Copyright In VR Dramatizations Of Cordillera Warrior Epics. DetAIled Explanation With Case Laws
I. Core Legal Issues
VR dramatizations of Cordillera warrior epics involve:
Traditional oral literature (epics, chants, folklore)
Creative dramatization (scripts, voiceovers, VR visuals)
Interactive or immersive experiences
Key copyright questions:
Who owns the rights?
Original authors (if known), indigenous communities, or VR creators?
Are these epics copyrightable?
Many traditional stories may be considered public domain or cultural heritage.
What about derivative VR works?
Transforming oral epics into VR experiences creates derivative works, requiring permissions.
Moral rights of communities and performers
Indigenous groups may have rights over how cultural material is represented.
VR-specific issues
Motion capture, interactive narration, and 3D modeling can generate separate copyrightable works.
Vietnamese law and Philippine law principles can be analogously applied for guidance:
Copyright protects literary, theatrical, and audiovisual works.
Original works require human authorship.
Derivative works need authorization from original authors.
Folklore and traditional oral works may be considered public domain, but ethical considerations and community rights apply.
II. Relevant Case Laws and Principles
Below are seven key cases relevant to VR dramatizations of epics.
1. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991, U.S.)
Principle: Originality Requires Minimal Creativity
Facts: Telephone directory compilation argued to be copyrightable.
Holding: Mere facts are not protected; original selection and arrangement are protected.
Application to VR Cordillera epics:
Oral epics themselves may be considered “facts” or public domain.
Creative VR scripting, scene design, and interactive elements involve original intellectual creation and are copyrightable.
2. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony (1884, U.S.)
Principle: Human Creative Control Defines Authorship
Photographer copyright granted due to creative choices in lighting, pose, and composition.
Application:
VR dramatization involves human creative input:
Motion capture choreography
Scene design
Dialogue scripting
This establishes authorship of the VR work, even if based on traditional stories.
3. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (1999, U.S.)
Principle: Exact Reproductions of Public Domain Works Lack Copyright
High-resolution photographs of public-domain paintings do not generate new copyright.
Application:
Traditional Cordillera warrior epics may be in public domain as oral traditions.
Purely faithful digital reproduction of these epics (without creative additions) may not generate copyright.
Creative enhancements like VR visuals, music, narration, or interactivity make the derivative work copyrightable.
4. Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades (2009, EU)
Principle: Original Expression Requires Intellectual Creation
Works that reflect the author’s personality or creativity are protected.
Application:
VR adaptations that:
Script the epic
Choreograph battles
Create immersive soundscapes
Reflect human intellectual creation, granting copyright.
5. Naruto v. Slater (2018, U.S.)
Principle: Non-Human Entities Cannot Hold Copyright
AI or animals cannot own copyright.
Application:
Any AI-assisted VR generation is not an author; human VR developers hold copyright for their creative contributions.
Puppeteers or performers may also hold rights over motion-captured performances.
6. British Film Institute – Restoration Cases (UK)
Principle: Creative Enhancements Can Be Protected
BFI restored silent films and could claim rights over added enhancements.
Application:
VR dramatization adding:
CGI landscapes of Cordillera regions
Interactive story branching
New musical scores
Generates derivative copyrights, separate from original oral epics.
7. Authors Guild v. Google (2015, U.S.)
Principle: Transformative Use May Qualify as Fair Use
Google’s scanning of books for research deemed transformative.
Application:
Digitization or VR adaptation for cultural preservation, education, or research may be allowed, even if derived from traditional stories, provided it is non-commercial.
Commercial exploitation requires permissions from authors, communities, or rights holders.
8. Polish Supreme Court – Orphan Works (2008)
Principle: Limited Use of Works with Unknown Rights Holders
Allowed archival use with diligence for research or educational purposes.
Application:
VR dramatization of epics from unknown storytellers may use stories for cultural preservation or education.
Commercial VR experiences require ethical clearance and possibly consent from local communities.
III. Practical Copyright Implications
| Aspect | Legal Consideration | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional epic | Often public domain | Cordillera warrior chants |
| Scripted VR adaptation | Copyrightable | Added narration, dialogue, story arcs |
| Motion capture / VR animation | Copyrightable | Performers’ movements, choreography |
| Music / soundscape | Copyrightable | Original compositions added to VR |
| Derivative works | Requires permission | Even if oral epic is public domain, derivative VR may require author/performer consent |
| Community moral rights | Ethical & legal | Avoid derogatory representation of indigenous culture |
| Commercial use | Requires licensing | Selling VR experiences, streaming VR epics |
| Educational / preservation use | Possible exception | Museum or cultural heritage exhibitions |
IV. Key Takeaways
Human creativity is essential: VR adaptation of epics is protected if humans make creative choices.
Traditional epics may be public domain: But ethical and community rights must be respected.
Derivative works require authorization: Modifying or dramatizing for commercial VR must respect original sources and performer contributions.
Moral rights persist: Attribution and integrity must be preserved.
Transformative or educational use is safer: VR adaptations for research or cultural preservation can often avoid infringement if non-commercial.
AI is not an author: Only human designers, performers, and VR developers hold copyright.
Summary:
VR dramatizations of Cordillera warrior epics involve layered copyright:
Original epic (often public domain)
Script and dramaturgy (human authorship)
Motion capture / VR animation (performers’ and designers’ rights)
Music and soundscape (composers’ rights)
The copyright protection applies to the creative VR adaptation, while respecting moral and ethical considerations regarding traditional cultural heritage.
RELATED Blog
comments