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

January 24, 2024

Vietnam’s Public Domain – Digging the Gold Mine with Care

Managing Intellectual Property

Mickey Mouse (or, rather, a specific early version of the iconic Disney character) famously entered the public domain in the United States on January 1, 2024, almost 100 years after his 1928 debut in the short film Steamboat Willie. Mickey’s arrival highlighted the increasingly wide annual observance of “Public Domain Day”—the day when creative works enter the public domain for the first time, after the expiration of their copyright terms. This date, however, is not international, and depends on the copyright laws of each country. In Vietnam, Mickey Mouse had been in the public domain for years.

Vietnam’s public domain regime

Under Vietnam’s IP Law, the duration of copyright protection for moral rights is indefinite, except for rights to publish the works, which, together with economic rights, have a protection term of 75 years from first publication for cinematographic works, photography, applied art, and anonymous works. When these works are not published within 25 years from the date of their creation, the protection term is 100 years from the date of creation. For anonymous works, the protection term is determined when information about the author becomes available. For other types of copyrighted works (such as literary and musical works), following the Berne Convention, the protection term is for the life of the author and 50 years after the author’s death. Works for which the terms of protection have expired belong to the public. Everyone is entitled to use such works but must respect the moral rights of the authors.

According to these regulations, Steamboat Willie and two other 1928 Mickey Mouse shorts, which are regarded as cinematographic works, have been in the public domain in Vietnam since 2003. This means that, for the past 21 years, anyone could legally copy, publish or distribute those shorts in Vietnam, and could also make derivative works from them — including prequels, sequels, spinoffs, and remakes using this particular version of the Mickey Mouse character.

The public domain privilege also largely benefits other type of works in Vietnam. Vietnamese publisher Dong A, for example, has introduced the Classic Literature bookshelf (Dong A Classics) with the release of 26 famous world-classic books that have come into the public domain, such as Tom Sawyer and Treasure Island. Other publishing houses and websites releasing e-books have taken advantage of the public domain to reissue works with expired copyrights, which can be gold mines for publishers. However, these gold miners should be careful when digging such precious ore, or they could face challenges to their claim.

Risk of infringing author’s moral rights

Article 19 of the IP Law lists the moral rights of authors, in which one controversial regulation is the right to “Protect the integrity of their works, and prevent others from modifying, mutilating or distorting their works in any form prejudicial to their honor and reputation.” As this moral right is protected perpetually and is non-transferable, the action of modifying a work, even after the protection term has expired, may still constitute infringement.

However, in practice, it is often difficult to determine whether a modification is “mutilating or distorting their works in any form prejudicial to their honor and reputation.” Proving the value of the works themselves is burdensome because there are no common criteria for evaluation. The evaluation of literary and artistic works is mainly based on each person’s subjective perspective.

Complications of derivative works

In addition to the copyright owned by the author, there are also rights to derivative works, which may still be valid. Therefore, even if an original work falls into the public domain, use of its derivative works may still constitute infringement.

Confusion can be caused when the copyright to a song (i.e., sheet music) has come into the public domain, but the related rights of a recording of such song are still in force. In 2021, before an AFF Cup soccer match between Vietnam and Laos, the viewing audience was surprised (and angry) when the Vietnamese national anthem “Tien Quan Ca” was muted on a streaming channel “due to copyright reasons.” It is commonly known that the song (including both music and lyrics) was donated by the family of the late musician Van Cao to the people of Vietnam. The song is in the public domain and anyone can record it or make derivative works from it. However, the reason behind this incident laid in the fact that the recording of “Tien Quan Ca” used in the match was produced and owned by foreign record label Marco Polo, and was still protected under copyright laws.

In contrast, when derivative works are made from works that have already entered the public domain, such as folk-art paintings, their creators can face an uphill climb defending their creations from copycat infringers, as anyone is free to derive works from the same source material and the creativity of the works will be difficult to assess.

Different protection terms in different countries

Because the copyright protection term of works can be different from country to country, use of works from foreign authors/right owners must be handled with extra caution.

For example, the American writer and presenter Dale Carnegie, author of the famous self-help book How to Win Friends and Influence People (Vietnamese title Dac Nhan Tam) died in 1955. Per the Berne Convention, the copyright of the work expired in Vietnam in 2005. However, in the U.S., the provisions of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extend the term of copyright protection to 70 years after the author’s death. Thus, the copyright protection period for How to Win Friends and Influence People in the U.S. has not yet expired.

In 2014, there was a dispute between Dale Carnegie Vietnam (the local franchise of U.S.-based training company Dale Carnegie & Associates, Inc.) against a former employee using a similar training course for his own business. As some copyrighted works of Dale Carnegie had fallen into the public domain in Vietnam, the company intended to bring the suit to a U.S. court where the copyright term was still valid.

To sum up, although public domain regulations in Vietnam and other countries can be beneficial for society as the free use may stimulate creation of other works, there are some more complex peripheral legal issues that should be well considered.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
August 28, 2026
When considering a franchise, many people first think of a restaurant, retail chain, or service outlet. From a legal perspective, however, the foundation of every franchise lies in the right to use a brand, which is typically granted through a trademark license. Trademarks are often the most valuable assets in a franchise system. Through a trademark license, a franchisor authorizes a franchisee to use its trademarks, logos, and branding while maintaining control over how the brand is presented to customers. The Role of Trademarks in Franchise Businesses Under the Trademark Law 2019, a mark is defined as a sign that is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others in the course of trade. This distinguishing function is particularly important in a franchise arrangement, where the franchisee’s use of the franchisor’s trademark allows consumers to recognize the source, quality, and reputation of the business. In this way, trademarks help preserve brand identity, strengthen market recognition, and protect the commercial value of the franchise system. Legal Foundation for Franchise Brand Protection Myanmar presently does not have a specific statutory framework governing franchise arrangements. As a result, franchise agreements are generally regulated under the broader applicable legal framework, including the Contract Act 1872, the Trademark Law 2019, the Competition Law 2015, the Consumer Protection Law 2019, and the relevant implementing rules and regulations. The licensing of trademarks within a franchise arrangement is particularly governed by the Trademark Law 2019. Franchisors should ensure that the trademarks intended to be licensed to franchisees in Myanmar are registered under the Trademark Law 2019 and that the relevant trademark license is properly recorded with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademark License Recordal Under the Trademark Law 2019, the owner of a registered trademark may grant a license to another
August 27, 2026
It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted