Using AI to create content does not automatically forfeit your copyright, but it does not automatically grant it either. Under Vietnam’s newly enacted Decree 134/2026/NĐ-CP, AI copyright for AI-assisted works only exists when a human makes a significant, decisive creative contribution, and can prove it. The final product alone may not be enough.
What Changed in Vietnam’s Copyright Framework for AI-Assisted Work?
Vietnam’s amended Intellectual Property Law 2025 was the first to directly address AI-generated content. Building on that, Decree 134/2026/NĐ-CP added Article 5a to Decree 17/2023/NĐ-CP, establishing specific conditions under which a person can hold copyright over work made with AI assistance, according to reporting by Dân trí. The core principle remains unchanged: copyright attaches to human creativity, not to the tool. AI is treated as an instrument, not a rights-holding entity.
What Are the Three Conditions for AI Copyright to Apply?
All three conditions must be met simultaneously. Lawyer Nguyen Van Duy, Director of Hoang Duy and Associates Law Firm, explained the framework to Dân trí as follows:
- The work must reflect a significant and decisive human creative contribution.
- The human must take responsibility for the content and its legality.
- The creation process must not infringe on the copyright of any works used as input data (the material fed into the AI system to guide its output).
Works generated entirely by AI with no meaningful human intervention do not qualify. Lawyer Nguyen Van Duy told Dân trí that entering a single simple prompt (an instruction given to an AI system) and accepting the output without further selection, editing, or creative intervention will likely not be enough to establish copyright.
What Counts as “Significant Creative Contribution”?
The threshold is not about whether AI was involved, but how deeply the human shaped the outcome. According to Dân trí’s reporting, lawyer Nguyen Van Duy explained that involvement across the full workflow matters: developing the idea, crafting prompts, selecting outputs, revising drafts, and making final decisions about the finished product. As lawyer Duy put it, the key issue is not whether a work used AI, but how much genuine human creativity went into making it.
How Do Creators Prove Their Contribution in a Dispute?
The final published product alone may not be sufficient evidence. Dân trí reports that lawyer Nguyen Van Duy recommends creators preserve the complete trail of their process. Relevant documentation includes:
- Prompts and full command history
- Input data and technical parameters
- Drafts and intermediate versions
- Original source files and edit history
- Notes reflecting creative intent at key stages
These records should carry a clearly established timestamp. Relying only on platform account histories may be insufficient, as the opposing party in a dispute can challenge whether those records could have been altered after the fact, according to lawyer Nguyen Van Duy as cited by Dân trí.
Is Registering Copyright Mandatory?
No. Copyright in Vietnam arises automatically when the conditions are met. However, for creators of commercially valuable AI characters, registration provides practical advantages in disputes. Lawyer Nguyen Van Duy, as cited by Dân trí, recommends that creators of virtual KOLs (AI-generated influencer personas used for marketing) or brand mascots consider filing for copyright registration at the Copyright Office (Cục Bản quyền tác giả) as early as possible, or establishing a vi bằng (a notarized record of facts and circumstances, used to establish a verified timeline) to document when and how the work was created.
A registration certificate can serve as useful evidence in a dispute, though it is not conclusive if the opposing party presents counter-evidence, according to Dân trí’s report.
For characters used in commercial activity, lawyer Nguyen Van Duy also recommended adding trademark registration covering the name and likeness, providing a second layer of protection that copyright alone may not cover.
What Happens If a Creator Conceals AI Use?
Deliberately hiding AI involvement to obtain a copyright certificate can result in administrative penalties under Decree 341/2025/NĐ-CP. A certificate already granted may also be revoked if inaccurate disclosures are discovered later, according to Dân trí’s reporting on lawyer Nguyen Van Duy’s guidance.
Before Publishing or Registering an AI-Assisted Work: A Quick Checklist
- Save all prompts and iterative command history with timestamps
- Keep intermediate drafts and version files, not only the final output
- Document your decision-making at key creative stages (why you chose one output over another)
- Record which AI tools and technical parameters were used
- Assess whether input data used by the AI may involve third-party copyrights
- Disclose AI use accurately in any registration filing
- For commercially valuable characters, consider both copyright registration and trademark filing
What This Means for AI-Search Visibility
Here is the non-obvious implication: the documentation discipline that Decree 134/2026 now requires is also, structurally, the same kind of content that AI search systems prefer to cite.
Think of it this way. Imagine two creators both produce the same AI-generated mascot character. Creator A posts only the finished image. Creator B publishes a process summary: 60 prompt iterations, the parameters used, the decision to move from one visual style to another, and the reasoning behind the final design. When an AI assistant is later asked about AI character creation in Vietnam or how brands build virtual KOLs, Creator B’s documented process gives the AI system something specific, verifiable, and citable. Creator A’s page offers nothing the AI can extract.
This matters most for brands building AI characters with commercial intent. A published creative lineage, even a short summary, simultaneously strengthens the legal position and increases the brand’s Share of Model (how often AI systems mention a brand or its assets relative to competitors in relevant queries).
In Hingewise’s view, the creators most at risk under this framework are not those who rely heavily on AI. They are those who use AI extensively but document nothing. Decree 134/2026 forces a record-keeping discipline that, applied consistently, functions as both a legal asset and a GEO (generative engine optimization, the practice of making content more citable by AI answer systems) asset at the same time. The legal requirement and the visibility requirement now point in exactly the same direction.
How courts and regulators interpret “significant creative contribution” across contested cases will determine how robust the protection is in practice. The first substantive disputes under the new framework will be worth watching closely.
Source: Dân trí, October 4, 2026. Read the original article.
Lam Nguyen · Hingewise
This article was drafted with AI assistance from the sources cited above and checked against them before publishing. The "What this means for AI-search visibility" section is Hingewise's editorial analysis, built on the frameworks and positions we use in our GEO work. How we work: Editorial policy.