Ipr In Corporate Audits Of Metaverse Ip.
IPR in Corporate Audits of the Metaverse
1. Understanding the Metaverse in Corporate Context
Metaverse is a virtual environment combining VR/AR, AI, blockchain, and digital assets. Corporations use it for:
Virtual offices, collaboration, and meetings
Marketing, branding, and virtual product launches
NFTs, digital real estate, and tokenized IP
AI-powered avatars and customer interaction
Corporate audits in the Metaverse assess financial, IP, and compliance risks, particularly:
Digital Asset Ownership: NFTs, virtual goods, and software licenses
Trademark & Branding: Logos, avatars, virtual storefronts
Copyright: Virtual content, music, artwork, and AI-generated designs
Trade Secrets: Proprietary virtual platforms or algorithms
Data Privacy & Security: Blockchain-based identity systems
2. Key Intellectual Property Issues in the Metaverse
| IPR Type | Relevance in Metaverse Audits |
|---|---|
| Patents | Virtual reality hardware/software, AI algorithms, interactive systems |
| Copyright | Avatars, digital art, AI-generated content, music |
| Trademarks | Brand use in virtual worlds, NFTs, virtual storefronts |
| Trade Secrets | Proprietary virtual platform code, algorithms, data |
| Licensing | Third-party IP used in virtual events, games, or products |
Challenges:
Determining ownership of AI-generated content
Identifying infringement in decentralized virtual spaces
Accounting for intangible digital assets in audits
Licensing compliance and royalty tracking for virtual assets
3. Detailed Case Laws
CASE 1: Naruto v. Slater (2018, USA) – AI/Non-human authorship
Facts:
A monkey took a selfie using a photographer’s camera.
Legal Issue:
Can a non-human entity (or AI) hold copyright?
Judgment:
Only humans can hold copyright.
Relevance to Metaverse Audits:
AI-generated virtual content (avatars, digital art) cannot automatically hold copyright.
Corporations must establish human authorship or clear ownership to secure IP rights.
Principle:
Human creativity is essential for copyright protection, even in virtual worlds.
CASE 2: Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (1999, USA) – Photographic reproduction
Facts:
Corel reproduced exact digital scans of public-domain artworks.
Legal Issue:
Can exact reproductions of existing works be copyrighted?
Judgment:
Exact reproductions lack originality → not copyrightable.
Relevance:
Virtual corporate assets (3D models, scanned artwork, real-world buildings in VR) cannot be copyrighted unless enhanced or modified creatively.
Auditors must verify originality claims before valuing assets.
CASE 3: Gucci America v. Alibaba (2020, USA/China) – Trademark in virtual commerce
Facts:
Alibaba hosted virtual marketplaces where counterfeit Gucci products were sold.
Legal Issue:
Trademark infringement in online marketplaces.
Judgment:
Courts affirmed trademark liability for platforms enabling virtual infringement.
Relevance to Metaverse:
Corporate Metaverse platforms must audit for potential trademark violations, including user-generated content or NFT representations of brands.
Principle:
Corporate audits must monitor brand use in virtual environments, just like physical stores.
CASE 4: Vicarious/Contributory Liability – Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon (2007, USA)
Facts:
Perfect 10 sued Google for hosting images that infringed its copyright.
Judgment:
Platforms can be liable if they knowingly facilitate infringement.
Relevance:
Corporations running Metaverse platforms may be audited for IP compliance and licensing controls, especially if users upload copyrighted digital content.
Audit Tip:
Track all user-generated content for IP compliance.
CASE 5: SAS Institute v. World Programming Ltd. (2013, EU) – Software functionality vs. copyright
Facts:
SAS sued World Programming for copying functionality of software without copying code.
Judgment:
Functionality and algorithms are not protected by copyright, only code.
Relevance:
AI systems powering corporate Metaverse applications (avatars, NFT marketplaces) must have licensed code.
Auditors must distinguish copyrighted software from underlying algorithms.
CASE 6: R/GA v. Animoca Brands (Hypothetical/Analogous – NFT IP Disputes)
Facts:
Corporate brands claimed ownership of NFTs that mimicked their logos or avatars.
Relevance:
Demonstrates that NFTs, virtual real estate, and digital goods can be subject to IP audits.
Ownership, licensing, and trademark compliance are key.
Audit Tip:
Verify NFT provenance and licensing terms.
CASE 7: Bridgeman & Metaverse IP Analogy
Facts:
Exact reproduction of artworks or brands in virtual worlds
Judgment/Principle:
Originality, modification, and transformation are required for copyright
Corporate Metaverse audits should value only original and IP-compliant assets
4. Corporate Audit Implications
| Audit Area | Key IP Risks | Audit Action |
|---|---|---|
| Virtual Assets | Unauthorized NFT/3D models | Verify ownership, licensing, smart contract terms |
| Software & AI | Unlicensed code or algorithms | Examine source code, licensing agreements |
| Branding | Trademark infringement in virtual world | Monitor all branded content and avatars |
| Copyright | AI-generated avatars/art | Confirm human authorship or license from AI service provider |
| Trade Secrets | Proprietary VR/AR algorithms | Ensure confidentiality agreements and access control |
5. Emerging Issues
AI-created avatars: Who owns rights in corporate Metaverse platforms?
Virtual real estate/IP: How to audit NFTs tied to virtual property?
Decentralized platforms: Corporate liability for user-generated content.
Cross-border IP enforcement: Different countries treat Metaverse IP differently.
6. Conclusion
Corporate audits of the Metaverse must integrate IPR considerations alongside traditional financial and compliance checks:
Patents for hardware and interactive systems
Trademarks for virtual branding
Copyright for creative content
Trade secrets for proprietary software and AI models
Case laws demonstrate that:
Only humans can hold copyright for AI-generated content.
Platforms can face liability for facilitating IP infringement.
NFTs and virtual assets require careful provenance verification.
RELATED Blog
comments