Skip to main content

Author: Editor VCD

How do directors and employees register copyright when creating a work together?

In the context of businesses increasingly focusing on the creative element, it is no longer uncommon for directors and employees to participate in the creation of a work such as a promotional video, computer software, graphic design, song, or media script. However, when a work is created from the contributions of many individuals, especially between managers and employees, the issue of copyright registration becomes more complicated: who is the author, who is the owner, and how should the records be made to ensure the legal rights of all parties? VCD’s article below will help you understand better.

What is copyright? What is the creation of a work?

Current law does not have a specific explanation of “What is copyright?”, however, copyright can be understood as the legal right of an author or owner to his or her work, including the right to use, copy, distribute and display the work. Copyright protects works such as books, music, movies, software and art. It prohibits others from using the work without the permission of the owner. Copyright usually has a certain term, after which the work will become public property.

Copyright, also known as author’s rights, as stipulated in Article 4 of the current Intellectual Property Law, is the right of an organization or individual to the work they create or own.

Creativity is the process by which people create new, unique products in the fields of literature, art or science. It includes the use of imagination, knowledge and skills to turn ideas into a specific work, which can be poetry, stories, music, software, etc. Creativity is the ability to create something new, while composition is the process of realizing that idea into a product.

How do directors and employees register copyright when creating a work together?

  How do directors and employees register copyright when creating a work together?

According to the provisions of the 2005 Law on Intellectual Property of Vietnam, amended and supplemented in 2022, the author is the person who directly creates all or part of the work through his or her intellectual labor. Meanwhile, the copyright owner is the organization or individual who holds the property rights to that work, including the right to copy, distribute, communicate, publish, and allow others to exploit the work.

If both the director and the employee contribute to the creation of the design and programming, they are considered co-authors. However, the ownership of the work may belong to the company or individuals depending on the circumstances of the creation of the work and the agreement between the parties.

In case the work is created within the scope of work

  • When the work is created according to the assigned tasks or during the working process at the company, using the time, facilities and resources of the enterprise, then according to Article 39 of the Law on Intellectual Property, the company (the organization using the labor) is the owner of the property rights to that work.
  • In this case, the Director and the employee are recognized as the authors, demonstrating the creative merit. In which, the Company is the owner of the copyright, has the full right to use, exploit and register for protection. If the parties have a different written agreement (for example, the director and employee are entitled to a share of the exploitation rights), then that agreement will take precedence.

In case the work is created outside the assigned tasks

  • On the contrary, if the work is formed outside the scope of work, that is, not part of the assigned tasks, not using the company’s resources, or done in personal time, then the ownership will belong to the individuals who created the work. In that case, the director and the employee are both co-authors and co-owners of the copyright.
  • In this situation, copyright registration requires a clear written agreement on the ownership ratio, exploitation rights, as well as how to use the work after the certificate is granted, to avoid future disputes.

Copyright registration in this case of co-creation is not only an administrative procedure but also has important legal value. The certificate is evidence of the establishment of rights, helping to protect the work from unauthorized copying and use and is the basis for resolving disputes when they arise.

In particular, in the corporate environment, clearly identifying the author and owner from the beginning also helps to strengthen internal transparency, avoiding misunderstandings between leaders and employees about the rights to intellectual products.

The registration dossier includes the following documents:

  • Copyright registration declaration form according to the form issued by the Ministry of Culture;
  • Two copies of the work requested for protection (print, audio recording, video recording, or software file);
  • Power of attorney (if authorizing a third party to submit the application);
  • Documents proving the right to submit the application: such as the decision to assign tasks, labor contract, co-creation minutes or agreement document;
  • Copies of legal documents of the parties (ID card/CCCD, business registration certificate).

Above is the article “How do directors and employees register copyright when creating a work together?” that VCD sent to you. We hope this article is useful to you.

Sincerely,

If a director and an employee in a company create a work, does the ownership always belong to the company?

The director and employee creating a work together does not mean that the copyright owner always belongs to the company. Only when the work is created under a task, a labor contract or an agreement to assign work for the company’s purpose, the company is the owner of the property rights; but if the work is created outside the scope of work, without assignment, the copyright belongs to the director and employee individually.

What is the status of a director and employee who co-create outside the scope of work of the company?

The director and employee who co-create will register as co-authors and co-owners, or there is another agreement between the parties on the division of ownership.

