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​ 

June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
Read More
June 5, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security released a draft Child Protection Act (“CPA”) for public review. The draft CPA would completely repeal and replace the current Child Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003). This represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Thailand’s child protection framework in over two decades, reflecting the government’s stated objective of modernizing the law to address evolving social challenges—including those arising from digital technology—and to promote greater coordination among government agencies, local authorities, and civil society. The public review period closes on June 9, 2026. Key changes introduced by the draft CPA that could have significant implications for businesses, particularly online platform providers, media companies, and entities operating child-related services in Thailand, are set out below. Expanded Definition of “Child” Under the current CPA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, excluding those who have attained legal majority through marriage. The draft CPA removes the marriage exception entirely, broadening the scope of the law’s protections to include all individuals under 18 without exception. Replacement of “Abuse” with Broader Concept of “Violence” The current CPA uses the term “abuse/cruelty,” which covers acts causing harm to a child’s liberty, body, or mind; sexual offenses against children; and using children in harmful or immoral activities. The draft CPA replaces this with the broader concept of “violence,” which encompasses any act or omission causing harm to a child’s body, mind, or development; abandonment or neglect; improper exploitation; and sexual abuse. Notably, the new definition adds developmental harm as a recognized category of injury and captures all forms of misconduct regardless of the child’s consent. New Standalone Definition of Sexual Abuse, Including Online Conduct One of the most significant additions in the draft CPA is the introduction of a standalone definition
Read More
May 25, 2026
After several years of policy discussion and continued efforts led by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) to relax the list of reserved businesses under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA), the reform process has now reached a significant milestone. On May 12, 2026, the Thai cabinet approved in principle two draft subordinate legislative instruments aimed at delisting certain reserved business activities under the FBA and reducing licensing requirements for foreign business operators. These developments signal a renewed and concrete effort by the government to modernize Thailand’s business regulatory framework in order to attract foreign investment and boost Thailand’s competitiveness in the global market. Nine Businesses Set for FBA Delisting Below is a list of the nine businesses that are being targeted for delisting from the FBA’s restrictions. A draft ministerial regulation would delist the first eight reserved businesses, while a royal decree has been drafted to delist the ninth business: Telecommunications services (Type 1 license only, covering operators without their own telecommunications infrastructure), under the supervision of the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission. Treasury center services subject to the Foreign Exchange Control Act B.E. 2485 and under the supervision of the Bank of Thailand. Securities-collateralized lending, pursuant to the laws governing securities and exchange and derivatives regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Agency, dealer, advisory, or fund management services relating to derivatives where the underlying assets fall outside the scope of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003) Intra-group shared services, including administrative, human resources, and IT functions Intra-group domestic debt guarantee services Leasing of partial space for installation of financial service machines and automatic vending machines for employee use Petroleum drilling services Trading of agricultural product derivatives through a futures exchange, with physical delivery or receipt of agricultural products at a futures exchange–designated
Read More
May 25, 2026
Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a
Read More