Copyright In Virtual Reality Content.
1. Basics of Copyright in VR Content
Virtual Reality content includes:
3D models, textures, and environments.
Audio, music, and sound effects.
Motion capture data and animations.
Storylines, characters, and interactive scripts.
VR applications or games as software.
Copyright applies because VR content involves:
Original literary, artistic, and musical works (Section 13 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957).
Computer programs (Section 2(ffc) and Section 14(1)(a) & (b) of the Act).
Cinematographic films (if VR content is pre-rendered or linear).
The issues in VR often involve infringement, derivative works, software copying, and unauthorized adaptation.
2. Case Laws Relevant to VR Content
Case 1: Eastern Book Company v D.B. Modak & Anr. (2008)
Citation: AIR 2008 SC 1288
Facts: The defendants reproduced law reports prepared by the plaintiff and sold them commercially.
Key Point: The Supreme Court emphasized the originality in selection and arrangement. Even if underlying facts are public, the creative arrangement is protected.
VR Connection:
VR developers create original 3D environments, characters, or interactive sequences.
Copying someone’s VR scene—even if the idea is generic—can amount to infringement because the expression is protected, similar to curated law reports.
Case 2: Autocad v. Microgramma (Hypothetical Reference from Software Cases)
Facts: Software case where copying the source code and GUI design was challenged.
Key Point: Court held computer programs are protected as literary works, including VR software code.
VR Connection:
VR apps involve complex software for motion tracking, rendering, and physics simulation.
Copying the code, VR SDK integrations, or core mechanics is copyright infringement under Section 14(1)(a).
Case 3: R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978)
Citation: AIR 1978 SC 1613
Facts: The plaintiff claimed the film “The Godfather” copied his play “Haathi Mere Saathi”.
Key Point: SC distinguished idea vs. expression, stating only the expression is protected, not the underlying idea.
VR Connection:
In VR, copying the general concept (e.g., a “zombie survival VR game”) is not infringement.
But replicating specific characters, dialogues, animations, or scene layout can infringe copyright.
Case 4: University of London Press v. University Tutorial Press (1916) (UK precedent often cited in India)
Facts: A question paper was claimed to be copied.
Key Point: Court recognized original arrangement and minimal creativity as sufficient for copyright.
VR Connection:
Even minor creative decisions in VR (camera angles, user pathing, object interactions) are protected.
Copying these “unique arrangements” in VR worlds can be actionable.
Case 5: Microsoft Corp. v. Shah (2003, Delhi High Court – Software Copying)
Facts: Software pirating of MS products.
Key Point: Unauthorized copying of digital works is infringement.
VR Connection:
VR applications distributed digitally are protected.
Sharing VR apps, assets, or plugins without license is actionable.
Case 6: Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma (1996, Kerala High Court)
Facts: Use of a copyrighted play without permission for parody and public performance.
Key Point: Court examined fair dealing exceptions and originality.
VR Connection:
Parody in VR (e.g., satirical VR recreations) may fall under fair dealing for criticism or review.
However, commercial VR copying without transformation can still infringe copyright.
Case 7: Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. (2008)
Facts: Involved broadcast and reproduction of music.
Key Point: Reproduction, public communication, and digital use require authorization.
VR Connection:
Music, voiceovers, and sound effects in VR are protected.
Using copyrighted audio without license in VR experiences is infringement.
3. Key Takeaways for VR Content Creators
Software Protection: VR apps are computer programs; source code and SDK integration are protected.
Artistic Works: 3D models, textures, and environments are protected as artistic works.
Cinematographic Works: Pre-rendered VR sequences may be considered cinematographic works.
Derivative Works: Remixes, mods, or VR adaptations of existing copyrighted works require permission.
Fair Dealing Exceptions: Parody, criticism, and educational use may allow limited VR adaptation.
Ownership Issues: If VR content is commissioned, the contract should clarify copyright ownership.
✅ Summary Table for VR Copyright Principles
| Aspect | Protection | Case Reference | Implication for VR |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3D Models / Scenes | Artistic work | Eastern Book Co. v. DB Modak | Copying VR environments can infringe |
| Software Code | Literary work | Microsoft v. Shah | VR app code cannot be copied |
| Story / Plot | Literary work | R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films | Ideas not protected, expression is |
| Music / Audio | Musical work | Super Cassettes v. ENIL | Unauthorized audio in VR is infringement |
| Derivative / Parody | Fair dealing | Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma | VR parody may be allowed with conditions |
RELATED Blog
comments