Author: Editor VCD

In the era of booming marketing, using KOL images to advertise products is becoming increasingly common. However, many individuals and businesses, wanting to capitalize on their popularity, arbitrarily use KOL images without their consent. So, Can I be sued for using a KOL’s image for advertising without a prior collaboration? Let’s find out in this article.

What is a KOL? Why use KOL images for advertising?

KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders) are individuals with significant influence on the community in a specific field such as entertainment, beauty, fashion, technology, finance, or business. They can be celebrities, experts, bloggers, TikTokers, or anyone with a considerable following and the ability to influence public consumer behavior.

Unlike traditional advertising, KOLs build trust based on personal image, real experiences, and connection with their followers. This “trust” factor is what makes KOLs one of the most effective marketing tools today.

Using KOLs in advertising offers several clear benefits:

• Increased product credibility: Consumers tend to trust what KOLs share more than direct advertising from brands. When a KOL appears with a product, customers easily assume that the product has been verified or is worth trying.

• Rapid viral effect: Just one post, video, or image from a KOL can reach tens of thousands to millions of people in a short time. This is a significant advantage over many traditional advertising channels.

• Increased conversion rates and sales: KOLs not only help products gain awareness but also drive purchasing behavior. This effect is especially evident in fields such as cosmetics, fashion, food, and technology.

• Rapid brand positioning: Choosing the right KOL (Key Opinion Leader) that matches the target audience helps businesses build a clear and consistent brand image.

Because of these benefits of “hitting consumer psychology,” many individuals and businesses have leveraged KOLs as a “marketing lever.” However, instead of formal collaborations, many entities arbitrarily use images from the internet and social media to advertise products without permission.

This is also a cause of many legal disputes and brand risks in recent times.

Is using KOLs’ images for advertising when collaborating illegal?

According to Vietnamese law, personal images are considered part of personal rights and are protected by law. This means that every individual, including KOLs, celebrities, and ordinary people, has the right to control how, where, and for what purpose their image is used.

In today’s marketing landscape, the use of KOL images is often associated with advertising, sales, or brand building. These are all considered commercial purposes. Therefore, if a business or individual uses a KOL’s image without their consent, that act directly infringes on the individual’s rights and may be subject to legal penalties.

According to Article 32 of the 2015 Civil Code (Rights of individuals regarding their images), it is clearly stated: “The use of an individual’s image must be with their consent. The use of another person’s image for commercial purposes requires compensation to the person whose image is used, unless otherwise agreed.”

From the above regulations, the following important principles can be understood:

• Consent of the image subject is required: Whether you take the image from Google, Facebook, TikTok, or any other platform, this does not mean you have the right to use it for advertising purposes.

• Commercial purposes require clear agreement: When using images for sales, advertising, product PR, etc., you are required to obtain permission and usually have to pay compensation (unless otherwise agreed upon by both parties).

• No distinction between famous and non-famous: This right applies to everyone, not just KOLs. However, with KOLs, the level of influence is greater, so the legal risks and compensation amounts are usually higher.

Therefore, using KOL images for commercial advertising without permission is an infringement of personal image rights and this act is a violation of the law.

Can I be sued for using a KOL’s image for advertising without a prior collaboration?

In reality, there have been many cases where KOLs, celebrities, or even ordinary people have spoken out when they discovered their images were being used illegally in advertising. In such cases, they have the right to sue to protect their legal rights and interests according to the law.

The unauthorized use of KOLs’ images is not just an “administrative violation,” but can also lead to civil liability if it causes actual damage to their reputation, income, or collaboration opportunities.

When discovering their images are being used illegally, KOLs can take the following steps:

• Request the removal of the infringing content: This is the basic and usually first step to immediately stop the infringing behavior.

• Request for a public apology and correction: If the use of the image affects the brand’s reputation or misleads the public into believing that the KOL is collaborating with the brand, they have the right to request a correction.

• Request for compensation for damages: In cases where the infringement causes economic or emotional damage, the KOL can request compensation from the infringing party as stipulated.

According to Article 584 of the 2015 Civil Code (Grounds for the 발생 of liability for compensation for damages), it states: “Anyone who infringes upon the legal rights and interests of others and causes damage must compensate for it.”

Using a KOL’s image without permission is not only a violation of the law but also carries a high risk of lawsuits and compensation claims. Therefore, instead of “circumventing the law” or illegally exploiting images, businesses should choose a safer approach such as formal, transparent, and legally binding collaborations to avoid unnecessary risks.

The above is the article “Can I be sued for using a KOL’s image for advertising without a prior collaboration?”. Hopefully, through the detailed analysis and specific legal basis, you have clearly understood the boundary between “utilizing images for marketing” and “violating personal rights”.

