You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

October 26, 2025

The IP Puzzle of AI-Generated Songs: Protection, Responsibility, and the Future of Music Law

Subscribe to Updates

AI-generated songs are now making waves in Vietnam on platforms like TikTok, with tracks such as “Say mot doi vi em” quickly gaining popularity and sparking widespread attention. This phenomenon raises a host of legal and ethical questions: Who is the author of these songs? Can they be protected by copyright? Who is responsible if there is an infringement? These questions are becoming increasingly urgent as AI music becomes more mainstream in Vietnam.

Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Music in Vietnam

Under current Vietnamese law, copyright protection is reserved for works that bear the mark of human creativity. The 2022 amendments to Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Law reaffirm that only works created by humans are eligible for copyright. In practice, if a human meaningfully contributes to the creative process—by providing prompts, making selections, editing, or arranging—their contribution may be protected. However, if a song is generated entirely by AI without significant human input, it is unlikely to qualify for copyright protection.

When an AI-generated song does not qualify for copyright protection, the question arises as to whether the person who writes the prompts, edits, or compiles the work can still be considered the owner of an asset under the Vietnamese Civil Code. According to Article 105 of the Civil Code 2015, assets include objects, money, valuable papers, and property rights. While AI-generated music that is not protected by copyright is not considered money or valuable papers, it may be regarded as an object (in the form of a digital file or recording) or as a property right if it can be possessed, used, transferred, or exploited for value.

Use of AI-Generated Works Without Copyright Protection

If a song is not protected by copyright, does that mean anyone can use it freely? Not necessarily. The absence of copyright does not mean the work is entirely free of restrictions. Terms of service from AI platforms may limit commercial use, require attribution, or impose licensing fees. Other rights may also apply. The person who creates, edits, or compiles the AI-generated work may establish civil ownership over the digital file or recording as a type of digital asset, provided that the creation and use of the asset are lawful and do not infringe on others’ rights. This ownership is not the same as copyright, but it allows the owner to possess, use, and dispose of the asset within the limits of the law and any relevant agreements.

Additionally, laws against unfair competition, impersonation, or violations of personal rights (such as voice, name, or image) may still be relevant.

Voice Cloning and Related Risks

One particularly thorny issue is voice cloning. In Vietnam, performers’ rights protect both live performances and recorded voices. More importantly, copying or imitating a singer’s voice can primarily infringe upon the moral rights and personal rights of individuals as recognized under the Civil Code, which increasingly treats voice as a personal identifier. The main legal risk is the violation of moral rights, such as the right to protect the integrity and authenticity of one’s voice and the right to be recognized as the owner of that voice.

Best practices include obtaining written consent from the person whose voice is used, labeling content as “AI voice,” and avoiding any suggestion that the artist participated in or endorsed the work.

Similarity to Existing Works

Another significant risk arises when AI-generated music or lyrics resemble existing works. The standard for infringement is “substantial similarity” and access to the original. If an AI creates a segment that is sufficiently similar to a prior work, using that segment in a new recording or arrangement may constitute infringement. The fact that the AI was trained on large datasets does not exempt the output from scrutiny. Even if the input data was lawfully obtained, the output must still avoid copying protected material. Defenses such as coincidence, common style, or minor excerpts are assessed on a case-by-case basis, often requiring expert analysis.

Responsibility and benefit-sharing in the AI music ecosystem are complex. Users who prompt, select, edit, or publish AI-generated music are directly responsible for the outputs they release or exploit. AI platforms may also bear responsibility if they provide infringing tools or models, or fail to remove infringing content. Those who invest in, release, or commercially exploit AI-generated music may profit under contract, but they also assume corresponding legal risks, including compensation, takedown, or recall obligations.

Practical Recommendations for Creators and Publishers

For creators and publishers, several practical recommendations emerge. It is important to document the human role in the creative process, demonstrating selection and editing to support claims of authorship.

  • Similarity checks should be conducted using melody and lyric analysis tools, and expert opinions should be sought when necessary to avoid recognizable copying.
  • Voice governance is critical: Do not clone an artist’s voice without written consent, label AI-generated voices clearly, and avoid implying artist involvement.
  • Use models and training data with clear provenance, and ensure all samples, loops, and plugins are properly licensed, keeping records to prove origin.
  • Internal contracts should allocate rights and responsibilities among authors, producers, singers, engineers, and publishers, including indemnity clauses for intellectual property claims.
  • Platform terms should be reviewed carefully for output usage rights, commercial restrictions, and labeling obligations.
  • Finally, establish procedures for receiving and responding to takedown notices promptly to minimize damage.

Legal Outlook in Vietnam

Vietnam is actively shaping its legal framework to address the rapid growth of artificial intelligence. A draft Law on Artificial Intelligence released by the Ministry of Science and Technology is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026. In parallel, Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Law is under review, with discussions focused on how to accommodate AI-generated content.

The current framework does not recognize AI as an author, meaning that works created solely by AI may not qualify for copyright protection unless there is identifiable human contribution. This legal gap has prompted calls for clearer definitions of authorship, ownership, and liability in the context of AI-assisted creativity. While it is still too early to predict whether Vietnam’s upcoming laws will restrict or encourage AI-generated music, the direction appears cautiously optimistic. The government is balancing innovation incentives with ethical and legal safeguards, aiming to foster responsible AI development while protecting creators and consumers.

Key IP Takeaways on AI-Generated Content

AI-generated music challenges traditional IP frameworks on three fronts: authorship and protection, risks of voice cloning and similarity to prior works, and the allocation of liability among users, platforms, and publishers.

The safest path forward is proactive: Document the creative process, clear rights diligently, and use contractual safeguards. With these measures, businesses can treat AI not as a legal hazard, but as a sustainable creative tool in Vietnam’s fast-evolving music landscape.

As Vietnam’s evolving legal landscape offers both opportunities and uncertainties, stakeholders in the music and creative industries should stay informed and engaged with these regulatory developments to navigate the future of AI-generated content.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
Read More