Copyright is "worn down" from the box office to the studio
In the early days of 2026, director Tran Thanh spoke out to call on audiences not to secretly film the movie "Thỏ ơi!!" when a series of clips recording important details were spread on social networks.
The male director's call "please everyone love me" is not only personal, but reflects a reality that has lasted for many years in Vietnamese cinema. Previously, films such as "Mai", "Red Rain" or the series "Lat Mat" also fell into a similar situation.
In the field of cinema, copyright infringement acts are relatively easy to identify: secret filming, illegal distribution, directly affecting revenue and audience experience. However, when switching to other creative fields, the boundary between "infringement" and "coincidence" becomes more fragile.
The controversy surrounding the photo "Football Eye" by British photographer Sophia Spurgin - winning the First Prize in the Tourism category at the London Camera Exchange Photographer of the Year 2026 (UK) competition, is a typical example. This work is said to have many similarities with Khanh Phan's photos, from the composition, camera angle to the character arrangement. However, the Vietnamese author himself believes that this may just be a coincidence in creativity, because the idea is not entirely new and has appeared in many places.
In music, the dispute between musician Do Hieu and singer Noo Phuoc Thinh over performance rights after the exclusive rights expired once caused much controversy, reflecting the lack of clarity in the implementation of copyright. The confusion between performance rights, ownership and commercial exploitation has prolonged conflicts. From cinema to music, copyright has become a systematic issue, and even more complicated when AI deeply participates in creativity.
AI era blushes the boundary between creativity and invasion
On March 18, the International Federation of Recording Industry said that global music revenue last year reached 31.7 billion USD, up 6.4% and was the 11th consecutive year of growth, mainly thanks to streaming services.
IFPI's report also shows that streaming accounts for nearly 70% of revenue, with about 837 million paid subscribers globally. However, the organization warns of an increasing risk from AI-generated content. The Deezer platform alone records more than 6,000 AI songs appearing every day, showing the very rapid development of this technology.
AI not only supports but can also self-compose, arrange, and create complete recordings with a voice imitating an artist, like the remix "Papaoutai" that once caused a fever. However, the risk lies in the operation: AI learns from big data and recreates new content, making it difficult to identify copyright infringement.
Musician Nguyen Van Chung believes that the boundary between creativity and violations with AI is currently mainly perceptual: "Similar" can be seen, but it is very difficult to prove violations according to the law. Meanwhile, musician Le Thien Hieu said that AI is a tool for "large-scale cutting and pasting", synthesizing from available data, creating a copyright "gray area" with the boundary of right and wrong increasingly difficult to distinguish.
AI not only recreates music but also opens up many new forms of violations such as imitating voices, copying styles, creating "similar" to the original products, easily causing confusion and infringing both copyright and personal rights. According to musician Duc Thinh, what is worrying is not only copying works, but also the mass reproduction of personal imprints, making it increasingly difficult to protect creative values.
From there, three big questions are raised: Who is the author of the AI product? Who is responsible when violations occur? And who will benefit from copyright?
Humans play a central role in creative activities
In the context of copyright becoming increasingly complex under the impact of technology, especially artificial intelligence, the amended Law on Intellectual Property in 2025 (effective from April 1, 2026) is expected to create an important shift in protecting creative products.
At the time the National Assembly discussed the draft Law amending and supplementing a number of articles of the Law on Intellectual Property (IP) in November 2025, Minister of Science and Technology Nguyen Manh Hung emphasized: "AI is not an intellectual property rights holder. Products created automatically by AI, without human participation, are not protected by copyright as human works.
This regulation is considered an important "legal shield" to protect artists from the wave of AI imitating voices, copying styles or restructuring works.
Lawyer Pham Quoc Bao said that this amended Law not only has legal significance, but also changes the perception of the value of art in the digital economy. He analyzed: "The amended Law on Intellectual Property in 2025 marks an important turning point for the arts sector. First of all, the law affirms the central role of humans in creative activities. According to new regulations, AI is not a right holder and only works with significant creative contributions from humans are protected.
According to lawyers, this is an important legal support to protect artists from the risk of AI "dissolving" personal imprints. Not stopping there, the law also opens up a new approach when considering intellectual property as a type of asset that can be traded.
“Art assets are clearly recognized for the first time as assets that can be traded. The law paves the way for licensing use, transfer, and even capital contribution with intellectual property. This helps artists not only sell works once but also can exploit long-term copyright money flows” - Lawyer Pham Quoc Bao emphasized.
The law also strengthens the protection of works in the digital environment, supplements sanctions against acts of infringement on digital platforms, requires transparency of data sources and encourages identification and storage of works. According to lawyers, this is the foundation for the modern copyright market, where works are managed as real assets.
According to experts, legal completion is only the first step; synchronous solutions are needed such as integrating technology to detect violations, shorten handling, and build a transparent licensing mechanism.
