Author: Editor VCD

Product packaging not only protects goods but is also a crucial brand identity tool. A unique packaging design helps businesses make an impression on customers, enhance product value, and increase competitive advantage in the market. However, copying, imitating, or plagiarizing the packaging of famous brands is quite common. So, how is product packaging plagiarism handled? Let’s find out in the article below!

What is product packaging plagiarism?

Product packaging plagiarism is the act of copying or using design elements on the packaging of another product to create similarity in form, color, layout, images, style, or identifying marks to mislead consumers.

In reality, plagiarism can appear in many forms such as:

• Copying almost the entire packaging design;

• Imitating the main colors of a well-known product;

• Using similar images and patterns;

• Designing product labels with a layout similar to a popular product;

• Using identifying marks that are easily confused with other brands.

The purpose of plagiarism is often to leverage the reputation, prestige, and recognition of an existing product to attract customers or increase sales.

Signs of packaging plagiarism

A product may be suspected of packaging plagiarism when it exhibits signs such as:

• Main colors closely resembling a well-known product;

• Similar layout;

• Fonts, images, or symbols that are easily confused;

• Packaging shape similar to a protected product;

• Overall design that gives the impression of being a product of the same brand or related to a well-known brand.

When assessing infringement, authorities typically consider the overall potential for consumer confusion rather than comparing individual details.

How is product packaging imitation handled?

Product packaging imitation not only affects the legitimate rights and interests of the owner but also confuses consumers and distorts the competitive environment in the market. Depending on the nature, extent of the infringement, and the consequences, organizations and individuals engaging in packaging imitation may face one or more of the following legal sanctions:

Compulsory cessation of infringement

The owner of intellectual property rights has the right to require the infringing organization or individual to:

• Cease production of infringing goods;

• Cease advertising the product;

• Recall the product from the market;

• Remove the infringing element from the packaging.

This is a fairly common measure applied to limit the resulting damage.

Civil compensation for damages

According to Article 202 of the Intellectual Property Law, the rights holder may request the Court to compel the infringing party to compensate for damages caused by the infringement.

Compensation may include:

• Material damages;

• Damage to reputation and prestige;

• Legal fees;

• Costs of preventing and addressing the infringement.

Administrative Penalties for Infringement

According to Decree 99/2013/ND-CP, acts of infringement of industrial property rights may be subject to administrative penalties with various fines depending on the nature and severity of the violation.

In addition to fines, the infringing individual or organization may also be subject to remedial measures such as:

• Forced destruction of infringing goods;

• Forced removal of infringing elements;

• Forced recall of products;

• Forced return of profits obtained from the infringement.

Criminal liability

In serious cases, intellectual property infringement may be subject to criminal prosecution under the provisions of the Penal Code.

In particular, if the production or sale of goods with counterfeit packaging aims to impersonate a trademark or cause significant damage to the rights holder, the infringer may face more severe penalties.

What should businesses do to protect their product packaging?

In an increasingly competitive market, packaging not only serves the function of containing the product but also acts as a tool for brand recognition and attracting customers. Therefore, proactively protecting intellectual property rights related to product packaging is a crucial solution to help businesses limit the risk of copying, imitation, or exploitation of brand reputation. To effectively protect product packaging, businesses should implement the following measures:

Register trademarks early on

Brand names, logos, slogans, or other identifying marks appearing on packaging should be registered as trademarks as early as possible. Once granted protection, businesses will have a solid legal basis to take action against unauthorized or misleading use in the market.

Industrial design registration for packaging designs

If the packaging has a creative and distinctive shape, structure, or external design, businesses should register the industrial design. This is an effective measure to protect the unique elements of the packaging, preventing competitors from copying or imitating the design for unfair competition.

Copyright registration for applied artworks

Many product packaging designs feature highly creative images, patterns, layouts, or graphic elements. In this case, businesses can register copyright for the applied artwork to enhance protection and make it easier to prove ownership in case of disputes.

Building a consistent brand identity system

In addition to registration procedures, businesses need to invest in building a professional and consistent brand image across their entire product range. A highly recognizable brand helps consumers easily distinguish genuine products from counterfeits, while reducing the risk of competitors exploiting the situation to cause confusion.

