New Rules on Copyright for AI-Generated Works under Decree 134/2026/ND-CP: A Policy-Critical Perspective

The promulgation of Decree 134/2026/ND-CP marks a significant milestone in Vietnam’s effort to respond to the legal challenges posed by artificial intelligence in the creative domain. At a time when AI systems are capable of generating texts, images, music, and even complex multimedia works with minimal human input, the traditional foundations of copyright law—centered on human authorship and originality—are being fundamentally tested.

Rather than radically redefining copyright principles, the Decree adopts a cautious and conservative approach: it reaffirms the centrality of human creativity while attempting to accommodate technological realities. This article offers a policy-critical analysis of the new framework, examining its theoretical underpinnings, practical implications, and unresolved tensions in both legal doctrine and enforcement.

Reaffirming Human Authorship: A Necessary Orthodoxy?

Main table of contents

At the core of Decree 134/2026 lies a clear doctrinal position: copyright protection is reserved for works created through human intellectual effort. AI, regardless of its sophistication, is not recognized as a legal subject capable of authorship.

From a classical legal perspective, this position is coherent. Copyright law has historically been built upon the idea that creative works are an extension of human personality and intellectual labor. Recognizing AI as an author would challenge not only legal doctrine but also the philosophical foundations of intellectual property.

However, this orthodoxy raises important questions. In practice, the boundary between human and machine creativity is becoming increasingly blurred. When a human provides prompts, selects outputs, and refines results, is the resulting work truly human-created, or merely curated from algorithmic generation?

The Decree avoids this question by shifting the focus from authorship as a status to human contribution as a threshold. Yet, the absence of precise criteria leaves room for interpretative uncertainty.

The AI-Assisted vs. AI-Generated Dichotomy: Clarity or Ambiguity?

One of the most notable contributions of Decree 134/2026 is the implicit distinction between AI-assisted works and fully AI-generated works.

AI-assisted works—where human users actively shape the creative outcome—are generally eligible for copyright protection. In contrast, works generated autonomously by AI systems without meaningful human input are excluded from protection.

While this distinction appears intuitive, its application in practice is far from straightforward. The Decree does not provide a clear methodology for assessing the degree of human involvement required to qualify for protection.

This creates a potential enforcement dilemma. In disputes over copyright ownership, courts and authorities will be required to evaluate not only the final work but also the creative process behind it. This shifts the evidentiary burden onto creators and businesses, who must demonstrate that their role exceeds mere technical operation.

From a policy perspective, the dichotomy offers conceptual clarity but risks practical ambiguity, particularly in industries where AI tools are deeply integrated into creative workflows.

Originality in the Age of Algorithms

Another critical issue addressed—albeit indirectly—by the Decree is the concept of originality. Traditional copyright standards require that a work reflects the author’s independent creative choices.

In the context of AI, however, originality becomes more complex. AI systems are trained on vast datasets, often comprising pre-existing works. As a result, the outputs generated may resemble or be derived from existing content, raising concerns about derivative creation and potential infringement.

Decree 134/2026 does not fundamentally alter the standard of originality but implicitly tightens its application. The requirement of human intellectual contribution acts as a filter, ensuring that only works reflecting genuine creative input are protected.

Yet, this approach does not fully resolve the tension between algorithmic generation and human creativity. It remains unclear how originality should be assessed when the creative process is mediated by opaque AI systems whose internal logic is not fully transparent.

Allocation of Rights: Ownership Without Authorship?

The Decree maintains the traditional framework for the allocation of copyright, whereby rights belong to the individual or entity exercising creative control. In corporate contexts, this typically translates into employer ownership, subject to contractual arrangements.

However, the introduction of AI complicates this framework. In many cases, the creation of a work involves multiple layers of contribution, including:

Developers who design the AI system
Users who provide inputs and select outputs
Organizations that deploy and commercialize the technology

The Decree does not explicitly address how rights should be allocated among these actors. Instead, it implicitly relies on existing principles and contractual mechanisms.