Sincerely,

FAQ

In the content creation process, especially in fields like media, publishing, or marketing, it’s common for a work to be edited and revised by multiple people. However, disputes often arise when editors claim authorship of the revised content. So, from a legal perspective, can a content editor be considered the author? This VCD article will help you.

The concept of a content editor in the field of copyright

Current intellectual property law does not specifically define “content editor.” However, in practice, it can be understood as an individual participating in the process of perfecting a work through modifying, supplementing, or rearranging existing content.

Editing activities can occur at various levels. In some cases, it’s simply correcting spelling errors, grammar, or text formatting. There are also cases where the editor is more deeply involved, such as re-editing the content, rewriting certain parts, or adding ideas.

Distinguishing between these levels of editing is crucial. Legally, not every involvement in the process of completing a work is considered a creative activity that gives rise to copyright.

Legal regulations on the conditions for recognizing ruthorship of a work

According to Article 13 of the 2005 Intellectual Property Law (amended and supplemented), an author is a person who directly creates all or part of a work. This regulation shows that the core element for being recognized as an author is creative activity.

“Direct creation” is understood as an individual creating content themselves using their own thinking and creative ability. This means that the law does not recognize authorship for those who only participate in supporting or performing technical tasks.

Furthermore, the regulation regarding “part of the work” is also noteworthy. The law recognizes that a person can be an author or co-author if they create a portion of the content that is independent and bears their personal mark. However, this contribution must truly be the result of creative activity, not just a formal edit or clarification of wording.

Therefore, it can be simply understood that: simply participating in the creation of a work does not automatically make one an author. Only those who create creative content are legally recognized as authors.

Can someone who edits content be considered an author?

Based on the legal criteria mentioned above, it can be affirmed that someone who edits content is not automatically considered an author. Whether or not they are recognized depends on the nature of the editing activity.

If the editor only performs tasks such as correcting spelling errors, grammar, formatting, or rearranging the layout, these are considered technical activities. These activities do not create new content, and therefore are not considered “creative” under Article 13 of the Intellectual Property Law. Consequently, the person performing these tasks is not recognized as the author.

Even if editing makes the content more coherent and understandable, if it does not create new content or a creative way of expression, it does not qualify for copyright.

Conversely, if the editor makes significant changes to the content, such as rewriting a paragraph, adding ideas, changing the wording, or developing new content, then this contribution may be considered creative. In that case, if the independent contribution and personal imprint can be identified, the editor may be considered a co-author.

Furthermore, according to Article 14 of the Intellectual Property Law, in cases where the editing involves adaptation, transformation, or development of the original work, the person performing the editing may become the author of the derivative work. However, it is mandatory to have the permission of the owner of the original work and not infringe upon the rights of the original author.

Thus, the boundary between “editing” and “creating” is the decisive factor. Not all edits give rise to copyright; only edits that are truly creative are recognized by law.

Some notes on determining copyright for edited content

In practice, the distinction between technical editing and creative editing is not always clear. This can easily lead to disputes, especially in a team environment or when outsourcing content creation.

Therefore, the parties should clearly define each person’s role from the outset. In employment contracts or service agreements, it is necessary to clearly state who is the author and who is the editor or proofreader. This helps avoid misunderstandings and disputes later on.

For revisions that involve adapting existing works, the provisions of Article 14 of the Intellectual Property Law must be followed, especially the requirement to obtain the consent of the original work’s owner. Otherwise, even if creative, the use may still be considered copyright infringement.

Furthermore, preserving manuscripts, documents, and evidence related to the creative process is also crucial. This will serve as the basis for proving authorship in case of disputes.

The above is the article “Can a content editor be considered an author?” that VCD has sent to you. We hope this article is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

FAQ

Copyright registration is a crucial step for individuals and businesses to protect their creative works from copying and infringement. However, in reality, many people still make basic mistakes during the registration process, leading to rejected applications, wasted time, or even improper protection. In this article, VCD will point out 7 common mistakes when registering copyright and how to correct them.

7 common mistakes when registering copyright

Misunderstanding the nature of copyright

Many people do not understand the true nature of copyright, leading to misconceptions such as:

• Copyright protection is not necessary, so there’s no need to go through the procedure.

• Copyright registration is mandatory to have rights.

According to Article 6 of the Vietnamese Intellectual Property Law: “Copyright arises from the moment the work is created and expressed in a certain tangible form, regardless of registration.”

This means that copyright arises automatically when a work is created and expressed in tangible form, regardless of registration. However, copyright registration plays a crucial role in providing legal evidence in disputes, establishing clear ownership rights, and limiting the risk of misappropriation.

For example: A musician composes a song but doesn’t register it. Later, another party copies it and registers it first. In case of a dispute, the first registrant has the advantage in proving their rights.

