Why You Should Own Your VTuber Model

VTubing is an exciting community to be a part of, and there are many tools for those looking to get into it. Among those tools are free-to-use models and customizable models so that someone looking to begin as a VTuber can get up and running quickly, without the cost of a customizable model. However, when a VTuber begins to take off, this path can cause them significant headache or even place them at legal risk, especially if they begin to pursue merchandise opportunities.

The cause of this is that without an express agreement, the Copyright to the model still belongs to the artist. This copyright begins as soon as an original work is fixed in a tangible medium.[1] This has applied to Digital Artwork ever since the Third Circuit ruled in Williams Electronics, Inc. v. Artic International, Inc. that Artic’s clone of Williams’ game Defender was a violation of Copyright.[2] If a person is found to be in violation of Copyright, they may be liable to the Copyright Holder for actual damages and the profits that they have made using the copyrighted material, as well as Statutory Damages.[3] In addition, platforms may be forced to take down any works using the infringing work (such as streams or videos using the model), under the DMCA.[4] Commissioning Art does not necessarily transfer this Copyright, [5] rather, it grants a private license for it.[6] An exemption for AI-created art exists, with Courts holding that AI-generated Art is not subject to Copyright.[7] However, the use of such AI art may result in community backlash, and additionally allow others to use said art since it is not under copyright.

Perhaps the best-known example of a VTuber getting into trouble over not owning their model, causing them headaches, is when Projekt Melody was banned from Twitch over a DMCA complaint after her artist claimed that Melody hadn’t paid him and hadn’t given her rights to her model.[8] Melody’s Twitch was then restored after providing that she had paid for her model, but she lost her Twitch partnership status.[9] This kerfuffle could have been easily avoided had Melody gotten in writing full rights to her model from the artist.

Another example is that of Powdur. Powdur used a customizable Live2D model, LizMeta. However, the creators of the model complained heavily about Powdur’s politically charged content and requested that Powdur cease her use of that model.[10] Some in the community sided with the creators of the model, while others sided with Powdur, believing that the creators were overreaching. In response, Powdur has announced plans for a new private model in order to avoid any possible legal action from the creators of LizMeta.

In yet another example, the popular VTuber Filian had been selected to have a Neandroid figure based on her model released by Good Smile Company. However, while Filian had streaming rights to her model, she did not own the full copyright, which remained with the original artist. The artist immediately demanded that Filian and Good Smile Company stop production of the figure, noting that they weren’t seeking royalties or payment, just that they were trying to protect their IP and prevent a precedent from being set. This resulted in the announcement being retracted and production being halted.[11] Filian has since gone on Hiatus and has allegedly engaged in an ARG in connection to a re-debut with a new model, wiping her entire social media presence as a part of it.

These three examples show the immense headache and frustration that Independent VTubers can have when commissioning models from artists or when using pre-made models. It becomes essential for Independent VTubers who are looking to expand or engage in “edgy” content to ensure that they have the full rights to their model, in writing, when commissioning them from their artists. Specifically, when commissioning models, Independent VTubers should secure, in writing, full publication rights, full rights to derivative works, and full rights to create merchandise based on the model. This advice also is extended to other creators who rely on Artists to create art for their works, such as Authors commissioning art for book covers or the interior of their books. Although this may result in higher upfront costs, it can save significant legal headaches later, especially if the creator experiences success.

[1] “Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.” 17 U.S.C. § 102 (a).

[2] Williams Electronics, Inc. v. Artic International, Inc. 685 F.2d 870 (1982).

[3] 17 U.S.C. § 504

[4] 17 U.S.C. § 512

[5] 17 U.S.C. § 202.

[6] Community for Creative-Non Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989).

[7] Thaler v. Perlmutter 130 F.4th 1039 (2025).

[8] Jacob Kastrenakes, What Happens When a Virtual Streamer Doesn’t Own Her Body?, The Verge (Nov. 24, 2020), https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/24/21591488/projekt-melody-twitch-ban-copyright-strike-digitrevx-vtuber.

[9] Id.

[10] Twitch Scrubing, The Powdur Situation Explained, YouTube (Feb. 4, 2026), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbFY_h63_Wk.

[11] Filian Nendoroid Production Halted Days After Announcement, VTuber NewsDrop (July 8, 2024), https://vtubernewsdrop.com/filian-nendoroid-production-halted-days-after-announcement/.