A "50 years later" song sung by AI, a familiar bolero song changed to a new low-key male voice, or a song by a famous singer remixed by AI can make listeners feel that it is already a "different song". But legally, the story is not that simple.
Musician Hamlet Truong told Lao Dong that the psychology of fearing copyright fees may be one of the reasons why some service providers are interested in AI music. As copyright protection is increasingly focused on, AI easily creates a feeling that this is a safe zone.
However, Hamlet Truong emphasized: "The copyright for the music and lyrics still belongs to the composer and the owner of the work.
Who sings doesn't mean the author disappears
Lawyer Truong Van Tuan - Trang Sai Gon Law Office - said that it is necessary to distinguish between new products created by humans using AI and cases where AI exploits an existing song.
If AI sings a song that already exists, the melody and lyrics can still belong to the author or owner. In other words, replacing the voice of Dam Vinh Hung, Quoc Thien or any singer with an AI voice does not make the rights of the songwriter disappear.
The issue may involve multiple layers of rights. First of all, rights to the work, i.e., the melody and lyrics. If the process of creating an AI version uses available recordings or performances, the rights of the performer and record producer may also be raised.
Therefore, a coffee shop not issuing the original receipt does not automatically mean that there is no longer a copyright obligation.
The story is more complicated when AI changes the work. According to lawyer Truong Van Tuan, if you put existing songs into AI and then request a rearrangement, style change or adaptation, the new product may raise the issue of the right to make derivative works.
AI in this case only plays a tool role. What needs to be considered is how the protected melody, lyrics, recording or performance has been used.
The Copyright Office also warned that technology allows voice separation, AI remix, speed adjustment or content modification and then re-distribution on a large scale, making violation control more complicated.
Not all AI music is "stuck" with copyright from others
In the opposite direction, using AI to create music does not mean copyright infringement.
Lawyer Truong Van Tuan said that if the product is actually newly created, not illegally copying the melody, lyrics, recordings or performances that are being protected, and at the same time the user has the right to legal commercial exploitation, in principle, no payment will arise to the subject of another available work.
The case of "Free as the Wind" shows a noteworthy aspect. The song creator said that using Suno to create an AI voice but at the same time registering copyright through VCPMC. This shows that "AI music" is not synonymous with "ownerless music".
Regulations supplemented in Vietnam in 2026 are also beginning to clarify copyright when AI participates in the creative process, in which the protected element is still associated with human imprint and direct control.
In addition to the legal story, the shift to AI music also poses problems with the music market.
Musician Nguyen Van Chung believes that the popularity of AI music may be related to both taste and copyright waryness. A paradox is emerging: society is increasingly focusing on protecting artists' rights, while a part of users may turn to AI content because it feels easier to use.
Hamlet Truong calls this the risk of "squeezing the living space" of professionals. Small producers, musicians, arrangers and young singers may be under pressure early, because simple, low-cost music needs that once created jobs for them are also the easiest part of AI to participate in.
Therefore, AI music appearing more and more in cafes, restaurants or on buses not only raises the question of whether to pay copyright fees or not. As AI becomes cheaper, faster and easier to use, the space for human-made music can also be under increasing pressure.
