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​ 

September 17, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has released for public comment a draft bill to amend the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979), the country’s foundational consumer protection legislation. The draft amendment aims to modernize the nearly five-decade-old framework to address the rapid growth of digital commerce, online advertising, influencer marketing, and new business models. The public consultation period is open until October 10, 2026. Expanded Definitions Covering Digital Commerce The draft significantly broadens several core definitions to capture modern commercial activities: “Consumer” is expanded to include natural persons and nonprofit juristic persons who purchase or receive services, including those solicited by businesses and end users who do not directly pay for the goods or services. “Business operator” now explicitly covers advertising business operators and hired advertising persons, such as influencers and content creators. “Advertising media” is expanded to include digital platforms, social media, and social media user accounts. “Label” now encompasses electronic labels—symbols, codes, or other electronic formats displaying product information. Influencer and Advertising Disclosure Requirements In addition to these expanded definitions, “hired advertising person for selling goods or services” is a new definition covering influencers, content creators, live streamers, affiliate marketers, and virtual online media operators who receive monetary compensation or other benefits for advertising goods or services. Hired advertising persons—including influencers and content creators—must disclose to consumers that content is advertising and reveal their relationship with the business owner. Disclosure is required when the business owner employs the advertiser, pays or provides other benefits for the advertisement, or provides free or discounted products or services. These requirements apply where consumers would not otherwise know that the business has a connection to the person presenting the content. Labeling Requirements for Importers The draft introduces a clearer labeling obligation for importers of label-controlled goods, who must
Read More
September 11, 2026
Thailand’s National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) has published a new five-year master plan that will bring significant regulatory changes to the broadcasting and digital media sectors, including formal licensing requirements for internet-based audiovisual services. The Master Plan for Broadcasting and Television, 3rd Edition (B.E. 2569–2573/2026–2030) was published in the Government Gazette on September 1, 2026, and will affect OTT platforms, internet-based audiovisual service providers, and traditional broadcasters. Licensing Reform The NBTC will develop new licensing frameworks ahead of existing digital television license expirations, which are slated to occur between 2028 and 2030. This creates both uncertainty and opportunity for incumbents and new market entrants. New licensing criteria will also be developed for audiovisual services delivered over the internet, meaning previously unregulated internet-based providers may face licensing, fee, and content obligations for the first time. The plan also calls for a new law to govern converged communications services. OTT Regulation and Content Oversight The plan explicitly acknowledges and aims to lessen the regulatory asymmetry between traditional broadcasters—which are subject to licensing, fees, and content regulation—and internet-based services that currently face fewer obligations. The NBTC intends to develop regulatory frameworks to bring internet-based audiovisual services, including OTT platforms, streaming services, and user-generated content platforms, under content, consumer protection, and licensing requirements. Consumer Protection and Digital Rights The NBTC will strengthen its oversight of broadcasting, television, and telecommunications operators to ensure compliance with consumer protection and personal data protection requirements. This includes updating relevant notifications and orders and more strictly enforcing rules against practices that unfairly exploit consumers. These measures may layer NBTC-specific requirements on top of Thailand’s existing Personal Data Protection Act obligations. Stricter enforcement against practices that exploit consumers is a priority, with particular scrutiny on advertising practices. The NBTC will modernize complaint resolution processes, meaning service providers should
Read More
September 7, 2026
On September 4, 2026, Thailand’s prime minister convened the first meeting of the Data Center Business Policy Committee. The committee endorsed a draft policy framework for the data center industry and tasked four subcommittees with developing the standards that would sit beneath it, shifting away from fragmented, agency-by-agency approvals toward a unified national strategy aiming to maximize economic value while managing environmental and infrastructure concerns. Proposed Scope and Pillars of the National Data Center Policy Framework The proposed framework would cover all types of data centers, including internal or captive facilities operated within a company or its affiliates, rather than only commercial third-party providers. If adopted in this form, companies running private data centers purely for internal purposes would also become subject to regulatory oversight. Minimum safety and operational standards would be established, with uniform enforcement across all categories. The committee endorsed a draft policy framework with four key pillars: Industrial classification: Data centers exceeding 2 MW would be classified as industrial operations, which may require factory licenses and environmental impact assessments under the Factory Act. Resource pricing: Utility rates would be structured to reflect both direct and indirect costs, supporting green energy and green data center standards. Centralized screening: A centralized review would evaluate project suitability and resource allocation. Operators may be required to submit proposals through periodic “pitching” rounds, where projects are competitively assessed on their potential economic and strategic benefits to Thailand. Digital ecosystem: The framework would prioritize data sovereignty, tax incentives, and conditions promoting domestic digital businesses, AI, and cloud infrastructure. Multidimensional Evaluation Criteria and Subcommittees Four subcommittees will be established to develop standards responsible for the following dimensions: Economic: Criteria for assessing the economic viability of data center projects, for use in prioritizing data centers based on infrastructure readiness, demand type (including AI factories),
Read More
September 4, 2026
Foreign business restrictions on telecommunications, treasury center businesses, and intragroup support services were eased when Thailand published the Ministerial Regulation Prescribing Service Businesses Not Requiring Permission for Foreign Business Operations (No. 5) B.E. 2569 (2026) in the Government Gazette on August 28, 2026. The ministerial regulation expands the categories of service businesses that foreign investors may operate without a foreign business license (FBL) under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA). Of particular relevance to the telecommunications, fintech, and technology sectors, the ministerial regulation exempts: Type 1 telecommunications licensees, which do not have their own networks; Treasury center businesses operated in accordance with Thailand’s exchange control regulations; and Certain intragroup administrative, human resources, and information technology management services. Telecommunications Services Foreign-owned businesses providing telecommunications services under a type 1 telecommunications license may now operate without obtaining an FBL. This may streamline market entry for qualifying telecommunications and digital infrastructure businesses. The exemption applies only to the FBA licensing requirement. Operators must continue to comply with applicable requirements under the Telecommunications Business Act and the regulations of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, and the change does not affect foreign ownership restrictions applicable to type 2 or type 3 telecommunications businesses. Treasury Center Businesses The ministerial regulation also exempts qualifying treasury center businesses from the FBL requirement. This may facilitate centralized treasury functions in Thailand, including liquidity management, foreign exchange management, and intragroup funding arrangements. Treasury center operations remain subject to applicable requirements of the Bank of Thailand and other competent authorities. Intragroup Administrative, HR, and IT Services Certain administrative, human resources, and information technology management services provided between affiliated entities are also exempt, provided the relevant entities satisfy prescribed ownership or management criteria. The exemption is available where the service provider and recipient are related through specified ownership
Read More