Copyright money is quantified more clearly
Decree 287/2026/ND-CP stipulates that copyright fees in the film industry are determined as a percentage of the production cost for each creative title. In which, feature film directors enjoy from
2.5 - 3% of production cost; many other positions such as image director or cinematographer, film editor, sound designer, visual effects, musician, art designer, makeup artist... are also regulated with separate ratio frames.
Talking to Lao Dong Newspaper, director Luk Van said: "I understand that the level of 2.5 - 3% is calculated on the total production cost of the film. For example, a film with a budget of 20 billion VND, 3% is equivalent to about 600 million VND. This is copyright money, not the director's salary.
If directors both receive commission and additional royalties, I think this level can be acceptable, especially for young directors or those who have just made about 3-4 films.
According to Luk Van, for directors who are also producers or contribute capital to invest, the benefit mechanism is usually different because in addition to royalties, they are also divided profits as investors.
From a legal perspective, lawyer Hoang Ha (Ho Chi Minh City Bar Association) said that many people are misunderstanding when saying that copyright fees of directors or creative titles are calculated based on box office revenue.
Decree 287 stipulates that copyright fees for creative titles are calculated in proportion to the production cost of the film, not box office revenue. The cost is appropriate to assess the initial creative effort," lawyer Hoang Ha said.
According to the lawyer, the important new point of Decree 287 is not the specific amount of money that each person receives, but the fact that for the first time many creative titles in cinema are clearly defined the copyright fee frame.
The Decree does not create new copyrights, but specifies the economic value of creative titles in films. Copyright fees are calculated as a percentage of the production cost, with a separate framework for directors, image or film directors, film editors, sound designers, visual effects, musicians, art and makeup designers.
Thanks to that, the contributions of each department are quantified, used as a basis for making estimates, signing contracts and payments, instead of being only considered technical work or depending on the general agreement of the film crew," the lawyer analyzed.
Regarding the opinion that actors are not entitled to copyright fees because the decree does not specify the percentage, lawyer Hoang Ha said that this is an incomplete understanding.
The Law on Intellectual Property still defines actors as performers and is protected by related rights. Producers are obliged to pay copyright fees and material benefits under the contract.
The difference is that Decree 287 does not set a fixed percentage for actors on the film price. Actors' income is mainly established according to performance contracts, based on roles, time, level of contribution and agreements with producers. Therefore, actors are not excluded from the protection mechanism; they are only regulated by the mechanism of rights and remuneration different from the group of authors with a specific copyright fee framework," the lawyer said.
Contracts determine long-term benefits
According to lawyer Hoang Ha, the greater meaning of Decree 287 is to promote the film industry to shift from a one-time fee-paying mindset to managing the rights to exploit works according to each platform, period and territory.
When films are brought from cinemas to television, online movie viewing platforms or exploited abroad, the contract needs to clearly define which rights have been transferred, which revenue is calculated and how creative entities benefit," lawyer Hoang Ha said.
The lawyer added that for works where the State is the representative of the owner or the representative of the copyright management, the copyright fee when exploiting on multiple platforms must be agreed in writing, based on the frequency, form, scope of exploitation, revenue and profit. In case of profitable exploitation, authors and creative titles may also enjoy incentive copyright fees according to the contribution level, not exceeding 10% of the profit total.
However, the lawyer noted that Decree 287 does not automatically establish a mechanism for sharing benefits after release for all films. This regulation mainly applies to works where the State is the representative of the owner or the representative of copyright management. Meanwhile, for private films, whether the creator continues to benefit from the process of exploiting the work still depends greatly on the content of the contract.
Therefore, according to lawyer Hoang Ha, the contract needs to clearly stipulate the scope of transfer of rights, the basis for determining revenue as well as the mechanism for dividing benefits between the parties.
The decree creates an important foundation but cannot replace the need for contract standardization and revenue transparency on digital platforms," the lawyer emphasized.
Agreeing with this view, director Luk Van said that in reality, the long-term rights of directors depend heavily on whether they only participate in creativity or are also investors and producers.
If the director is not an investor, then there is already a salary and there may be additional bonuses if the film is successful. And the copyright ultimately belongs to the producer or the unit that invests the most in the film.
The director still has to take great responsibility for the film, but what they enjoy for a long time is mainly the reputation that the work brings," the female director shared.
According to experts, standardizing contracts, making revenue transparent and building a clear benefit sharing mechanism will be the foundation for forming a more professional film copyright market, while creating motivation for creators to continue investing in quality works.
