IP everywhere: the great challenge of the metaverse

Derived from the prefix “meta” (meaning “beyond” or “after” in Greek) and the stem “verse” (meaning the universe), the metaverse is being called the Internet 3.0 and it promises to increase permeability and interoperability between different digital environments, video games, and the real world.

At its core, the metaverse is code: ones and zeros overlaid with unfathomably vast amounts of data. A feature of these data is that they will be created and distributed from within the metaverse—in other words, from within a proprietary environment that has been created and envisioned by a person or a group of persons, and is controlled by a particular entity (such as a game developer).

The metaverse, unlike the real world, will be entirely manufactured. There isn’t a digital cloud or tree in the metaverse which hasn’t been designed by a creator, and then coded by an engineer, using software. From the clothes we wear and the car we drive in the metaverse, everything will be made of someone else’s IP.

On the surface, however, the metaverse will probably be a reflection of the real world and its users are likely to expect their transactions simply to mirror those happening in their daily lives. As such, the metaverse is posed to seriously challenge a number of legal concepts born out of a material world, including the historical concept of “ownership”. It will pose further questions such as whether virtual assets qualify for ownership, or whether new forms of hybrid ownership will emerge from it.

The metaverse, an endless source of IP

This new world, in which “IP is everywhere”, will present new legal problems for the citizens of the metaverse.

We already know that the internet has fractured existing models of exploiting IP rights, challenging owners and users of protected content in the areas of derivative works, territoriality and enforcement—notably where user-generated content is concerned (memes, for example). But those debates at least have as their starting point relatively solid concepts of, for example, rights ownership in a copyright-protected asset.

The metaverse, conversely, will challenge these principles. In a world with digital currencies, cars, works of art, galleries, and real estate, it will become increasingly difficult to convince the metaverse’s users that their digital assets are subservient to those of the private companies running the metaverse—that they merely exist by way of a limited metaverse end-user licence agreement.