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

May 6, 2021

The Trouble with Moral Rights in Vietnam, and a Possible Solution

The Intellectual Property Law of 2005 (IP Law) was Vietnam’s first truly comprehensive legal instrument focusing on intellectual property. More than 15 years since its issuance, the IP Law has been strengthened and refined through its two amendments (in 2009 and 2019) and subordinate legal documents. Still, some provisions of the law have issues that remain controversial or unclear.

One issue that has recently drawn attention from legal scholars and practitioners is related to moral rights under the copyright regime. Under the current IP Law, the moral rights of authors/creators include the following:

  1. The right to give titles to their works.
  2. The right to attach their real names or pseudonyms to their works and to have their real names or pseudonyms acknowledged when their works are published or used.
  3. The right to publish their works or authorize others to publish their works.
  4. The right to protect the integrity of their works, and to prevent others from modifying, mutilating, or distorting their works in any manner prejudicial to their honor and reputation.

Moral rights are non-transferable, except for Point 3 as explicitly stated, and Point 4 in the case of modification of dramatic works, cinematographic works, architectural works, or computer programs. It is not clear whether such moral rights are waivable, and this appears to have never been tested before the court or other authorities. Many argue that as the name indicates (the Vietnamese term is quyen nhan than, or “personal” rights), moral rights are rights of the person, and are therefore inalienable, unwaivable, and perpetually associated with the author. Others, however, believe if there is a waivable agreement, duly agreed to by the commissioning party and the author in a voluntary manner, such agreement should be valid and respected by law, since the law does not explicitly prohibit the waiver of moral rights.

In 2019, a fierce debate arose after the verdict was announced in a copyright dispute relating to a series of Vietnamese comic books. The plaintiff in this case was Mr. Le Phong Linh, who worked as an illustrator for a publishing company named Phan Thi. At the request of Phan Thi, the plaintiff created four characters used in the popular comic series Than Dong Dat Viet (Prodigy of Vietnam). After issue 78 of the series, Mr. Linh quit his job and Phan Thi hired other artists to continue to use the images of the four characters for further development of the comic as well as for other printed matter.

Mr. Linh then filed a lawsuit against the company, requesting, among other things, that the company stop creating and making derivations of such characters, after his retirement, in any subsequent issues of the comic and in other printed matter. The court determined that Phan Thi had economic rights to the four characters, including the right to make derivative works. However, the court also ruled that because the company’s continued use of the works included alterations of the characters’ appearances (such as facial expressions and postures), without asking for the author’s permission, this use constituted copyright infringement—that is, it infringed the author’s right to prevent others from modifying, mutilating, or distorting his works in any manner prejudicial to his honor and reputation.

This verdict raised a serious concern, especially for a commissioning party, as to the possibility of violating the moral rights of a hired author. Obviously, a commissioning party has the economic rights in hand, which allow them to create a derivative work. However, based on the verdict in this trial, it would seem they still need to ask for the author’s permission before making and releasing any derivations. This could be quite burdensome, especially if the author does not show a willingness to cooperate. However, if such moral rights were clearly stipulated by law to be transferable, this would no longer be a concern.

The good news for commissioners of works for hire is that under the latest draft of the amended IP Law (draft version 3.0), for the first time in Vietnam, some of the moral rights (particularly the right to give a title to the work and the right to modify the work, regardless of the type of work) are stipulated as being “negotiable,” which would consequently make them transferable, provided that such transfer was agreed to by both parties in writing. This new provision will help minimize the legal risks of violating moral rights and facilitate a safer legal environment for operation in creative businesses. If it is included when the amended law is passed, contracting parties could reduce risk in the future by having a specific provision in their contracts concerning the permitted scope of modification of a copyrighted work.

For now, while the IP Law still prohibits the transfer of moral rights (though it remains silent or untested on the validity of an agreement to waive such rights), it is advantageous for a commissioning party to include a provision on waivability of moral rights or other similar provisions (e.g., the author does not have or claim any rights of any kind whatsoever or will not take any legal actions) in the labor contract or service agreement for work creation, to indicate the parties’ willingness right at the start of the engagement period and mitigate the potential legal risks.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 16, 2026
Indonesia’s Ministry of Law has introduced a new framework for patent applications that tightens filing requirements and introduces formal mechanisms for accelerated examination. Minister of Law Regulation No. 6 of 2026 on Patent Applications, which was issued on January 13, 2026, and took effect on February 23, 2026, serves as the implementing regulation for Law No. 65 of 2024 on Patents. It replaces the previous patent application framework (under Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 38 of 2018, as amended by Regulation No. 13 of 2021), which was considered no longer aligned with current legal, institutional, and technological developments. The regulation also reflects the institutional restructuring of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights into the Ministry of Law. Patent applications filed on or after February 23, 2026, must fully comply with the new regulation. Applications that were filed before this date will continue to be examined and processed under the previous regulation, pursuant to transitional provisions. Substantive Changes Definition of Invention The definition of “Invention” now explicitly includes systems, methods, and uses, in addition to products and processes. This expansion creates broader protection opportunities, particularly for software-enabled, digital, and method-based technologies, although it may also result in closer scrutiny during substantive examination. Excess Claims Fee Excess claims fees must now be paid at the time of filing. Failure to pay excess claims fees at filing results in the application being deemed withdrawn. There is no longer an option to defer payment to the substantive examination stage. This amendment forces applicants to face higher upfront costs. Patent claim strategy must be finalized prior to filing, reducing flexibility at later stages. Procedural and System Changes Fully Electronic Filing Patent applications must be filed electronically via the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) online filing system. Assisted filings to
March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
March 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
March 10, 2026
Indonesia’s trademark prosecution process has been significantly streamlined with Ministry of Law Regulation No. 5 of 2026 (MOLR 5/2026) coming into effect on February 23, 2026. In straightforward cases without opposition, applicants may now see their trademarks proceed to registration within three months from filing—a substantial improvement over previous practice. The regulation also introduces detailed procedures for recording changes of name and address and for transferring rights over pending applications. It enhances the role of the Ministry of Law’s regional offices in assisting local individuals and SMEs, adds provisions governing force majeure situations, implements new requirements for collective trademarks, and formalizes several practices already in place. Substantive Examination Acceleration The most significant change under MOLR 5/2026 concerns substantive examination. The regulation now explicitly requires that applications be published within 15 days of filing, followed by a two-month publication period. Oppositions must be filed only within this window; late submissions will not be processed, even if the system accepts payment. The new regulation requires the Trademark Office (TMO) to forward copies of any opposition to applicants within 14 days of receipt. If no opposition is filed, substantive examination begins immediately after the publication period ends and will be completed within 30 days. If an opposition is filed, the examination is to be finalized within 90 days of the counterstatement filing date. These timelines enable unopposed applications to move from close of publication to final decision in roughly one month. If an application is provisionally refused during ex officio examination, the applicant has 30 working days from the date of notification to file a response. However, the regulation does not specify the timeline for subsequent reexamination after the response is filed. In recent practice, the TMO has been completing reexamination within approximately two to three months. Ownership Recordals May Pause Substantive