How to avoid this: Although the law recognizes copyright as soon as the work is created, you should still register early to have clear legal evidence, helping to protect your rights in case of disputes.

Preparing inadequate and legally flawed documentation

This is the most common mistake that leads to copyright registration applications being returned multiple times, requiring numerous revisions/additions. This significantly prolongs the time it takes to issue a copyright certificate.

Some common application errors:

• Incorrect or incomplete application form

• Unclear copies of artwork

• Missing documents proving ownership

• Incorrect signature and seal

How to avoid: Prepare your application according to a standard checklist and check carefully before submission to avoid unnecessary errors.

• For individuals: Application form, 2 copies of artwork, Citizen Identification Card/National Identity Card

• For businesses: Business license, assignment decision or creative contract, ownership commitment letter.

Incorrectly identifying the type of work when registering

Incorrectly identifying the type of work can lead to your application being rejected or granted protection with an inaccurate scope that doesn’t match your intended purpose.

According to Article 14 of the Intellectual Property Law, the types of works eligible for protection include:

• Literary, artistic, and scientific works

• Musical works

• Applied art works

• Cinematographic works

• Computer programs

• And many other types

Examples of commonly confused types:

• Websites: Not just “articles,” but can also include interfaces

• Videos: Can be considered “cinematic works” or “sound and video recordings”

How to avoid this: Clearly define the purpose of using the work and refer to the legal classification list. If necessary, seek professional advice for the most accurate assessment.

Failure to clarify ownership when multiple parties are involved

In modern work environments, especially in creative, marketing, and design companies, a work is often not created by a single individual but involves multiple parties. However, a common mistake is failing to clearly define who owns the copyright from the outset.

Some common situations include:

• Hiring freelance designers without a contract: The two parties only communicate via text messages or verbal agreements, without a clear legal document.

• Employing creative staff without a copyright transfer clause: The company assigns the work but doesn’t specify whether the copyright belongs to the company or the individual creator.

• Working in teams without clearly dividing rights: Multiple people participate in the creation process without an agreement on ownership ratios or a designated representative to register the work.

These shortcomings are often overlooked in the early stages but become significant legal weaknesses later on. Failing to clarify ownership can lead to several serious risks:

• Internal disputes: Conflicts of interest may arise between parties, especially when the work begins to generate economic value.

• Inability to register copyright: Authorities may reject applications if you cannot prove legal ownership.

• Legal risks in commercial exploitation: Using a work without valid rights may lead to legal action or compensation claims from the author.

How to avoid this: To mitigate risks, you need to proactively clarify ownership from the outset with specific legal documents.

• Creative work contract: Clearly state the scope of work, rights, and obligations of each party.

• Copyright transfer clause: Clearly define ownership rights belonging to an individual or a business after completion.

• Written consent among co-authors: In cases where multiple people co-create, it is necessary to agree on the ownership ratio, the representative to register the work, and the method of exploitation and profit sharing.

Registering too late

This is one of the most common mistakes: many people only think about registering copyright when a dispute arises or they discover their work has been copied.

The initial subjective mindset is: “My work isn’t famous yet, no one has noticed,” “Registering later won’t hurt”… This very thinking puts many individuals and businesses in a passive position when problems arise.

Delaying registration can lead to many serious consequences:

• Someone else registers first: If another party registers first, they will have a significant advantage in terms of legal evidence, putting you at a disadvantage in disputes.

• Difficulty proving the creation date: Even if you created the work first, without clear evidence (original file, draft, publication date, etc.), proving it will be very difficult.

• Costly and time-consuming litigation: When disputes arise, you may have to gather evidence, hire lawyers, and participate in lengthy legal proceedings.

Self-preparing copyright registration without professional knowledge

Many individuals and businesses choose to prepare their own copyright registration applications to save costs. However, in reality, this is a common mistake if the person doing it lacks legal knowledge or has never gone through the registration process.

Self-preparing an application is not simply about filling out forms and submitting documents. You need to understand:

• Legal regulations related to copyright

• How to correctly identify the type of work

• Requirements regarding the form and content of the application

• The process of receiving, processing, and responding to inquiries from the competent authority

In many cases, the initial goal of “saving” costs becomes a negative consequence, as you waste more time and effort and may delay the commercial exploitation of the work.

Thinking that a single registration is sufficient

Many individuals and businesses believe that registering copyright once is enough to protect all related content in the future. This mindset often stems from a lack of understanding of the scope of copyright protection, leading to complacency when updating, expanding, or developing new versions of the work.

For example: A business registers copyright for a website, then continuously updates the content, changes the interface, adds features, etc., but still thinks that the initial certificate covers all these changes.

In reality, copyright only protects the specific work at the time of registration, with a defined form of expression.

