underlying infrastructure for data governance and public administration in relation to the management, verification, and traceability of product-related data. Evolution of Vietnam’s Blockchain Legal Framework: The Draft Decree in Context Vietnam’s blockchain legal framework has developed in several distinct phases. The first phase, beginning around 2019, was characterized by high-level policy recognition in several resolutions of the Party Central Committee. Particularly, blockchain was identified as part of the broader category of digital technologies critical to industrial modernization and participation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These resolutions did not regulate blockchain directly, but established its strategic importance at the national level. The second phase (2023 to 2025) saw the introduction of national strategies and technology policies that more explicitly recognized blockchain as a priority technology. Those policies collectively signaled a clear policy commitment to developing blockchain infrastructure and applications. However, these instruments remained largely at a policy-level and did not establish binding regulatory frameworks. The third phase (from 2025) involves the gradual integration of blockchain into sectoral legislation. Laws such as the Law on Digital Technology Industry (2025), the Law on Personal Data Protection (2025), and the Law on Science, Technology, and Innovation (2025) have introduced concepts such as digital assets, crypto assets, and even specific
April 21, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has launched a public consultation period on a draft notification setting out criteria for data subject access requests (DSARs). The draft notification addresses practical uncertainties in handling DSARs by introducing standardized procedural requirements for data controllers. The consultation period runs from April 16 to May 15, 2026. The notification will enter into force 30 days from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. Key Features of the Draft Notification The draft notification covers the following key areas: Scope of information subject to access. Data controllers must enable data subjects to access at least the following upon request: (1) personal data collected directly from them; (2) personal data obtained from other sources; and (3) the source of personal data obtained from other sources without consent. Information required under section 23 of the PDPA and information that must be recorded pursuant to section 39 of the PDPA—such as the categories of personal data collected and purposes of processing—must also be made available. Submission channels and formal requirements. Data controllers must provide at least in-person and postal channels for DSARs, while electronic or other channels are optional. Requests may be made either directly by the data subject or through an authorized representative, and must be signed and include sufficient identifying information, a preferred response method, and DSAR details. Identity verification documents (and proof of authority if the request is through a representative) are required, and additional documentation may be requested for verification or communication purposes. Data controllers may use different verification methods for DSARs submitted via electronic or other channels, provided this does not create undue obstacles to the exercise of data subject rights. Verification and response timelines. Data controllers must complete preliminary verification within seven business days of receiving a request. If a