This reliance on private ordering may be pragmatic, but it also shifts the burden of clarity onto businesses. Without carefully drafted agreements, disputes over ownership and exploitation rights are likely to increase.

Liability and Infringement Risks in AI-Generated Content

One of the most pressing practical concerns relates to copyright infringement arising from AI-generated outputs.

AI systems, particularly those based on machine learning, are trained on large datasets that may include copyrighted material. If the output reproduces or closely resembles protected works, liability may arise.

Decree 134/2026 reinforces the principle that responsibility lies with the user or operator of the AI system, rather than the system itself. This reflects a broader trend in technology regulation, where accountability is attributed to human actors.

From a compliance perspective, this creates significant challenges. Businesses must not only ensure that their use of AI is lawful but also implement mechanisms to detect and mitigate potential infringements.

The Decree, however, stops short of providing detailed guidance on how such compliance should be achieved, leaving room for regulatory development and judicial interpretation.

Policy Tensions: Innovation vs. Protection

At a broader level, Decree 134/2026 reflects an inherent policy tension between encouraging innovation and protecting intellectual property rights.

On one hand, a strict requirement of human authorship may limit the protection available for AI-generated content, potentially discouraging investment in AI-driven creativity. On the other hand, extending protection too broadly could undermine the balance between creators and the public domain.

Vietnam’s approach appears to favor caution, prioritizing legal certainty and alignment with traditional principles over experimental reform. This is understandable in a context where the legal system must ensure stability and predictability.

However, as AI technology continues to evolve, this cautious approach may need to be revisited. The challenge for policymakers will be to develop a framework that both supports technological advancement and maintains the integrity of copyright law.

Practical Implications for Businesses and Creators

For businesses operating in creative and technology sectors, the implications of Decree 134/2026 are both immediate and far-reaching.

First, companies must reassess their use of AI tools, ensuring that human involvement in the creative process is sufficiently substantive to support copyright protection.

Second, documentation becomes a critical element of compliance. Businesses should be able to demonstrate how human input shapes the final output, particularly in the event of disputes.

Third, contractual frameworks must be strengthened to clearly allocate rights and responsibilities among all parties involved in the creation process.

Finally, risk management systems should be implemented to address potential infringement issues, including the review of AI-generated content and the monitoring of data sources.

Policy Reflections on AI and Copyright in Vietnam

Decree 134/2026 represents a cautious yet necessary step in adapting Vietnam’s copyright regime to the realities of artificial intelligence. By reaffirming the principle of human authorship while acknowledging the role of AI as a creative tool, the regulation seeks to strike a balance between tradition and innovation.

However, this balance is not without its challenges. The distinction between AI-assisted and AI-generated works, while conceptually useful, introduces practical ambiguities that will require further clarification through regulatory guidance and judicial practice.

For businesses and creators, the message is clear: AI can enhance creativity, but it cannot replace the legal requirement of human contribution. Navigating this evolving landscape will require not only legal compliance but also strategic foresight and adaptability.

La Défense – Strategic Legal Partner for Intellectual Property in the AI Era

At La Défense, we advise clients on complex intellectual property issues arising from the intersection of law and emerging technologies. Our expertise covers copyright protection, AI-related legal risks, contractual structuring, and dispute resolution.

We work closely with businesses to develop practical and legally robust frameworks for the use of AI in creative processes, ensuring that their intellectual assets are protected and commercially viable. Our approach combines academic depth with practical experience, enabling us to provide solutions that are both innovative and compliant.

As the legal landscape continues to evolve, La Défense is committed to supporting clients in navigating the challenges and opportunities presented by artificial intelligence in the creative economy.

Disclaimer

The information provided in this article is for general informational and reference purposes only. It reflects the legal framework as of 2026 and does not constitute official legal advice, professional legal opinion, or a substitute for individualized legal counsel. Laws and regulations in Vietnam are subject to frequent changes, and the application of these rules may vary depending on the specific circumstances of each investment project.

We strongly recommend that you consult our experienced FDI lawyers or qualified legal advisors for a detailed assessment, risk analysis, and tailored solutions that best suit your business objectives and specific situation.