Marketing uses AI to create advertising images. Engineers use AI to write source code. An agency designs a logo with AI. Who owns the result, and is it protected at all? Since 2026, Vietnam has had a specific legal framework for this question. This article summarises the principles, the conditions for protection, the burden of proof and the dispute scenarios to plan for.
- Businesses using AI in marketing, design and software development
- Creative agencies, design studios and technology companies
- In-house legal and HR staff responsible for employment and outsourcing contracts
Level: overview to in-depth. Based on: the Law on Intellectual Property as amended in 2025; Decree No. 100/2026/ND-CP; Decree No. 134/2026/ND-CP. Includes: the new legal framework; a checklist for keeping evidence.
Key points- AI is not a rights holder. AI is a technical tool. Rights attach to human intellectual effort.
- Copyright is recognised only where there is decisive human involvement. Output created entirely by AI on its own does not give rise to rights.
- For inventions, industrial designs and layout designs, the person who makes a significant contribution is treated as the author.
- Keep a record of the creative process (drafts, edit history, prompt logs) so you can prove it when you register or in a dispute.
- A separate risk: the training data of the AI tool may infringe third-party copyright.
1. The current legal framework
This is no longer a theoretical question. Vietnam now has legal instruments that deal with it directly:
| Instrument | Timing | AI-related content |
|---|---|---|
| Law amending and supplementing a number of articles of the Law on Intellectual Property | Passed 10 December 2025 (10th session, 15th National Assembly) | Tasks the Government with regulating how intellectual property rights arise and are established where the subject matter is created using an AI system |
| Decree No. 100/2026/ND-CP (amending Decree No. 65/2023/ND-CP) | Issued 31 March 2026, effective 1 April 2026 | Industrial property rights (inventions, industrial designs, layout designs, trademarks, trade secrets) in subject matter created using AI |
| Decree No. 134/2026/ND-CP (amending Decree No. 17/2023/ND-CP) | Issued 9 April 2026, effective the same day | Copyright and related rights in works, performances, sound recordings and video recordings created using AI |
2. Core principle: AI is not a rights holder
AI is a technical tool, not a creator
Both Decrees take the same position: AI is not a holder of intellectual property rights, whether copyright or industrial property rights. This is consistent with the foundation of intellectual property law: rights attach to human intellectual effort.
3. Conditions for protecting AI-assisted works and inventions
Copyright (Decree No. 134/2026/ND-CP)
- Significant intellectual contribution. More than simply pressing a button or typing a short instruction (prompt).
- Control over the creative result. The person adjusts, directs and edits during the process of creating the final product.
- Responsibility for the content. The human is the party with ultimate legal responsibility. You cannot “blame” the AI if the output infringes.
Output created entirely by AI
Output created entirely by an AI system on its own, without significant human intervention, adjustment or direction, does not give rise to copyright or related rights.
Industrial property rights (Decree No. 100/2026/ND-CP)
A significant human contribution is required
Rights are established only if a human makes a significant contribution while using AI as a supporting tool.
The normal conditions for protection apply
They are still protected if they meet all the normal conditions of intellectual property law.
4. Burden of proof: what businesses need to prepare now
Under Decree No. 134/2026/ND-CP, when a rights holder asks for its rights to be protected, or files to register copyright or related rights in a work created using AI, it needs to prepare:
- Documents describing the creative process: edit history, draft versions, logs of instructions (prompts) and the later adjustment steps.
- Other lawful documents showing the human intellectual contribution and human control throughout the process.
Keep systematic records from the start
For every creative output made with AI (designs, marketing content, source code, technical documents and so on) that the business plans to register or that may be disputed, keep a record of the whole creative process, not just the final product. Build this into your internal intellectual property management policy when you roll out AI.
5. A second, less visible risk: AI input data
Using AI to create must not prejudice the copyright or related rights in the works used as input data. Even if the business can prove a significant contribution and so owns the output, it may still face a separate risk if the AI tool was trained on data that infringes third-party copyright.
Take particular care when choosing AI tools and platforms for commercial use. Prefer platforms that give clear commitments on the origin and lawfulness of their training data.
6. Dispute scenarios businesses should anticipate
Business and employee
An employee uses a personal AI tool to create work output. Who owns the rights if the employment contract has no clause on AI?
- Add AI-use clauses to employment contracts and internal policies
Suppliers and contractors using AI
Deliverables are created with AI. Ownership, and the lawfulness of the data and tools used, are unclear.
- State ownership of the output clearly in the outsourcing contract
- Require the supplier to warrant the lawfulness of the AI data and tools
Human contribution cannot be proved
The output is not protected. Competitors can copy it freely and the business has no legal basis to stop them.
- Keep systematic records of the creative process
7. Why review now, not after a dispute
The legal framework on AI and intellectual property has only been in force since 2026, and it is likely to be developed further. Given how fast AI is being adopted, businesses should review their internal processes early. This protects their rights in the output they create and reduces the risk from input data.
Review software copyright and AI technology with FC Legal lawyers
We assess how you use AI today and build internal policies and contract clauses that fit the new legal framework.
- Assessment of how AI is used in your business
- Internal policy on AI use and on keeping evidence of the creative process
- AI clauses in employment and outsourcing contracts
Please do not send confidential documents or personal data through the form.
Sources: National Assembly, Law amending and supplementing a number of articles of the Law on Intellectual Property, passed 10 December 2025; Government, Decree No. 100/2026/ND-CP amending Decree No. 65/2023/ND-CP; Government, Decree No. 134/2026/ND-CP amending Decree No. 17/2023/ND-CP.
This article is for reference. It is compiled from the amended Law on Intellectual Property, Decree No. 100/2026/ND-CP and Decree No. 134/2026/ND-CP. This is a new area of law and further detailed guidance may follow. It does not replace legal advice on a specific case.
Prepared by the FC Legal legal team and reviewed by FC Legal’s managing lawyer. Updated 30 September 2026.
