Decree 17/2023/NĐ-CP after the 2026 amendments: restructuring Vietnamese Copyright Law for the AI era

Abstract

The 2026 consolidated version of Decree 17/2023/ND-CP marks Vietnam’s transition toward copyright governance for AI and digital platforms. Decree 134/2026/ND-CP supplies the main substantive reforms, while Decree 116/2026/ND-CP primarily concerns administrative procedures. Key changes address AI-assisted authorship, protected text and data used for AI, digital registration, representative services, expert examination and intermediary liability.

Keywords: copyright; related rights; artificial intelligence; training data; registration; expert examination; online platforms.

1. Legislative context and reform architecture

Decree 17/2023/ND-CP was amended by Decree 116/2026/ND-CP, effective 8 April 2026, and Decree 134/2026/ND-CP, effective 9 April 2026. The amended scope expressly reaches AI, training data, sectoral databases, registration, representation, expert examination and intermediary services.

Decree 134 also contains an important transition rule: administrative dossiers filed before 9 April 2026 continue to be processed under the law applicable at filing. Filing date is therefore material in transitional advice.

2. AI and authorship: human creative control

Article 5a adopts a human-centered model. Rights arise only where a human contribution is substantial and decisive. Relevant conduct includes original inputs or parameters, prompting, evaluation and selection, editing or intervention, arrangement of content, artistic or professional decisions and determination of the final result.

A product generated entirely by AI, or lacking the required human contribution, does not generate copyright or related rights. The framework therefore distinguishes AI-assisted works from autonomous AI output and makes human creative control the central inquiry.

The claimant must be able to prove the creative process. Prompt histories, interaction data, drafts, intermediate versions and process descriptions may serve as evidence. Provenance consequently becomes part of copyright governance.

3. Protected text and data used for AI

Article 37a requires lawful publication, lawful access from a lawful source and non-circumvention of technological measures. Use must be for scientific research, experimentation or AI training and be non-commercial; it must not conflict with normal exploitation, unreasonably prejudice legitimate interests, or produce outputs that substitute for the protected subject matter’s normal market.

Article 37b recognizes a reservation or opt-out mechanism through machine-readable metadata, technological measures, rights-management information or publication through collective management organizations. Yet the reservation is inapplicable where Article 37a is fully satisfied. The relationship between the non-commercial exception and opt-out therefore deserves clarification.

Article 37c requires technical and training-data records and introduces a royalty obligation when the AI system is commercially exploited. The Decree does not fully specify royalty calculation, right-holder identification in large datasets or treatment of transformed data.

4. Registration and evidence

Applications may be filed through the online public-service portal, and electronic certificates have the same legal value as paper certificates. Article 39a systematizes dossier requirements, while suspension is available where related disputes, complaints or criminal proceedings are pending.

For AI-assisted subject matter, the dossier must include a declaration and description of AI use. This links substantive protectability with registration practice and creates early evidence of authorship, provenance and the creative process.

5. Applied art and computer programs

The 2026 amendments clarify categories of applied-art works and remove the phrase requiring that a work not be easily created by a person of average knowledge in the relevant field. This helps separate copyright originality from an industrial-design-like creativity test, although functional constraints remain relevant in individual cases.

Computer-program filings require more detailed code and interface materials. Where printed code is 100 pages or more, the rules permit the first 25, middle 25 and final 25 pages. This improves object identification but increases the importance of source-code confidentiality.

6. Representative services

Article 55 establishes copyright and related-rights representative service organizations and prescribes eligible organizational forms and personnel conditions. Foreign applicants without residence or establishment in Vietnam must use a qualified representative service organization for registration.

The reform professionalizes the copyright services market. It may improve accountability and quality, while its effects on competition, cost and access for individual creators and small businesses should be monitored.

7. Expert examination

The expert-examination regime covers subsistence of rights, infringing elements, identity, equivalence, similarity or copying, and valuation of rights or damage. A minimum 200-hour professional training course is introduced, covering law, skills, practice and professional ethics.

Expert cards are issued at provincial level, while expert organizations are certified centrally. Independence, confidentiality, refusal grounds, compensation liability and re-examination are more clearly regulated. The reference to likelihood of confusion should be applied cautiously so that trademark analysis is not imported mechanically into copyright.

8. Digital platforms and safe harbour

Intermediary service providers expressly include online social networks, e-commerce platforms and other intermediary digital platforms. Hosting providers must maintain tools for takedown or access-blocking requests and disclose a copyright contact point.

Requests from competent authorities are tied to a 24-hour response period. Right-holder notices operate through a 72-hour temporary takedown mechanism followed by counter-notice and possible restoration. This is a procedural notice-and-takedown model; counter-notice, evidentiary requirements and liability for false information are important safeguards against over-removal.

9. Open doctrinal and practical questions

The “substantial and decisive” contribution standard lacks a quantitative threshold. The interaction between Articles 37a and 37b requires clarification. Commercial royalty obligations need workable rules for dataset attribution and calculation. Provenance requirements may favor organizations with sophisticated record systems over individual creators.

Digital registration also raises confidentiality concerns, especially for source code and unpublished materials. Platform procedures must balance rapid enforcement with due process, and expert examination should develop copyright-specific comparison methodologies.

10. Conclusion

The 2026 reforms move Vietnamese copyright law toward governance of creative processes in an AI environment. The key shift is from looking only at the final work to asking a chain of provable questions: what did the human contribute, where did the data come from, was a reservation made, how did the platform respond, and how was expert evidence produced?

During the initial implementation period, administrative guidance, judicial practice and evidentiary standards will determine the stability of the framework. Right holders and technology businesses should therefore design evidence, data and rights-management systems from the outset.

Source and scope

This paper is based on the 2026 consolidated text of Decree 17/2023/ND-CP, incorporating amendments introduced by Decree 116/2026/ND-CP and Decree 134/2026/ND-CP. It is an academic analysis of the supplied text and is not case-specific legal advice./.

Pham Vu Khanh Toan 
Attorney at-law and Registered IP Attorney 
Managing Partner, PHAM & ASSOCIATES