>>104066053The unscripted nature of vtubing likely casts legal doubt on what is actually owned and whether or not a shared ownership is linked.
This relates to what is personage a company like the WWE has rights to gimmicks, names, video footage of someone but still needs a contract with them to produce merchandise that is tied to all of that.
All of those owned properties relate to likeness but it still remains owned by the person who acted in their show.
The question is since a vtuber is operated by a single unscripted person and audiences explicitly relate that character to that person does that mean they have shared rights to that character via likeness.
Since the personality and expressions are entirely bound to the operator that could be the case and I doubt any company really wants to legally take up that fight.
The consequences are bad either way because winning will require you to pay more and be less likely to sign talented people in an industry where independence is viable and losing undercuts the ownership of your entire IP.