How to avoid copyright when posting movie review videos

Movie reviews are one of the most popular video formats today, attracting a huge number of viewers. However, along with that attraction comes the “haunting” risk of copyright infringement. Just a few seconds of inserting movie scenes, using original background music or famous dialogue can cause your video to be removed, lose revenue, or even have your channel blocked. So how to review movies without copyright infringement, let’s find out more with VCD!

What is a movie review video?

Movie review videos are a type of content in which the creator (reviewer) analyzes, comments on, and shares personal feelings about a movie. The goal of the video is not only to summarize the content, but also to help viewers understand more deeply about the message, acting, filming techniques, script, or the meaning behind each detail.

Depending on the style, each reviewer can choose a different direction of expression in the movie review video:

  • Emotional review: Recounting the true feelings after watching the movie.
  • In-depth analysis: Focus on the script, images, sound, director.
  • Explaining the ending, Easter Egg, hidden details: Often seen in channels specializing in Marvel, DC, or psychological – detective movies.

However, to make the video more attractive, many people often insert images, sounds, or excerpts from the movie to illustrate the words. This is the reason why the video is copyrighted if not used properly. Therefore, to develop a sustainable channel, each reviewer needs to clearly understand the concept of copyright and the principles of fair use when creating content related to movies.

Understanding copyright in movie review videos

When it comes to movie review videos, many people often mistakenly think that as long as “not posting the full movie” will not violate copyright. However, in reality, the 2022 Vietnamese Intellectual Property Law and the terms of social networking platforms clearly stipulate that all cinematographic works, images, sounds, background music, dialogues, etc. in the film are protected by copyright.

Specifically, Article 20 of the 2022 Intellectual Property Law stipulates: “The author or copyright owner has the exclusive right to perform or authorize others to perform the copying, distribution, screening, and communication of the work to the public.” This means that cutting, quoting, or replaying part of the film content in a review video is still considered an act of copying or communication without the consent of the copyright owner.

However, the law also allows for some legal exceptions. According to Article 25 of the 2022 Intellectual Property Law, quoting a work without distorting the author’s intention, without affecting the normal exploitation of the original work, and clearly stating the source can be considered legal. Therefore, movie review videos are only allowed to use images, sounds, and short clips for the purpose of commenting, commenting, and analyzing, not for commercial purposes or illegal distribution.

How to avoid copyright when posting movie review videos

How to avoid copyright when posting movie review videos

To post movie review videos safely, legally, and still attract viewers, you need to apply many of the following measures at the same time:

  • Only use images and short clips for commentary purposes: According to Article 25 of the 2022 Intellectual Property Law, reasonable citation is allowed if it is for the purpose of illustration, commenting, commenting, or reporting without distorting the original work and clearly stating the source of the quote. Therefore, you should only use short clips (a few seconds) or still images to illustrate the analysis content, absolutely do not post full-length movies, unreleased trailers, or leaked content.
  • Clearly state the source and respect the copyright owner: In the description or right on the video, clearly state: “Images and sounds are taken from the movie [Movie name] – copyrighted by [Producer/Distributor name]. The video is for commentary purposes only, not commercial.” This not only shows respect for copyright but also helps the platform (YouTube, TikTok, etc.) identify your purpose of use as analysis – review, not replaying the original work.
  • Limit the use of background music and original sounds from movies: Many videos are copyrighted not because of the images, but because the sound or background music belongs to the producer. The safe solution is: Use copyright-free music in the library of YouTube Studio, Bensound, or Free Music Archive. If you want to keep the movie sound, insert a commentary (voice-over) or add a distortion effect, reduce the volume, to ensure the purpose of use is analysis and not copying the original.
  • Create unique content: A review video is only truly engaging when it expresses a personal point of view, a creative perspective, not simply a replay of a film. You should focus on: Commenting on the plot, acting, and message of the film; making comparisons, analyzing themes, or cultural perspectives; adding custom graphics, illustrations, or animations instead of the original image.
  • Check carefully before posting: Before publishing, you should check: Does the video contain any unauthorized music, images or clips; does it display a copyright note and a clear origin? If you post it on YouTube, you can try turning on the “Check copyright before publishing” mode in the video upload section to see if you are automatically warned.