Regularly monitor the market and online sales channels

Market monitoring should be carried out regularly to promptly detect products showing signs of copying or imitating packaging. Businesses should monitor e-commerce platforms, social media, retail stores, and distribution systems to detect violations early.

Proactively seek action when detecting infringement

When detecting counterfeit products, businesses should not hesitate but should quickly gather evidence and take measures to protect their rights, such as sending warning letters, demanding an end to the infringing behavior, requesting authorities to take action, or filing a lawsuit if necessary. A timely response will help limit damage and prevent the spread of infringement.

Collaborating with a professional intellectual property consulting firm

For businesses with multiple product lines or operating on a wide scale, utilizing legal and intellectual property consulting services will help build a comprehensive protection strategy, from intellectual property registration to dispute resolution and long-term brand protection.

The above is an article titled “How is product packaging plagiarism handled?”. Building an intellectual property protection strategy from the outset not only helps businesses minimize the risk of packaging copying but also contributes to protecting brand value, enhancing competitiveness, and creating a foundation for sustainable development in the market.

Sincerely,

FAQ

The development of artificial intelligence (AI) technology has opened up many new applications in the field of content creation. With just a few simple steps, users can create an audio clip that closely resembles the voice or singing voice of a celebrity through AI voice technology. However, the use of AI to impersonate artists is raising many controversies regarding personal rights, related rights, and legal liability of users. So, is using AI voice impersonation of artists illegal? Let’s find out in the article below!

What is AI voice impersonation of artists?

AI voice (artificial voice) is a technology that uses artificial intelligence to simulate or recreate a person’s voice based on trained audio data.

For artists, AI can:

• Simulate the voice when hosting a show;

• Recreate the singing voice of a singer;

• Creating commercials using celebrity voices;

• Voice-over for videos or films;

• Creating entertaining content for social media.

Thanks to their ability to mimic intonation, timbre, and pronunciation, many AI voice products today can make it difficult for listeners to distinguish them from the real voices of artists.

Does Vietnamese law protect the voices of artists?

Although the Intellectual Property Law does not directly regulate the protection of “voices,” the voices of artists can be protected through various legal mechanisms.

Rights to image, identity, and privacy

According to Article 32 of the 2015 Civil Code: Individuals have the right to their own image. The use of an individual’s image must be with their consent, except in cases where the law provides otherwise.

Although the law directly addresses images, in practice, voice is considered a personal identifier similar to images, names, or reputations.

If AI voice is used to mislead the public into believing that an artist has spoken or participated in a particular content, the artist’s personal rights may be violated.

Related rights regarding performances

According to Article 29 of the Intellectual Property Law, performers have rights to their performances.

These rights include:

• The right to be named during performances;

• The right to protect the integrity of the performance image;

• The right to permit or prohibit the exploitation of the performance.

If an AI system is trained using recordings of an artist’s performance without permission, this act may give rise to disputes over related rights.

Is using AI voice impersonation of an artist illegal?

Depending on the purpose and method of use, using AI voice impersonation to mimic artists may or may not be illegal.

Cases where it may not be illegal:

Using AI voice generally poses little risk of legal violation if it meets the following conditions:

• For personal research and learning purposes only;

• Not publicly available online;

• Not for commercial exploitation;

• Does not cause public confusion;

• Does not affect the reputation or honor of the artist.

For example, an individual using AI to experiment with technology to create a voice similar to a famous singer but not releasing it to the public will have a lower chance of causing a dispute.

Cases where it may be illegal:

Users of AI voice may face legal risks if they engage in any of the following actions:

• Impersonating an artist to advertise products;

• Creating false statements that cause misunderstanding;

• Uploading AI-generated songs using artists’ voices to digital platforms;

• Profiting from voice-mimicking content;

• Damaging the honor, reputation, or image of artists.

In these cases, the conduct may infringe upon personal rights, related rights, or other civil rights protected by law.

What are the penalties for using AI voice impersonation to mimic artists’ voices?

Depending on the specific case, users of AI voice impersonation to mimic artists’ voices may face different penalties.

Civil liability

According to the 2015 Civil Code, individuals have the right to request:

• Cessation of the infringing act;

• A public apology and correction;

• Compensation for damages;

• Removal of the infringing content.