• Each work is a separate protected subject, not automatically “lumped together” in a single registration.

• Major revisions can be considered new works. If the work undergoes significant changes in content, form, structure, or usability, the new version can be considered a separate work and requires separate registration for full protection.

• The scope of protection does not automatically expand; copyright certificates do not have “overall” value for subsequent works unless they are additionally registered.

To ensure your rights are fully and continuously protected, you should:

• Register separately for each specific work.

• Register additionally when there are major changes.

• Establish an intellectual property management process (monitor versions of the work, store data at each stage, and assess when new registration is needed).

The above are “7 common mistakes when registering copyright.” Hopefully, this information will help you better understand the copyright registration process, minimize risks, and be more proactive in protecting your legal rights.

Sincerely,

FAQ

In the era of booming digital content, creative works based on existing works, such as book translations, film adaptations, and music remixes, are becoming increasingly common. However, many individuals and businesses still mistakenly believe that creating derivative works automatically grants copyright protection. So, under what circumstances are derivative works protected by copyright? Let’s explore this in detail in the article “Under what circumstances are derivative works protected by copyright?” below.

What is a derivative work?

According to Clause 8, Article 4 of the Intellectual Property Law, a derivative work is defined as follows: “A derivative work is a work created on the basis of one or more existing works through translation from one language to another, adaptation, modification, transformation, selection, or compilation.”

Common forms of derivative works include:

• Translation (e.g., translating books, stories, documents)

• Adaptation (rewriting based on the original idea)

• Modification (changing content and structure)

• Adaptation (story to film, story to play)

• Selection (compilation from multiple sources)

• Compilation (synthesizing and organizing materials)

Examples:

• A novel adapted into a film

• A song remixed and rearranged

• A foreign literary work translated into Vietnamese

Thus, a derivative work is a new creative product, but it is formed based on the foundation of the original work.

In what cases are derivative works protected by copyright?

According to Articles 14 and 20 of the Intellectual Property Law, derivative works will be protected if they simultaneously meet the following conditions:

Creative nature – a prerequisite

Creativity is the core foundation of all objects protected by copyright. Vietnamese law only protects works created from the direct intellectual labor of the author, bearing a clear personal imprint.

This means that the work must have independent creativity, demonstrated through the way content, language, structure, perspective, or message are expressed – not simply a copy or a slightly modified version of the original work.

Examples:

• Translating a book with a unique writing style and appropriate word choice is considered creative.

• Copying content and changing a few sentences will not be protected.

It can be said that the boundary between legitimate creation and copyright infringement lies in the level of intellectual contribution of the creator of the derivative work. Without this element, the resulting product will not qualify as a “work” under the law, and therefore will not be protected by copyright.

Not infringing on the copyright of the original work

According to Clause 2, Article 14 of the Intellectual Property Law: “A derivative work shall only be protected if it does not infringe on the copyright of the work used to create the derivative work.”

This is an important principle to ensure a balance between the right to create something new and the right to protect the original work.

A derivative work is considered legal when:

• It does not distort or misrepresent the content of the original work.

• It does not misrepresent the message or core values ​​of the original work.

• It does not negatively affect the honor or reputation of the author.

• It does not use the original work in a way that causes economic or commercial damage.

Examples:

• Adapting a literary work into a film while preserving its spirit and main message may be acceptable.

• However, intentionally changing the content in a negative, misleading, or offensive way may be considered copyright infringement.

Therefore, even with creative elements, if that creation affects the legitimate rights of the original author, the derivative work will not be protected.

With the permission of the copyright owner (except in exceptional cases)

According to Article 20 of the Intellectual Property Law, the right to create derivative works is a property right belonging to the copyright owner.

Therefore, to create a derivative work from a work that is still under protection, permission must be obtained, except in cases where the protection period has expired (in the public domain) or in cases where permission is not required by law.

Note: Using a work without permission will be considered copyright infringement (Article 28 of the Intellectual Property Law). In that case, the derivative work will not be protected, even if it has creative elements.

Not falling under the cases excluded from protection

In addition to the above conditions, the derivative work must also not fall under the cases excluded from copyright protection as stipulated by law.

Some common cases include:

• Works that are almost entirely copied from the original, lacking significant creative value.

• Content that violates the law, is contrary to social ethics, or goes against good customs and traditions.

• Works that infringe on the personal rights of other individuals or organizations.

• Products that are mechanically copied or synthesized without intellectual contribution.

If these cases apply, the derivative work will not be recognized or protected by law, regardless of its form of expression.

The above is an article titled “Under what circumstances are derivative works protected by copyright?“. It can be seen that, although a common form of creativity in many fields, derivative works are only protected by law when they fully meet the conditions of creativity, legality, and do not infringe on the rights of the original author.

Sincerely,

FAQ