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​ 

January 22, 2026
On January 20, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance (MOF) issued Decision No. 96/QD-BTC to formally launch pilot administrative procedures for licensing crypto asset trading market services in Vietnam. The decision took immediate effect and implements the government’s pilot crypto asset market program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP. Notably, competent authorities have now begun accepting license applications, marking the first time Vietnam has operationalized a licensing pathway for crypto trading market operators. Administrative Procedures and Applications The decision stipulates procedures for (i) granting, (ii) adjusting, and (iii) revoking licenses to provide services for organizing crypto asset trading markets. It provides detailed, step-by-step guidance for each procedure, including dossier composition, internal review stages, coordination mechanisms, and statutory timelines. These procedures apply specifically to entities seeking to organize and operate crypto asset trading markets within Vietnam’s pilot regulatory framework. The MOF is the authority responsible for reviewing and deciding on the above procedures, with the State Securities Commission acting as the receiving, coordinating, and procedural focal point. For licensing applications, the MOF will coordinate with multiple authorities, including the State Bank of Vietnam and the Ministry of Public Security, particularly in relation to anti-money laundering, cybersecurity, system safety, and risk control requirements. Applications may be submitted in person, by post, or electronically via the National Public Service Portal or the administrative procedure information system, in line with applicable regulations. Statutory processing timelines vary depending on the specific procedure and stage involved. For applications to obtain a license to organize a crypto asset trading market, the process is conducted in multiple phases: The MOF will issue an initial written response within 20 working days from receipt of a complete and valid initial dossier, following which, upon submission of the full set of required documents, the MOF will complete substantive review and issue the license
Read More
January 21, 2026
On January 16, 2026, Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Committee released for public comment a draft notification that would require social media platforms operating in Thailand to implement identity verification for all user accounts and advertisers, with enhanced scrutiny for high-risk advertising activities. If finalized in its current form, the Notification on Measures to Prevent Technology Crime for Social Media Service Providers would take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, fundamentally changing how platforms verify users and monetize advertising services. The public comment period is open through February 2, 2026. Mandatory User and Advertiser Identity Verification The draft establishes a universal requirement that all social media service providers implement identity verification measures for every user account. The draft imposes stricter verification obligations for advertisers than for general users. Before publishing any advertisement, platforms must verify the advertiser’s identity at a level sufficient to identify the advertiser, unless the advertiser has previously completed verification. Risk-Based Advertisement Verification The identification requirements for advertisers will be more stringent in the following cases: The advertiser has a history of user complaints or has previously violated the platform’s terms of service. The advertisement involves finance, investment, loans, sensitive personal data, or content flagged as potentially involving cybercrime. The advertisement specifically targets vulnerable groups, such as the elderly or other at-risk demographics. In such cases, platforms must conduct identity verification using government-issued identification documents and must confirm the accuracy, authenticity, and currency of these documents with the issuing government agencies. Alternatively, platforms may verify identity through an eligible digital identity verification and authentication system provider. Information Retention Platforms must retain specific information for each advertiser, including the name of the individual or juristic person and any representatives, government-issued identification documents such as ID cards, passports, or certificates of incorporation, and reachable contact information including
Read More
January 21, 2026
Spurred by global geopolitics and Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, which aims to forge deeper ties with ASEAN, Canadian companies have been showing growing interest in Thailand and Southeast Asia in recent years. To understand the opportunities offered by the region, we sat down with Andrew Stoutley, a Toronto native and the chief operating officer of Tilleke & Gibbins, a leading Southeast Asian regional law firm with over 130 years of history in Thailand. Q: Why are Canadian companies looking at Thailand and Southeast Asia right now? A: Two reasons stand out. First, diversification has moved up the agenda. Many Canadian companies want options outside North America due to tariff volatility and policy uncertainty in the United States, as well as questions around the next Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement mandatory joint review. At the same time, the shift of global production from China to Southeast Asia is accelerating, driven by rising costs, geopolitics, and the need to avoid overreliance on a single market. As a result, Canadian companies are looking for a second production base or a regional hub, and Thailand and its neighbors are natural choices given their manufacturing depth, location, and established supply chains. Second, Canada’s own efforts in the region are gaining traction. The Indo-Pacific Strategy has led to more on-the-ground support, including larger trade missions, upgraded diplomatic posts, and new financing options. Export Development Canada (EDC) now has a presence in Bangkok, giving Canadian companies a direct line to financing and insurance in Thailand. There’s also steady progress on trade frameworks like the recently signed Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (which will come into effect pending domestic procedures), ongoing negotiations of a Canada–ASEAN FTA, and the exciting announcement about the launch of negotiations of a Canada–Thailand FTA. Together, these developments have the potential to make it much easier
Read More
January 13, 2026
On January 9, 2026, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) against five individuals for unauthorized operation of a digital-asset dealer business under the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018). This precedent-setting case signals that the regulator is willing to pursue crypto enforcement against natural persons even in the absence of a licensed platform entity. Background and Implications The case follows the SEC’s October 2025 public warning about the use of iris-scanning technology in exchange for certain digital tokens. In its warning, the SEC cautioned that exchanging or trading these specific tokens with unlicensed service providers exposes users to heightened fraud, scam, and money laundering risks. Unlike prior regulatory enforcement matters, which involved platform-level administrative fines for operational or compliance failures, this case targets misconduct by individuals who may not be professional traders but openly advertised their willingness to buy these tokens from the public, opened individual over-the-counter (OTC) trade channels for these tokens, and facilitated off-exchange transactions in a manner resembling ordinary commercial dealing. This enforcement action establishes a clear precedent that natural persons engaging in public-facing digital-asset dealing may face criminal liability under Thai law, even without operating through a corporate or licensed platform structure. Outlook The alleged offenders may not settle this crime by payment of fines. Following the SEC’s referral, the ECD will undertake further investigation, after which prosecutors may review the case and proceed to court. The SEC has stated that it will cooperate fully with enforcement agencies throughout the criminal enforcement process.
Read More