Administrative penalties

If the act infringes on the copyright, related rights, or personal rights of others, the infringing individual or organization may be penalized according to the provisions of the law on intellectual property, advertising, telecommunications, or cybersecurity, depending on the specific case.

Criminal liability

In cases where AI is used to falsify information, commit fraud, or gain illicit profits on a large scale, the infringer may be subject to criminal liability according to the corresponding provisions of the Criminal Code.

The above is an article titled “Is using AI voice impersonation of artists illegal?”. Hopefully, the information above has helped you better understand the legal risks associated with using AI voice technology. In the context of the ever-developing artificial intelligence, respecting the legal rights and interests of artists not only helps limit disputes but also contributes to building a healthy and sustainable digital creative environment.

Sincerely,

FAQ

In today’s creative industry, many works are created by hiring others to perform tasks, from logo design and content writing to software programming. However, once the work is completed, a common question arises: who has the right to be credited as the author: the creator or the person who paid for the work? To understand this issue clearly, please read the following article by VCD.

Who is the author according to the law?

According to Clause 1, Article 13 of the Intellectual Property Law, the author is the person who directly creates the work. This is the most important basis for determining authorship and is also a guiding principle in Vietnamese copyright law.

Simply put, an author is someone who uses their efforts, knowledge, skills, and intellectual labor to create a specific work. That work could be an article, a book, a painting, computer software, a design, a song, a photograph, or many other forms of creative work protected by law. Who pays, who commissions the work, or who invests the funds is not the determining factor in authorship.

Conversely, someone who only provides a general idea or creative direction is not necessarily recognized as the author. The law protects the results of creative activity, not just ideas. Therefore, determining who is the author must always be based on their direct participation in the creative process and the specific form of expression of the work.

Is it mandatory for a hired creator to be credited as the author?

According to the principle stated above, a hired creator who directly creates the work is still considered the author under the law, regardless of whether the creation was done under a contract or as part of an assigned task.

Article 19 of the Intellectual Property Law stipulates that authors have the right to name their works, use their real name or pseudonym on the work, and have their name mentioned when the work is published or used. This is a personal right of the author and is protected by law. Unlike property rights, which can be transferred or assigned to others, personal rights attached to the author cannot be fundamentally taken away simply because the author received payment for creation.

In practice, many individuals or businesses believe that once they have paid for the creation, all rights related to the work belong to them, including the right to be credited as the author. However, this is an inaccurate understanding. The payment of remuneration is only a basis for determining rights and obligations under the contract; it does not change the fact that the person directly creating the work is the author.

When carrying out copyright registration procedures, the competent authority usually requires clear identification of the author’s information and the copyright owner’s information. These two entities may or may not be the same. If the hired creator is the direct creator, they must still be recognized as the author in the registration records. Intentionally removing or replacing the creator’s name with someone else’s name can lead to disputes or legal liability if the information provided is untruthful.

Therefore, regardless of whether the creative work is performed under a service contract, employment contract, or any other form, the person who directly creates the work must still be recognized as the author according to the law.

Can the hired creator be listed as the author instead of the creator?

According to current regulations, the hired creator cannot be listed as the author instead of the direct creator if they themselves did not participate in the creation process.

Many copyright disputes stem from confusion between the concepts of “author” and “copyright owner.” In reality, these are two completely different concepts. The author is the person who directly creates the work, while the copyright owner is the individual or organization that holds the property rights to that work.

For example, in the case of outsourcing website design, the hiring company may receive the transfer of ownership of the product upon completion. However, the individuals who directly carried out the design and programming are still identified as the authors.

Misrepresenting authorship not only poses a risk of disputes but can also affect the legal validity of the copyright registration application. If the creator can prove that they directly created the work, they have the right to request the competent authority or the Court to protect their legitimate rights and interests.

Therefore, the client should not equate ownership rights with the right to be recognized as the author. These are two different legal issues governed by separate regulations.

What should be considered when hiring someone to create a work?

When hiring someone to create a work, the most important thing is for both parties to clearly define their rights and obligations from the outset through a written contract. This is a crucial legal basis for limiting disputes and protecting the rights of both parties during the exploitation of the work.

