Vietnam: Redefining Copyright for AI

In brief

The Vietnamese Government has officially issued Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP (“Decree 134”), which partly amends and supplements Decree No. 17/2023/ND‑CP and provides detailed implementing guidance for the Law on Intellectual Property ("IP Law"). The Decree took effect on 9 April 2026.

Of particular relevance, Decree 134 sets out detailed rules addressing two AI‑related areas introduced at the statutory level under the amended IP Law: (i) Conditions for recognizing copyright and related rights in AI‑assisted works (new Article 5a); and (ii) The use of copyright‑protected texts and data for text‑and‑data mining (TDM) in connection with AI systems (new Section 3, Chapter III – Articles 37a, 37b and 37c).

These provisions are relevant to a broad range of stakeholders, including copyright holders, content creators, AI developers, model trainers, platform operators, and data‑driven enterprises.

Key takeaways

• Vietnam reinforces a human‑centric approach to AI authorship.
• AI‑assisted creation comes with a clear evidentiary burden.
• TDM is permitted, but tightly conditioned.
• Right holders retain meaningful control over AI training uses.
• Commercialisation is regulated, not ignored.
    

In depth

Copyright recognition for AI‑assisted works (Article 5a)

• Decree 134 introduces Article 5a, which provides Vietnam’s first detailed regulatory guidance on when copyright or related rights may arise in works created with the assistance of AI systems.
• At a high level, Article 5a confirms a human‑centric approach to authorship:
  • Copyright or related rights may arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution to the creative process.
  • The human must exercise meaningful control, bear responsibility for the content and its legality, and ensure that AI outputs reflect human intent rather than purely automated or random outcomes.
  • Works that are entirely generated by AI, or that do not meet the prescribed threshold of human involvement, do not give rise to copyright or related rights under Vietnamese law.
• The Article also places emphasis on record‑keeping and evidentiary obligations, requiring creators to retain prompts, inputs, intermediate drafts, and other materials demonstrating human contribution, and to truthfully disclose the use of AI when requested by competent authorities.
    

Text‑and‑data mining for AI systems (Articles 37a–37c)

• Decree 134 also adds a new Section 3 to Chapter III, comprising Articles 37a, 37b and 37c, which together form a detailed framework governing TDM activities involving copyright‑protected texts and data.
• Key elements include:

(a) Permitted Use and Conditions (Article 37a)

• TDM is permitted for scientific research, testing, and the training of AI systems, provided that such use is limited to non‑commercial purposes at the point of use of the relevant copyright-protected texts and data.
• Source materials must be lawfully published and lawfully accessed, and technological protection measures must not be circumvented.
• The use must not conflict with normal exploitation of the works, unreasonably prejudice legitimate right‑holder interests, or result in AI outputs that substitute the original market or create unfair competition.

(b) Rights Reservation (“Opt‑Out”) Mechanism (Article 37b)

• Authors and right holders are expressly permitted to reserve (opt out of) the use of their works for AI training, typically through machine‑readable means (metadata, DRM, rights management information) or public notices via authorized collective management organizations.
• This reservation mechanism does not apply where all statutory conditions for permitted TDM under Article 37a are fully satisfied.

(c) User Obligations and Commercialisation (Article 37c)

• Users must retain technical records and training datasets and cooperate with competent authorities in the event of verification, dispute resolution, or enforcement.
• Where AI systems trained on such data are subsequently commercially exploited, applicable royalty payment obligations may arise in accordance with Vietnamese law.
    

Policy context and observations

• From a policy standpoint, the AI‑related provisions introduced under Decree 134 are indicative of the legislative and regulatory intent to strike a balance between two parallel objectives reflected in the amended IP Law: preserving incentives and legal certainty for copyright holders, and accommodating the development and deployment of AI technologies within a defined and controlled framework.
• In implementing this direction, the Decree adopts a framework that remains protective of right‑holder interests, as reflected in the emphasis on human authorship, lawful access, non‑commercial TDM, rights‑reservation mechanisms, record‑keeping obligations, and potential downstream remuneration, while not foreclosing AI training and innovation entirely. At the same time, the approach stops short of introducing a broad commercial TDM exception at this stage.
• Against this background, and as an implementing instrument, the detailed TDM provisions under Decree 134 may be viewed as more narrowly and conservatively drawn at this stage than the broader policy orientation set out in the amended IP Law, particularly in relation to the scope of permissible uses and downstream commercialisation involving copyrighted works.
• A number of implementation-related matters, including the assessment of human involvement in AI-assisted works, evidentiary thresholds, royalty mechanisms, and enforcement practices, are expected to be further clarified through subsequent guidance and practical application, consistent with the authorities’ incremental regulatory approach.
    

Conclusion

Decree 134 marks an important step in Vietnam’s evolving approach to the intersection of copyright and AI. Rather than permitting unrestricted AI training, the Decree adopts a measured, rights protective framework that prioritizes human authorship, lawful access to content, and safeguards for copyright holders, while allowing AI development to proceed within defined boundaries.

For businesses operating across the AI value chain, the new rules underscore the need for careful structuring of AI‑assisted creation processes, robust record‑keeping, and a clear understanding of when and how copyrighted materials may be used. As key aspects of implementation, including remuneration mechanisms and enforcement practices, continue to develop, close monitoring and early compliance planning will be essential.

* * * * *

Manh Hung Tran, Managing Partner, Tuan Linh Nguyen, Senior Government Affairs Manager, Alex Do, IP Executive, and Alison Nguyen, Associate, have co-authored this legal update.

© 2026 BMVN International LLC. All rights reserved. BMVN International LLC is in strategic alliance with Baker & McKenzie (Vietnam) Ltd., a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International, a global law firm with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a “partner” means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an “office” means an office of any such law firm. This may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.