Virtual Reality Content Copyright Issues In India
1. INTRODUCTION: VR CONTENT AND COPYRIGHT
What is Virtual Reality Content?
Virtual Reality (VR) refers to a computer-generated immersive environment that simulates real or imaginary scenarios. VR content includes:
360° videos
Interactive 3D games
Virtual simulations (medical, education, architecture)
Mixed reality experiences
Why VR Raises Copyright Issues
VR content combines multiple creative elements:
Software/Code – the engine powering VR
Audio-Visual Elements – graphics, images, animations
Music & Sound Effects
Literary/Story Content – scripts and dialogue
Challenges in India:
Ownership of multi-layered content
Unauthorized copying, adaptation, or distribution
Lack of clear case law specifically for VR (most cases apply general copyright principles)
2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN INDIA
VR content falls under The Copyright Act, 1957, which protects:
Literary works – scripts, instructions
Musical works – background music
Artistic works – 3D models, graphics
Cinematographic films – videos, animations
Relevant Sections:
Section 14 – Exclusive rights of copyright owner (reproduction, adaptation, communication, distribution)
Section 51-52 – Infringement and remedies
Section 65A-B – Digital rights protection
Key Principles Applied to VR:
VR content is treated as a cinematographic film + software
Copying VR code or graphics without authorization = infringement
Adaptation (e.g., making VR from copyrighted game/film) = derivative work
3. COPYRIGHT ISSUES SPECIFIC TO VR
Ownership Ambiguities
Who owns the VR content? Software developer, animator, or producer?
Usually determined by contractual agreements.
Unauthorized Reproduction
Copying VR environments, models, or simulations is infringement.
Derivative Works
Converting a 2D film or game into VR format requires permission from the original copyright holder.
User-Generated Content
Platforms hosting VR content may face secondary liability if users upload infringing works.
Digital Rights Management (DRM)
VR content is easily pirated; copyright owners often use DRM to protect it.
4. CASE LAWS RELATING TO VR OR SIMILAR DIGITAL CONTENT IN INDIA
Since VR-specific cases are rare in India, courts apply general copyright law principles. The following are relevant:
CASE 1: Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd., 2011
Facts:
Pirated music tracks were used on mobile platforms.
Issue was unauthorized digital reproduction.
Relevance to VR:
Court held that unauthorized reproduction in digital format infringes copyright.
VR content containing music or audio must respect copyright law.
Principle:
Digital media, including VR, cannot use copyrighted works without authorization.
CASE 2: R.G. Anand v. M/S. Deluxe Films, AIR 1978 SC 1613
Facts:
Film story copied by another filmmaker.
Relevance to VR:
VR experiences are cinematographic films under Indian law.
Reproducing plots or interactive scripts without consent = infringement.
Principle:
Copyright protects ideas expressed in a work, including VR narratives.
CASE 3: Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, 2008 (Supreme Court)
Facts:
Publishers sued for unauthorized copying of law reports.
Relevance to VR:
VR libraries or educational simulations must respect textual copyrights.
Unauthorized replication of content = infringement, even in digital immersive formats.
Principle:
Copying without authorization is infringement, regardless of format.
CASE 4: Yahoo Inc. v. Akash Arora & Anr., AIR 1999 Delhi 32
Facts:
Dispute over software interface and website design.
Relevance to VR:
VR software design and user interface code is protected under copyright.
Copying VR interface elements (menus, gestures) without license may infringe.
Principle:
Software elements in VR are protected, not just audiovisual components.
CASE 5: MySpace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries (Digital Media, 2010)
Facts:
Social media platform hosted copyrighted music.
Relevance to VR:
Platforms hosting VR content may be liable if they allow infringing content.
Principle:
VR platforms must implement notice and takedown procedures to avoid secondary liability.
CASE 6: Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey, AIR 1984 Delhi 237
Facts:
Unlicensed reproduction of sound recordings.
Relevance to VR:
Any VR content using copyrighted music or audio without license = infringement.
Principle:
Audio in VR is protected as musical work; copying is infringement.
CASE 7: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Motorola, 2006
Facts:
Dispute over software embedded in telecom hardware.
Relevance to VR:
VR hardware/software combo is treated as literary + artistic work.
Unauthorized copying of code, models, or firmware is infringement.
Principle:
Software embedded in VR devices = copyrightable.
5. KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM CASE LAW
VR content is multilayered: code + audiovisual + narrative.
Copyright applies to all layers of VR content.
Unauthorized reproduction, adaptation, or distribution = infringement.
User-generated VR content: platforms have a duty to remove infringing works.
Contracts and licenses are critical for determining ownership and rights.
6. CONCLUSION
VR copyright in India is covered under general copyright principles.
Courts have applied traditional copyright law to digital, software, and immersive environments.
VR content creators must ensure:
Licensing of music, audio, or images
Ownership of software code and 3D assets
Contracts clarify rights for collaborative projects
India still needs more VR-specific case law, but existing principles from software, films, and digital content guide protection.
RELATED Blog
comments