First, the contract should clearly specify who is the direct creator of the work and who will be the copyright owner after the work is completed. Clearly defining these two roles helps avoid confusion between the author’s personal rights and the owner’s property rights.

In addition, the contract should also specify the scope of transfer of property rights, the right to use the work, the duration of use, the scope of exploitation, and other rights related to the work. If the parties agree on the publication of the work, attribution of the author’s name, or the use of a pseudonym, this should also be clearly stated in the contract to avoid future disputes.

In summary, when hiring a creator, the parties need to clearly distinguish between the author and the copyright owner, and build a solid contract to accurately define the rights and obligations of each party. This is the most effective solution to limit legal risks and protect the rights of all involved parties.

The above is the article “Is it mandatory for a hired creator to be listed as the author?” that VCD has sent to you. We hope this article is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

FAQ

Netflix is ​​one of the most popular online streaming platforms today. To save money, many people choose to share accounts with family and friends or buy shared Netflix “slots” online. However, as Netflix tightens its account management policies and proposes penalties related to the buying and selling of shared accounts, many people are asking: Is selling shared Netflix accounts illegal? Let’s find out in the article below!

What does it mean to sell shared Netflix accounts?

Selling shared Netflix accounts means an individual or organization purchases a Netflix subscription and then shares access with multiple users, charging them for it.

In practice, this often takes the following forms:

• Selling individual “Netflix slots” to strangers on Facebook, Zalo, or e-commerce platforms.

• Renting Netflix accounts on a monthly basis.

• Trading Netflix accounts in bulk for profit.

• Collecting accounts and redistributing them to multiple users.

Unlike family members sharing an account, selling or renting Netflix accounts is a commercial activity and constitutes a service business.

What are Netflix’s rules regarding account sharing?

According to Netflix’s policy, accounts are designed for use within a “Netflix Household.”

Netflix defines a household as a collection of internet-connected devices at the primary location where the account holder regularly uses the service.

This means:

• Members living together in the same household can share an account.

• People living at different addresses may not be part of the same Netflix household.

• Netflix reserves the right to verify the device or location of use to determine the scope of account sharing.

In recent years, Netflix has implemented several technical measures to limit account sharing outside of the household, including:

Device verification

Netflix may require users to enter a verification code sent to the account holder before continuing to use the service.

Determining Netflix households

The platform uses several factors such as IP address, login activity, and device used to determine which is the primary household.

Restricted access

In some cases, Netflix may require users to register a separate account or use an additional membership plan if they wish to share with people outside their household.

It should be noted that this is an internal Netflix policy and part of the service agreement between Netflix and its customers.

Violation of these terms is primarily a matter of civil contract between the user and the service provider and does not automatically constitute a violation of the law.

Is selling shared Netflix accounts illegal?

To date, Vietnamese law does not have specific regulations in the Criminal Code or current administrative penalty decrees regarding the sale of shared Netflix accounts.

Therefore, selling or renting Netflix accounts is not currently a punishable act under applicable law.

However, the user may still violate Netflix’s terms of service. In such cases, Netflix has the right to:

• Block the account;

• Restrict access;

• Terminate service;

• Refuse support for the violating account.

This is primarily a civil contractual relationship between the user and the service provider.

However, the buying and selling of Netflix accounts can entail legal risks. Unlike sharing between acquaintances, the buying, selling, or renting of Netflix accounts is receiving special attention from regulatory authorities.

Recently, the Ministry of Public Security released a draft Decree on administrative penalties for violations in the field of cybersecurity and personal data protection.

In this draft, the drafting agency proposes penalties for the following act: Trading in shared accounts on digital platforms in violation of the service provider’s terms of use. The proposed penalties could reach tens of millions of VND for individuals who violate the regulations.

Point r, Clause 2, Article 14 of the draft Decree proposes the following content:

“Violations of regulations on preventing and combating acts of using cyberspace, information technology, and electronic means to infringe upon social order, but not to the extent of criminal prosecution

…

2. A fine of VND 25,000,000 to VND 50,000,000 shall be imposed for one of the following acts:

…

r) Trading in shared accounts of digital content services (Netflix, Spotify, YouTube Premium, etc.) contrary to the provider’s regulations.”

Although this is only a draft and not yet an officially effective regulation, it shows a trend towards strengthening management of digital account trading activities on the Internet.

