Copyright Implications For AI In Virtual Reality Performance Art.
1. Overview: AI in VR Performance Art
Virtual reality performance art can include:
AI-generated avatars or characters – driven by machine learning or procedural algorithms.
Interactive VR environments – designed to respond to user input or AI-generated events.
AI-assisted choreography, music, and visuals – music or visual sequences in VR created or modified by AI.
Key copyright issues:
Who owns copyright: the human artist, the programmer, or the AI?
Are AI-generated elements “original works of authorship”?
How does derivative use of pre-existing material (e.g., copyrighted music or visuals) affect VR performances?
How is authorship and infringement assessed in immersive, interactive contexts?
2. Legal Principles
Human authorship – Most jurisdictions require a human creator for copyright. AI alone cannot hold copyright.
Originality and creative choices – AI outputs can be copyrighted if a human selects, arranges, or instructs them creatively.
Derivative works – Using existing copyrighted works in VR requires permission, even if AI modifies them.
Collaborative authorship – Multiple contributors (VR designers, AI programmers, performers) complicate ownership.
3. Case Law Examples
Here are five detailed cases relevant to AI-generated VR performance art:
Case 1: Naruto v. Slater (Monkey Selfie, 2018, US)
Summary:
A monkey took a photograph, and the court ruled the animal cannot hold copyright.
Relevance:
Reinforces the principle that non-human creators cannot hold copyright.
For VR performance art, AI systems cannot be legal authors. Copyright must vest in the human artist or programmer who directed or arranged the AI.
Case 2: Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony (1884, US)
Summary:
Photographer Sarony’s portrait of Oscar Wilde was protected because it involved original human creativity.
Relevance:
Human guidance or expressive choices in VR (e.g., AI-assisted choreography or scene arrangement) qualify for copyright.
The human VR artist who designs the environment and guides AI output can claim authorship, not the AI itself.
Case 3: Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (1991, US)
Summary:
Facts (telephone listings) are not copyrightable; originality is required.
Relevance:
Raw data used in VR, such as publicly available 3D models or motion capture recordings, cannot be copyrighted unless arranged creatively.
AI-generated patterns in VR must reflect creative human choice to be protected.
Case 4: UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Section 9(3)
Summary:
Provides for computer-generated works: “the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”
Relevance:
In the UK, if AI generates VR performances, the human arranging or instructing the AI is considered the author.
Shows that ownership depends on human orchestration, not autonomous AI output.
Case 5: Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid (1989, US)
Summary:
Determines authorship in commissioned works.
Relevance:
Multiple collaborators in VR (programmers, artists, AI designers) require agreements to clarify ownership.
Commissioning or collaboration affects who holds copyright in AI-generated VR performance.
Case 6: Naruto AI Music Dispute (Hypothetical)
Scenario:
An AI generates music used in a VR performance.
Relevance:
If the music reproduces copyrighted styles or melodies, derivative work rules apply.
Ownership of AI-generated music depends on human creative input, consistent with Burrow-Giles and UK CDPA 1988, Sec 9(3).
Case 7: Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (1999, US)
Summary:
Exact reproductions of public domain artwork are not copyrightable.
Relevance:
VR environments that replicate existing art or performances without creative modification are unlikely to be protected.
Creative interpretation by AI under human direction may be copyrightable.
4. Practical Implications
Ownership Depends on Human Creativity:
AI alone cannot hold copyright. Human artists, programmers, or directors who guide AI output in VR performances are the authors.
Derivative Work Risk:
Using copyrighted music, visuals, or choreography in VR—even with AI transformation—can infringe copyright unless licensed.
Licensing and Collaboration:
VR projects often involve multiple creators: performers, AI designers, 3D modelers. Clear agreements are essential.
Interactive and Dynamic Content:
Originality may be assessed based on arrangement and direction of AI output, rather than raw AI generation.
Summary Table: Case Law and Relevance
| Case | Principle | Relevance to AI VR Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Naruto v. Slater | Non-human authorship | AI cannot hold copyright |
| Burrow-Giles v. Sarony | Human creativity required | Human VR artist holds copyright |
| Feist v. Rural | Facts vs originality | Raw motion capture or anatomical data is unprotectable |
| UK CDPA 1988 Sec 9(3) | Human arrangement is author | AI-generated VR work copyright vests in human arranger |
| Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid | Commissioned work authorship | Ownership depends on collaboration agreements |
| Bridgeman v. Corel | Exact replicas not protected | VR replication of existing works must be creatively modified |
| Hypothetical AI Music VR | Derivative works | AI music requires human intervention; licensing necessary |
Conclusion:
Human authorship and creative choice are central to copyright in AI-generated VR performance art.
Raw AI output, replication of public domain works, or functional VR mechanics are generally not protected.
Collaborative VR projects require clear ownership agreements.
Using copyrighted material in VR—music, visuals, choreography—requires careful licensing.
RELATED Blog
comments