Image Rights Disputes in Foreign-Invested Advertising in Vietnam sounds narrow, yet its consequences reach into contracts, tax, customs and the relationship with Vietnamese partners. An FDI beverage brand used a Vietnamese model’s image for an advertising campaign under a one-year contract. The contract expired but the marketing team left the image on e-commerce pages and billboards for seven more months; the model discovered it and demanded full removal plus compensation for the out-of-scope use. The focus here is on the application specific to the dispute over using a person’s image in an FDI company’s advertising, not on generic background.
What the law in force says about the dispute over using a person’s image in an FDI company’s advertising
Image rights are anchored in Article 32 of the Civil Code 91/2015/QH13: using an individual’s image requires that person’s consent, and the user may use it only within the agreed scope — use beyond the term or beyond the contracted media channels is use without consent. The Advertising Law 16/2012/QH13 prohibits advertising that uses images without permission; the administrative fines for the conduct now sit in Decree 87/2026/ND-CP — point a, clause 3, Article 50 sets a fine of VND 20 to 40 million for advertising that uses an individual’s image, words or writing without that individual’s consent (this is the individual-level fine under Article 6 of the Decree; an offending organisation pays double, VND 40 to 80 million) — separate from civil compensation. Decree 87/2026/ND-CP has been in force since 15 May 2026 and replaced Decree 38/2021/ND-CP; conduct occurring before 15 May 2026 is governed by the instrument in force at the time of the conduct under Article 94 of Decree 87/2026/ND-CP. On compensation, Articles 584 and 590 of the Civil Code let the injured person claim actual loss plus a sum for mental distress set by the court, capped at ten months of the base salary for the distress component where the parties cannot agree. Keep the layers distinct: image rights belong to the model as an individual, while copyright in the photograph belongs to the photographer or the commissioning party under the IP Law — the two layers must be cleared separately.
Application analysis for the dispute over using a person’s image in an FDI company’s advertising
In practice, the money in an expired-image case is rarely set by the model’s opening demand: the parties usually return to the usage fee in the original contract itself, multiplied by the excess time and scope, plus an amount for slow removal. The fastest-closing matters are those where the company found and removed the image within days with an apology signed at management level; the ones that reach the press and regulators are those where the company stayed silent until a formal complaint landed.
Handling the dispute over using a person’s image in an FDI company’s advertising step by step, in priority order
- Remove or hide every placement using the expired image within 24–48 hours, capturing time-stamped proof of removal to cap the scope of loss.
- Audit the original contract on four axes — term, media channels, territory, archive and re-use rights — against actual use to calculate the true out-of-scope portion.
- Open negotiation with a letter accepting responsibility for the excess use (without conceding baseless heads of claim) and a compensation proposal built from the original contract’s own fee.
- Build prevention: an image-asset register with expiry dates, automatic alerts 60 days ahead, and a new model clause separating image rights from photo copyright.
Risks and practical traps in the dispute over using a person’s image in an FDI company’s advertising
The biggest risk is advertising assets scattered where the company does not directly control them: dealers, distributors, franchisees and old social-media accounts may all still be running the expired image without head office knowing. A second risk is an original contract silent on archive and re-use periods, leaving even in-term uses open to argument. A third is confusing buying the photograph outright from the photographer with holding rights over the person in it — buying the photo never automatically grants the model’s image rights.
For the dispute over using a person’s image in an FDI company’s advertising, the practical advice is not to let the file drift: lock down the legal basis, the evidence and the deadlines within the first week. Every matter turns on its own facts, so the final position should be checked against the real file before acting. This is reference information, not legal advice for a specific case.
Frequently asked questions
Is it a violation to keep using a model’s image after the contract ends?
Yes. Article 32 of the Civil Code permits image use only within the consented scope; continuing after the contractual term is use without the individual’s consent, even if the earlier period was fully paid. The excess use can also draw administrative fines under Decree 87/2026/ND-CP (point a, clause 3, Article 50: VND 20 to 40 million for individuals, double for organisations) where the image sits in advertising. The only genuinely arguable points are the scope and value of the excess, not whether a violation occurred. For the dispute over using a person’s image in an FDI company’s advertising specifically, keep the whole exchange in writing from day one, because once a dispute escalates that correspondence chain is often the decisive evidence.
How is compensation calculated for out-of-scope use?
Practice calculates in three layers: an equivalent image-usage fee for the excess time and scope, usually anchored on the original contract’s own rate; the model’s proven actual loss, such as a lost exclusive deal with a competing brand; and mental-distress compensation under Article 590 of the Civil Code set by the court, capped at ten months of base salary absent agreement. Demands framed as a multiple-of-fee penalty have no statutory basis and are usually pulled back into this framework in court. In practice, the handling authority and the counterparty both look at the paper file of the dispute over using a person’s image in an FDI company’s advertising itself before hearing oral explanations, so the answer above should be checked against the evidence of the actual case.
What must an image-use agreement record?
At minimum seven items: the identity of the person consenting and the specific images or footage covered; the purpose of use; a closed list of media channels; territory; a term with clear start and end dates; archive and internal-report re-use rights after expiry (if they are wanted); and a removal-and-compensation mechanism for out-of-scope use. Practical experience adds one more: the company’s duty to notify dealers and media partners of the expiry date, because most overruns are born in asset distribution, not at head office. One further note for the dispute over using a person’s image in an FDI company’s advertising: deadlines and jurisdiction are counted under the texts in force on the filing date, not by the practice of earlier cases.
Do crowd photos need everyone’s permission?
Not always: Article 32 of the Civil Code excepts images used for national or public interests, or images recording public activities without harming an individual’s honour or dignity. But when a crowd photo is used in commercial advertising and one person appears prominently as the face of the message, that exception is no longer safe — the company should get that person’s consent or blur and reframe. The line is whether an individual is being turned into a selling tool. For the dispute over using a person’s image in an FDI company’s advertising specifically, keep the whole exchange in writing from day one, because once a dispute escalates that correspondence chain is often the decisive evidence.