Therefore, to use the service safely and minimize risks, users should adhere to Netflix’s policies, avoid sharing accounts, and regularly update themselves on new legal regulations related to digital services.

Above is the article “ Is selling shared Netflix accounts illegal?“. Hopefully, the information shared has helped you better understand the nature of sharing Netflix accounts, related regulations, and potential legal risks.

Sincerely,

• FAQ

In the digital age, storing and sharing data through cloud computing platforms like Google Drive has become extremely popular. Many people have the habit of uploading movies to Google Drive and then sending links to friends to watch or download them together. However, many people wonder if uploading movies to Google Drive and sharing them with friends is illegal. Let’s find out more details in the SEO article below!

How is copyright for films protected by law?

According to the Vietnamese Intellectual Property Law, motion pictures, television series, documentaries, animated films, and works created using similar methods are all protected by copyright.

Specifically, Clause 1, Article 14 of the 2022 Intellectual Property Law states that “cinematic works and works created by similar methods (hereinafter collectively referred to as cinematographic works)” are protected by copyright.

Therefore, the copyright owner of a film has the exclusive right to perform or permit others to perform the following acts:

• Reproducing the work;

• Distributing, importing the original or copies of the work;

• Communicating the work to the public by wired, wireless, electronic information networks or any other technical means;

• Renting the original or copies of the cinematographic work.

Thus, the use, copying, or sharing of films must comply with copyright regulations and must be authorized by the copyright owner, except in exceptional cases as stipulated by law.

Is uploading a film to Google Drive and sharing it with friends a violation of the law?

Uploading movies to Google Drive and sharing them with friends may or may not be illegal, depending on the specific circumstances.

Cases where uploading movies to Google Drive and sharing them with friends is illegal

When someone uploads a movie to Google Drive and sends a link to others to access it, this act can essentially include:

• Copying the work from the original source to a cloud storage system;

• Communicating the work to others through the online environment;

• Facilitating access to the work by many people without the permission of the copyright owner.

According to Article 20 of the 2022 Intellectual Property Law, the right to copy and the right to communicate a work to the public are property rights belonging exclusively to the copyright owner.

Therefore, if the person uploading the movie to Google Drive does not have the permission of the copyright owner, this act may be considered copyright infringement.

Many people believe that sharing content with only a few close friends is not a violation. However, the law is not only based on the number of people who share it, but also on whether the creator has permission to use and distribute the work.

Uploading a movie to Google Drive and sharing it with friends is not illegal.

Not all instances of sharing movies constitute a violation of the law.

For example:

• The movie is in the public domain (the copyright protection period has expired);

• The copyright owner allows downloading and sharing;

• The movie is released under an open license allowing users to share it;

• The user shares the work for which they own the copyright.

Furthermore, Article 25 of the Intellectual Property Law stipulates several exceptions that do not require permission from the copyright owner. However, these exceptions mainly apply to scientific research, teaching, reasonable citation, or personal use within certain limits.

Uploading an entire movie to Google Drive and sharing it with others usually does not fall under these exceptions.

Penalties for sharing copyrighted films

Depending on the nature, extent of the violation, and the consequences, those who illegally share films may face civil, administrative, or even criminal penalties.

Administrative penalties

According to regulations on administrative penalties in the field of copyright and related rights, individuals who copy or transmit works to the public without the permission of the copyright owner may be fined.

In addition to fines, violators may also be subject to remedial measures such as:

• Forced removal of infringing copies of the work;

• Forced deletion of infringing data from the internet;

• Forced return of any illegal profits obtained from the infringing act.

Civil liability

Copyright owners have the right to demand that the infringer cease the infringing act; apologize, make a public correction; and compensate for damages. Paying legal fees and other reasonable expenses.

Criminal liability

In serious cases, copyright infringement may be subject to criminal prosecution under Article 225 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017).

The offender may be fined or imprisoned if the copying and distribution of the work is on a commercial scale or causes significant damage to the copyright owner.

The above is an article titled “ Is uploading movies to Google Drive and sharing them with friends illegal?”. To avoid unnecessary legal risks, users should prioritize using legal movie sources and only share content after obtaining permission from the copyright owner.

Sincerely,

FAQ