Vietnam

Global Vietnam Lawyers would like to introduce our valued readers to an article by Mr. Le Quang Vy titled “Law on protection of author rights in works generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI)”. This article was originally published in The Saigon Times, issue No.37-2025 (1.813) on September 11, 2025. *** Amid the stormy development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in this modern material world, the intellectual property laws in countries around the world in general and Vietnam in particular are facing regulatory gaps. These gaps pose a multitude of challenges for lawmakers in protecting intellectual property rights. Unlike rights in rem (the owner's rights over their tangible property) or rights in personam (the creditor's rights over the debtor), intellectual property rights concern intangible assets — specifically, the author rights over inventions and innovations. The value of intangible assets lies in what is derived from human creative activity. Can a work generated by AI be protected by law in terms of its author rights? If so, who would be the rightful holder of such rights? Vietnam is developing a National Strategy for Development and Application of Artificial Intelligence with vision to 2030, as outlined in Decision No. 2259/QĐ-BTTTT dated December 7, 2022 by the Ministry of Information and Communications. This strategy aims to develop AI for use in various sectors, including healthcare, education, finance, agriculture and etc. Therefore, establishing a legal framework to govern AI-generated works is now one of the most urgent issues. Current laws Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Law (IP Law) of 2005 has undergone three amendments (in 2009, 2019, and 2022). However, it still does not contain any provisions addressing AI or AI-generated works.  Under the current IP Law, a protectable work must be created by a human author in a direct manner, and its author rights come into existence at the moment the work is created and comes to exist in a determined material form. Regarding the holder of author rights, the law stipulates that only the author (a person), co-authors (several persons), or the organization (be it a legal person or non-legal person) that gives assignments to or enters into contracts with an author may be recognized as the holder of author rights. Even international treaties such as the Berne Convention only protect works created by human authors. Similarly, the TRIPS Agreement contains no provisions related to AI-generated works. In the United Kingdom, the law does provide protection for computer-generated works. However, the author behind such works must be a human, i.e. the person who writes the program. That being said, authors of computer-generated works are not entitled to certain author rights, such as the right to be identified as the author when the work is copied or disseminated, or the right to protect the integrity of the work. Computer-generated works are protected for only 50 years from the date of creation, rather than the lifetime of the author plus 70 years from his/her death as is the case with traditional artistic works. Thus, the UK law partially recognizes works generated by machines under humans’ command, but such works do not give rise to the full spectrum of author rights afforded to the works created directly by human authors.  The U.S. law only protects the works created by humans; works independently generated by AI are not eligible for legal protection. Specifically, the Court of the District of Columbia has ruled in the case of Thaler v. Perlmutter that a work created by AI without human creativity does not give rise to any author right. This decision aligns with the guidance issued by the U.S. Copyright Office regarding author right registration, which states that a work must be the result of direct human authorship in order to be protected. Accordingly, both Vietnamese laws and the prevailing international practice continue to affirm that creativity must involve a human element. Identifying legal issues The first question is: Can AI be considered as an author? Under the current IP Law, it can be definitively stated that AI is not a human being and therefore cannot be recognized as the author of a creative work, nor can it be the holder of author rights. The second issue concerning AI-generated works is the need to clearly define the roles of the individuals involved — such as the programmer, the system administrator, and the prompt engineer. Among these individuals, who should be considered as the author? The third issue concerns originality. AI-generated works are typically derived from pre-existing datasets. Therefore, can such works be regarded as creative works by themselves? Can they be considered as original works? Finally, with respect to legal liability, if an AI-generated work contains offending contents or AI unlawfully uses copyrighted data, who will be held liable? Currently, in the United States, there is a "high-profile" lawsuit between The New York Times and Open AI & Microsoft. Accordingly, The New York Times alleges that Open AI & Microsoft used millions of copyrighted articles from The New York Times to train GPT without permission nor paying, and that there are contents coming out almost verbatim from the original articles, even cases of patchwork resulting in falsified information. In a rebuttal to The New York Times, Open AI & Microsoft pretends that the data used by Open AI & Microsoft are publicly available, meaning that the data are neither intercepted, nor require logging in or paying. The contents in question are not copied but have been transformed, meaning that the data has been synthetized into a new work, not reprinted or copied. In addition, Open AI & Microsoft also claims that they are entitled to the fair-use exception under US copyright law. Similar to US law, Article 25 of the Vietnamese IP Law stipulates exceptions that are not considered as copyright infringements, such as fair use of a work for scientific research, teaching, commenting, writing, illustration in one's own work, etc. However, fair use must not negatively affect the original work. Reverting to the above lawsuit, although the verdict is yet to be pronounced, it can be considered as a typical AI lawsuit whose verdict will be valuable experience in shaping the legal framework on copyright for works created by AI. Amending the IP Law to keep up with the development of AI In the AI ​​era, the law needs to clarify the concepts of "author" and "rights holder". Should AI be recognized as a creative subject? If not, who will be recognized as the author of the work created by AI? the programmer? the administrator or the prompt engineer? Or is it necessary to establish a “co-authorship” mechanism for AI works? If, in case of the author right, the law provides for the interaction and sharing of benefits between the author right and related rights (performers; record producers; broadcasting organizations) for audio and video recordings, then for AI-created works, should the law also stipulate a regime of sharing rights between subjects participating in the process of creating AI works such as data providers, programmers, managers, especially in consideration of the The New York Times versus Open AL & Microsoft lawsuit. The law needs to clearly set up a mechanism for protecting input data used to train AI models such as: in which cases using copyrighted data for training is an offense and which cases would be considered as reasonable exceptions (fair use). In addition, the law needs to establish a mechanism for tracing the origin of content, specifically the obligation of the organization providing the AI ​​platform to keep track of input data and generated contents; provide information to competent authorities when there is a dispute. Develop a separate registration mechanism for artificial intelligence works such as allowing registration to establish rights to AI-created works on the basis of honest and public disclosure of human contributions. And last but not the least, a legal liability mechanism should be created for a clear definition of the responsibilities of the owner, the programmer and the exploiter and operator of the AL system. In short, Vietnam still does not have clear legal provisions related to intellectual property rights for AI. Legal issues related to AI-created works must be based on the current protection framework (author right, patent, trademark). However, in the context of AI being a core technology, building a legal framework on IP for AI is extremely urgent in the coming time. It is time to (i) Have a legal definition of "AI-created works"; (ii) Expand the mechanism on author right holders; (iii) Establish a legal liability mechanism between parties involved in the process of programming - operating management - exploiting AI systems.

