Using AI to write articles, draw pictures, design logos or compose music — who is the author? And more importantly: is the output protected by copyright? Since 9 April 2026, Vietnam has had an official legal answer: Decree 134/2026/ND-CP (promulgated 6 April 2026) adds AI rules to the copyright and related-rights regime. Note the distinction: this is a decree on copyright — different from Law 134/2025/QH15, the Law on Artificial Intelligence (passed 10 December 2025, effective 1 March 2026).
The short answer: yes, it can be protected — but only when a human makes a genuine creative contribution. AI is never the author.
1. The hard principle: AI is not a rights subject
The Intellectual Property Law (consolidated document 67/VBHN-VPQH, 23/3/2026) is clear: the author is the person who directly creates the work (Article 12a.1); a work must be directly created by the author through their own intellectual labour (Article 14.3).
From this principle, item 5a, Article 5 of Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (added by Decree 134/2026/ND-CP) provides: a product entirely generated by an AI system, with no creative contribution from a human, does not give rise to copyright or related rights.
In other words: pressing a button so that AI produces a whole painting, song or paragraph on its own — then claiming to be its “author” — creates no copyright under Vietnamese law. AI is not a rights subject and cannot “receive” copyright on a human’s behalf.
2. Humans using AI as a tool: 3 conditions for protection
But the law does not exclude AI entirely. When a human uses AI as a tool in the creative process, copyright/related rights do arise if all three conditions in item 5a, Article 5 of Decree 17/2023 (as amended by Decree 134/2026/ND-CP, effective 9 April 2026) are met:
Condition 1 — The human contribution is significant and decisive. The law lists illustrations, including: providing original input data/parameters; designing prompts; evaluating, selecting, editing, intervening in, interpreting AI-generated results; arranging content and form of expression; deciding the artistic intent; deciding the final result.
Condition 2 — The human is responsible for the content and its lawfulness.
Condition 3 — No prejudice to the copyright or related rights of the subject matter used as input data.
All three conditions must be satisfied together. Missing one, no rights arise.
Two illustrative extremes
Extreme 1 — unlikely to be protected: typing one short generic prompt (“draw a beautiful landscape”), taking the output as-is. The human contribution stops at a rudimentary prompt, showing no significant creative intervention in the content, form or artistic intent of the result.
Extreme 2 — protectable: the designer builds the overall concept, prepares original input data, engineers multiple rounds of detailed prompts, then among dozens of AI outputs selects, substantially edits by hand, rearranges the composition, decides the style and approves the final version. Here the human plays the decisive role at every stage — AI is merely the executing tool.
Note: the law currently provides no quantitative guidance for the “significant and decisive” threshold (for example, no rule on “how many words a prompt must be”), and there is no case law yet. Assessment rests on the overall creative process in fact.
3. Consequences: who is the author, who owns the rights?
When the conditions are met: the creator is identified as the author of the work. Performers’ related rights arise only for individuals who directly perform through their own artistic acts — not for an “AI voice” or an AI-simulated avatar. Rights ownership is determined under Chapter III of the IP Law.
4. Duties when claiming protection or registering: prove and declare
Rights come with duties. When claiming protection or registering a product made with AI, the claimant must:
(a) Prove the creative process — keep and produce evidence such as: input data, prompt history, intermediate versions, and documents describing the creative process. In other words, the “significant and decisive” role must be shown with concrete evidence, not mere assertion.
(b) Truthfully declare the use of AI when requested by the competent authority.
(c) Label / apply technical marking to AI-generated content under AI law — Law 134/2025/QH15 (effective 1 March 2026) and its guiding Decree 142/2026/ND-CP.
Practical advice: from the very start of any AI-assisted project, save the full prompt history, intermediate versions and editing notes. Looking for evidence only when registration or a dispute arises is usually too late.
5. Training AI: lawful published data may be used — with conditions, and authors hold a “right of reservation”
A closely related question: may AI companies take others’ works to train models? Item 5, Article 7 of the IP Law (consolidated document 67) permits the use of lawfully published texts and data for research, testing and AI training — but under strict conditions in Article 37a of Decree 17/2023 (as amended by Decree 134/2026): the data source must be lawful; technological protection measures must not be circumvented; use must serve only research/testing/training and not commercial purposes; must not conflict with normal exploitation of the work; and outputs must not substitute the market for the original work.
In particular, Article 37b grants authors a “right of reservation”: authors may refuse to allow their works to be used for AI training. Once an author exercises this reservation, using that work as training data is not permitted.
6. Industrial property: AI-assisted subject matter is protected if it meets the standards
On the industrial property side, Decree 100/2026/ND-CP (31/3/2026, effective 01/4/2026) guiding the 2025 IP Law confirms: industrial property subject matter created with the use of AI is still protected if it fully meets the statutory protection standards (novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability for patents, industrial designs, etc.).
FAQ
Q: I had AI write 100% of an article and registered copyright in my name. Is that valid?
A: No — if you made no significant, decisive creative contribution beyond instructing the AI. A product entirely generated by AI gives rise to no copyright.
Q: Is there a concrete threshold for “significant contribution”, e.g. a minimum prompt length?
A: The law currently sets no quantitative threshold and there is no guiding case law. Assessment is based on the overall process: original input data, prompt engineering, selection/editing/intervention, artistic intent and the final decision.
Q: Are Decree 134/2026/ND-CP and Law 134/2025/QH15 the same document?
A: No. They are two different documents that happen to share the number 134: Decree 134/2026/ND-CP (6/4/2026, effective 9/4/2026) amends Decree 17/2023 on copyright and related rights; Law 134/2025/QH15 (10/12/2025, effective 1/3/2026) is the Law on Artificial Intelligence. The AI/copyright rules in this article are officially promulgated — not drafts.
Q: Can an author prohibit others from using their work to train AI?
A: Yes. Article 37b of Decree 17/2023 (as amended by Decree 134/2026) grants authors a “right of reservation” — the right to refuse the use of their works as AI training data.
Legal sources
- Intellectual Property Law — consolidated document 67/VBHN-VPQH (23/3/2026) — Article 6.5 (Government regulates the emergence of rights when AI is used); Article 7.5 (use of texts and data for AI training); Articles 12a.1, 14.3 (authors directly create) — effective 01/4/2026
- Decree 134/2026/ND-CP (06/4/2026) amending Decree 17/2023/ND-CP — item 5a, Article 5 (conditions for rights to arise when AI is used; duties to prove and declare); Article 37a (conditions for using texts and data); Article 37b (authors’ right of reservation) — effective 09/4/2026
- Law on Artificial Intelligence 134/2025/QH15 (10/12/2025) — AI governance framework; labelling of AI-generated content — effective 01/3/2026
- Decree 142/2026/ND-CP — guiding the Law on Artificial Intelligence (technical marking, visible labelling of AI content)
- Decree 100/2026/ND-CP (31/3/2026) — guiding the 2025 IP Law (AI-assisted industrial property subject matter) — effective 01/4/2026
- Full texts: thuvienphapluat.vn (accessed 14/10/2026)
Need to review your IP protection strategy? The FLAT Law Firm team advises on registration, exploitation and enforcement of IP rights — including emerging AI and copyright issues. Contact us at contact us.
The information in this article is for general reference only under the law in force at the time of writing (14 October 2026) and does not constitute legal advice for a specific case.
Transparency note: This article was produced by the AI content production system of FLAT Law Firm and is undergoing internal review (AI Legal Council QA and owner approval before publication). It has not been reviewed by a human lawyer.