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

April 30, 2026

New Decree Strengthens Vietnam’s Copyright Framework in the AI Era

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms.

Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment.

Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below.

Copyright for AI-Created Works

Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality.

At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities.

Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data

Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation, and the training of AI systems, requiring that such use be based on lawfully published materials, accessed from legitimate sources, and conducted without circumventing or disabling technological protection measures implemented by rightsholders. It further establishes substantive limitations to ensure that such use does not conflict with the normal exploitation of protected works, does not cause unreasonable prejudice to the legitimate interests of authors, performers, and rightsholders, and does not result in AI outputs that substitute the market or create unfair competition with protected subject matter.

The right of authors, performers, and rightsholders to reserve their copyright and related rights against this use of protected texts and data is also recognized under Article 37b. Such reservations must be exercised through clear and publicly accessible mechanisms, including machine‑readable rights‑management information, technological protection measures, or public declarations made via authorized collective management organizations. This reservation right specifically does not apply where the use of texts and data fully satisfies the strict conditions set out in Article 37a.

Users of copyrighted texts and data for research, experimentation, and AI training are required  to retain technical records, training data, and usage data in accordance with applicable AI‑related regulations, and to provide such information to competent authorities upon request for verification, dispute resolution, or enforcement purposes. In addition, Article 37c reinforces the obligation to respect the reservation of rights exercised by rightsholders, notably clarifying that where AI‑trained systems are commercially exploited, users must comply with the foregoing obligations and fulfill royalty‑payment duties in accordance with the law, ensuring that AI innovation is aligned with fair remuneration and effective rights protection.

Specialized Database on Copyright and Related Rights

To strengthen the institutional framework for copyright protection and enforcement in the digital environment, Decree 134 introduces a centralized, specialized database on copyright and related rights. This publicly accessible database will consolidate key data on registrations, collective management organizations, royalty tariffs, intermediary service providers, and other relevant matters to enhance information sharing, regulatory oversight, and lawful access, while ensuring compliance with data‑protection and confidentiality requirements.

Copyright Exclusions

Article 8.4 clarifies the scope of subject matter excluded from copyright protection by providing detailed interpretations of ideas, slogans, and the independent title of a work. The provision reaffirms that ideas or creative concepts not fixed in a material form, slogans lacking independent creativity beyond ordinary linguistic expression, and titles considered separately from the content of the work do not constitute protected works.

Legal Validity of Electronic Registration Certificates

Article 38.9 formally recognizes the legal validity of electronic copyright and related‑rights registration certificates, an important step toward modernizing copyright administration. The provision authorizes the competent authority to issue certificates in electronic form as the default, while allowing paper certificates to be issued upon request, and confirms that electronic certificates have the same legal value as paper documents.

Suspension of Examination During Disputes

Under Article 39.2a, the relevant authority must temporarily suspend the examination of registration applications where the subject matter is involved in an ongoing dispute, complaint, denunciation, or criminal investigation relating to IP infringement. By requiring formal notification to applicants and clearly defining the duration of such suspension, this important procedural safeguard helps prevent the issuance of registration certificates that could interfere with judicial, arbitral, or investigative proceedings, while ensuring procedural fairness through the resumption of processing or the return of applications once the suspension period ends.

A Promising Step Forward

In summary, Decree 134 represents a significant step forward in modernizing and strengthening Vietnam’s copyright and related‑rights framework in response to rapid digital transformation and the growing impact of AI. By providing detailed guidance on AI‑assisted creation, lawful data use for AI training, rightsholder reservations, user responsibilities, registration procedures, and digital administration, the decree enhances legal certainty and regulatory coherence while maintaining a human‑centric approach to copyright protection.

At the same time, it reinforces transparency, accountability, and fair remuneration, ensuring that technological innovation proceeds in harmony with the legitimate interests of authors, performers, and rightsholders. Taken together, these measures demonstrate the state’s commitment to effective IP management and to fostering a balanced, sustainable environment for creativity, innovation, and economic development in the digital and AI‑driven landscape.

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