VILAF warmly congratulates SCG Packaging Public Company Limited (SCG Packaging), a subsidiary of Siam Cement Group, on the successful acquisition of the remaining 30% shares in Duy Tan Plastics Manufacturing Corporation (Duy Tan Plastics), making SCG Packaging the sole shareholder of Vietnam’s leading manufacturer of rigid plastic packaging products.  The transaction was made at USD108.6 million. SCG Packaging previously acquired 70% of the shares of Duy Tan Plastics in 2021. The strategic buy-out underscores SCG Packaging’s continued commitment to strengthening its presence in Vietnam – a market recognized for its dynamic economic growth and increasing appeal as a regional hub for foreign investment. VILAF Partners Ngoc Luong Trinh and Hien Tran led the legal advisory for SCG Packaging in this buy-out transaction, with key support from Senior Associate Hanh Vo, Associates Truc Ta, Nguyen Dang, and Hoang Nguyen. Related article: Thailand’s SCG Packaging becomes sole owner of Vietnam’s leading plastics firm Duy Tan

VILAF extends our congratulations to the Agence Française de Développement (AFD) and the National Power Transmission Corporation (EVNNPT) on the signing of the €67 million (approximately USD75 million) loan agreement for the funding of the expansion and modernisation of power transmission grids in Vietnam. The official signing ceremony was held last week, during the official visit of French President Emmanuel Macron to Vietnam. The loan will support the development of the construction of two new 500kV substations and associated transmission lines in Binh Duong and Dong Nai provinces.  This marks the first international funding Vietnam has received through the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP), which was established in 2022 to support emerging economies to achieve their climate, green transition and sustainable development goals. VILAF’s Partner Tung Nguyen and Associate Chau Nguyen are advising AFD in this transaction. Related article: EVNNPT and AFD sign agreement to expand and modernize the power transmission grid

VILAF is pleased to congratulate HSBC Vietnam, Mizuho Bank, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (SMBC), UOB Vietnam, and Gamuda Land on the successful financial close of the VND3,750 billion (USD 144.4 million) green club loan facility extended to Tam Luc Real Estate Corporation, a subsidiary of Gamuda Land. The five-year loan facility will finance the development of Eaton Park, a landmark green residential project in Ho Chi Minh City.  Eaton Park is a premium residential complex located in District 2, spanning 3.75 hectares with a planned 2,000 apartments. The project has achieved the prestigious EDGE green building certification from the International Finance Corporation (IFC), underscoring its commitment to sustainable and energy-efficient design. VILAF acted as legal counsel to HSBC Vietnam in its roles as facility agent, coordinating arranger, joint mandated lead arranger, and joint green coordinator, and to the other club lenders participating in the transaction. The VILAF team advising this transaction was led by Partner Duyen Ha Vo, alongside Partner Tung Nguyen, Counsel Hanh Hien Nguyen, and Associates Nhi Nguyen and Mai Phan.