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

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 INSIGHTS​ 

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
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
July 16, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require