Copyright and immersive art: navigating protection for interactive works

Immersive and interactive artworks are growing in popularity across the world, with hundreds being created over the last decade – from light projections of Van Gogh’s Starry Night to Meow Wolf’s transformational House of Eternal Return.

As such artworks become increasingly central to exhibitions and public installations, questions surrounding their legal protection are growing in complexity. Can UK copyright law protect works of art that are not static, rely on audience participation, or that are physically moveable?

This blog explores this important question, compares the position in the UK to elsewhere in the world, considers what to expect over the next few years and, importantly, how creators in this industry can be prepared.

What is “Immersive Art”?

Immersive art refers to works that engage the viewer in a sensory experience. The viewer essentially becomes a participant in the art itself, often through digital technology, physical structures, or performative elements.

The immersive art piece will usually include virtual reality, interactive installations, and sculptures that respond to movement or touch.

These sort of experiences are not new. In fact, one of the first immersive art experiences came about in 2008, when the Imagine Van Gogh: The Immersive Exhibition, was launched in France.

However, it has not been until more recently that such exhibitions have grown in popularity and become commonplace in major cities across the globe.

With their growing popularity comes growing questions as to their status under copyright law both in the UK and worldwide.

UK Copyright: the basics

Artistic works are protected by UK copyright law under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (“CDPA”). Under the CPDA, artistic works such as sculptures, and works of artistic craftsmanship can qualify for copyright protection provided that other requirements, such as originality, are met.

However, problems can arise when artistic works go against the traditional categories. For example:

• Works combining both physical form with software or projection or sound
• An installation that requires audience interaction
• A mobile structure that changes in shape or position during an exhibition

These works may not clearly fall within a recognised category of work which is able to be protected under the CDPA, particularly if the work lacks a fixed, tangible form.

Can moveable or interactive art be protected in the UK?

Under certain circumstances, the various elements which make up an immersive art exhibition can be protected under UK copyright law. If the visual form of the work, whether in its structure, arrangement or appearance, can be identified and fixed, it may be protected as a sculpture or artistic work.

Likewise, the various software components, including source code, may qualify separately as literary works.

However, purely mechanical interactivity elements, such as motion sensors, alone will not be protectable by copyright law unless it contributes to the author’s own intellectual creation.

What is the copyright position across the world?

As for the copyright position outside of the UK, several rules exist which essentially provide a global framework for copyright law. The key international agreement in this respect is the Berne Convention, which attempts to standardise copyright protections across member countries – which include the UK and US.

Under the Berne Convention, authors do not need to register their work in each country to receive protection. Instead, in each member country, works originating in other member countries automatically enjoy the same treatment as those of nationals.

This was of relevance in a recent case which Waterfront was instructed in relation to. In this case, US-based Meow Wolf, a world leader within the immersive art experience industry, instructed our IP litigation lawyers to advance claims of copyright infringement against UK based immersive art experience provider, Wake The Tiger Ltd, in respect of that company’s Amazement Park exhibition in Bristol. Proceedings were filed in the High Court in September 2024 (Claim no IL-2024-000149) and matters were settled on confidential terms in March 2025.

What does the future hold for copyright and immersive art?

Over the coming years, fuelled by the increase in AI being used to create art, we can expect to see a surge of litigation in this industry.

Recently, TeamLab, a Japanese art collective famous for its immersive art experiences, discovered that its business name and works had been copied by TeamLab Borderless.

In particular, TeamLab Borderless had copied one of TeamLab’s 2016 installations titled Forest of Resonating Lamps, with a few minor changes to the original work. The changes, which included the installation being displayed outside rather than indoors, were so minor that in all material aspects, the work remained a copy. In addition to the name of their business, even the name of the installation itself was similar – TeamLab Borderless Breathing Forest Light Exhibition.

In this case, a Chinese court ruled in favour of TeamLab and held that TeamLab Borderless’ use of an identical name and its near-identical copying of TeamLab’s immersive art was unlawful.

In reaching its decision, the court recognised TeamLab’s copyright, and noted the similarities between both the visual appearance and the title of the works. The court held that TeamLab’s work was internationally acclaimed and so should have been known to the Chinese public, including TeamLab Borderless.

This litigation could prove to represent the start of a series of cases within the immersive art exhibition industry, particular as we see AI push the boundaries as to the creative possibilities within immersive art.

Key takeaways for the immersive art industry

• Always document the creative process behind each installation within the immersive art exhibition, including authors responsible for each work and their particular involvement. This is because if a particular artwork is subject to litigation proceedings, copyright owners may be put to proof about how they can claim to own each individual feature, which may be entitled to its own copyright,  even if the overall artwork is entitled to a further over-arching copyright.
• Make sure that copyrights arising from such artworks are owned by the intended entity. For employees, the employer should make sure that copies of signed employment agreements from relevant artist creators are retained which effect copyright transfer in the relevant jurisdiction to which it applies.  For non-employees, such as consultant labour, ensure there is an agreement which is signed by the artist and which also effectively transfers all subsisting copyrights.
• Understand that whilst copyright may protect elements of the work, such as the visual form or software code, but not necessarily the exhibition as a whole.
• For greater protection, consider a layered IP strategy, such as design rights, trade marks or licensing agreements.

Our London based copyright lawyers have the expertise to deal with the legal issues that surround immersive art and copyright.

If you are creating, commissioning, or exhibiting immersive art and have any copyright concerns, please contact Waterfront here and a member of our IP & Disputes team will be in touch.