On 6 April 2026, Vietnam issued Decree No. 134/2026/ND-CP, amending and supplementing Decree No. 17/2023/ND-CP, which guides implementation of the Intellectual Property Law on copyright and related rights.
Decree 134 introduces notable updates across: AI-assisted creation, use of protected text and data for AI systems, intermediary service platform (ISP) liability, enforcement measures, and copyright registration procedures.
This article summarises the key changes, highlights practical implementation risks, and suggests practical steps for businesses managing content assets in Vietnam.
Decree 134 clarifies that copyright protection may arise in works created with the assistance of AI systems, subject to a human control threshold. To qualify, the creation must satisfy the following conditions [1]:
Where a work is generated entirely by AI, or fails to satisfy any of the conditions above, no copyright or related rights will arise[2]. If the creator seeks copyright protection, they must be able to substantiate their creative contribution by submitting supporting evidence (e.g. input data, prompt history, documents recording the creative process, etc.) and must make a truthful declaration regarding the use of AI systems when requested by the competent authorities[3].
These provisions provide a clearer path to ownership for AI-assisted content, but they also place the burden of proof on the author or rights holder. Businesses and brand owners should retain clear records of the creative process to substantiate ownership and support any future copyright registration or enforcement action.
The registration dossier has also been updated, where applications involving AI-assisted works must include a written declaration by the direct creator or performer describing the use of AI[4].
Decree 134 permits the use of copyright-protected text and data for scientific research, experimentation, and AI training only under strict conditions[5]. The materials must be lawfully published, accessed from legitimate sources, and not obtained by circumventing technological protection measures.
Such use is limited to non-commercial purposes and must not conflict with the normal exploitation of the protected works or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of authors or rights holders. In addition, AI outputs must not substitute for the market of the protected content or give rise to unfair competition in relation to its exploitation and use.
The Decree further gives authors/ rights holders the right to reserve their rights against the use of protected text and data for research, experimentation, and AI training. Such reservation must be clearly made through metadata, technological protection measures, machine-readable rights management information, or public notices published by collective management organisations. This opt-out does not apply where all statutory conditions for permitted use are fully satisfied.[6]
Overall, protected text and data should not be treated as freely available for AI training in Vietnam. Businesses should carefully assess the lawful source of training materials and ensure the intended use falls within the Decree’s non-commercial exception.
Under Decree 17, mandatory destruction applied where the conditions for non-commercial distribution or use were not met. Decree 134 retains that approach for infringing goods, materials, raw materials, and means used primarily to produce or trade in infringing goods, but introduces a more nuanced rule for pirated goods.
In principle, pirated goods must be destroyed at the request of the copyright or related rights owner, without compensation in any form. However, where the infringing elements have been removed, the competent authority may instead order non-commercial distribution or use if the goods are essential for humanitarian, medical, disaster relief, epidemic control, or other public interest purposes, or if destruction would be contrary to social ethics or would seriously affect the public interest, public health, social welfare, or the environment[7].
A practical issue discussed by the customs authorities and the Copyright Office of Vietnam concerns hybrid AI goods, where the hardware is genuine, but the embedded software is pirated. In such cases, enforcement authorities may need to distinguish the infringing element from the product. Where the infringing content can be effectively removed, this may affect whether destruction of the entire shipment remains necessary. If it cannot be removed, more severe measures, including destruction or re-export, may still be considered depending on the circumstances. Enforcement practice in this area is still evolving.
gnificant because Decree 134 expressly recognises the right holder’s ability to request mandatory destruction of pirated goods, giving right holders a clearer basis to shape the remedy sought in enforcement actions.
Decree 134 broadens the concept of ISPs by expressly including intermediary digital platforms such as online social networks, e-commerce platforms, and other intermediary digital platforms[8]. This updates the earlier framework, which focused more narrowly on telecommunications, hosting, storage, search, and social networking services.
The Decree also imposes express obligations on ISP operators to block and remove infringing content, take down infringing services or applications, and comply with related obligations under cybersecurity, e-commerce, and other applicable laws[9]. Compliance with these obligations is relevant to the availability of the liability exemption under Article 198b of the IP Law.
This reflects a shift toward a more proactive compliance standard, requiring platforms to implement practical measures to detect, prevent, and remove infringing content and services, rather than relying solely on reactive takedown procedures.
Beyond the legal changes, Decree 134 requires businesses to take practical steps now to strengthen compliance, protect rights, and reduce enforcement risk. In light of these changes, we recommend the following practical checklist.
[1] Article 4 of Decree No. 134/2026/ND-CP (introducing Article 5a.1 of Decree 17)
[2] Article 4 of Decree No. 134/2026/ND-CP (introducing Article 5a.9 of Decree 17)
[3] Article 4 and 18 of Decree No. 134/2026/ND-CP (introducing Article 5a.7, 5a.8, and 39a.4(h) of Decree 17)
[4] Article 18 of Decree No. 134/2026/ND-CP (introducing Article 39a of Decree 17)
[5] Article 13 of Decree No. 134/2026/ND-CP (introducing Article 37a of Decree 17)
[6] Article 14 of Decree No. 134/2026/ND-CP (introducing Article 37b of Decree 17)
[7] Article 24 of Decree No. 134/2026/ND-CP (amending Article 84 of Decree 17)
[8] Article 31 of Decree No. 134/2026/ND-CP (amending Article 110.2đ of Decree 17)
[9] Article 32 of Decree No. 134/2026/ND-CP (introducing Article 112.3 of Decree 17)