Above is “How to avoid copyright when posting movie review videos” to help you better understand the legal regulations and legal ways to create content related to movies. Hopefully this article will help you when creating movie review content.

Sincerely,

1. If you only talk about the movie content without inserting images, is it a copyright violation?

No. According to Article 28 of the Intellectual Property Law 2022, copyright infringement only arises when there is an act of copying, distributing, or using a work without permission. So, if you film or edit your own video with only your own voice or illustrations (without using movie images), then the content does not violate copyright. This is a safe way and is applied by many professional reviewers to avoid having their videos removed.

2. Do you need permission from the producer to make a movie review video?

If you only review, comment, analyze and quote reasonably, then you are not required to ask for permission. But if you want to use images, trailers, soundtracks or movie logos for commercial purposes (advertising, making money), you should contact the producer or publisher directly to ask for legal rights.

Is livestreaming singing other people’s music considered copyright infringement?

Livestreaming singing famous songs on social networks is becoming a popular trend. However, many people accidentally fall into the legal “trap” of using copyrighted music without permission from the author. So, is livestreaming singing other people’s music considered copyright infringement? In the article below, VCD will help you understand the legal regulations on music copyright in the online environment.

  1. What is livestreaming? Current trend of livestreaming singing

“Livestreaming” is a form of live video broadcasting on social networking platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram… allowing users to communicate, share and interact with audiences in real time. With just a phone with a camera and an Internet connection, anyone can become a “live broadcaster”, attracting hundreds, even thousands of viewers at the same time.

Since social media platforms have promoted the livestream feature, this form has quickly become a familiar connection and entertainment tool. And live singing, especially cover singing or online karaoke, has become a real “fever”. On Facebook or TikTok, it is not difficult to come across live singing sessions, where the livestreamer holds the microphone and interacts with viewers through the comment section. A few familiar songs, a little genuine emotion and the ability to connect naturally… are enough to attract tens of thousands of views and shares.

Not just a passion, live singing also opens up real opportunities to make money. Many people have turned their singing hobby into a significant source of income through donations, virtual gifts, advertising contracts, or combined with online sales. A fun live singing session can both entertain, build a personal image, and bring economic benefits.

However, behind those moments of sublimation lies a potential legal risk that not everyone realizes: music copyright infringement. Because most of the songs used in livestreams – from pop music, lyrical music to international music, are works that are protected by copyright.

This means that if you sing or play someone else’s music in a livestream without permission, that action can be considered copyright infringement, whether you are just “singing for fun” or “not charging money”. Many streamers, freelance singers or social media users have accidentally gotten into trouble because they do not understand music copyright regulations, an issue that is increasingly being tightened in today’s digital environment.

Is livestreaming singing other people's music considered copyright infringement?

2. Is livestreaming singing someone else’s music considered copyright infringement?

According to Article 6 and Article 20 of the Intellectual Property Law 2022, copyright arises automatically from the moment a work is created and expressed in a certain material form, without registration. For musical works, copyright includes: Personal rights: Name, title, protect the integrity of the work; property rights: Permission to copy, perform, communicate the work to the public, distribute, import, etc.

Thus, when you livestream singing someone else’s song, you are performing and communicating the work to the public. This is the property right of the copyright owner and if not permitted, that act can be considered a violation of copyright.

However, not all cases of singing someone else’s music are violations. Livestreaming will be considered a copyright infringement if all of the following factors are met:

  • The song is still under copyright protection (usually for the lifetime of the author and 50 years after their death).
  • The livestreamer does not ask for permission or pay royalties to the author, musician, or copyright owner.
  • The livestream is public and shared widely on the network platform, not just within the family.
  • The livestream has commercial elements, for example: receiving donations, advertising products, selling goods, or making money from the platform.

If you satisfy the above conditions, you may be considered to have used the musical work without permission, leading to a violation of the author’s property rights according to the law. They may be handled according to Decree 131/2013/ND-CP with the following fines:

  • From 15 to 35 million VND for performing or transmitting the work without permission.
  • Forced to remove infringing content, publicly apologize and compensate for damages to the copyright owner.
  • In case of a major commercial violation, causing serious damage, the perpetrator may also be prosecuted under Article 225 of the 2015 Penal Code.

Therefore, if you want to livestream singing someone else’s music, you need to:

  • Ask for permission or buy the copyright to use the song from the author, musician, or the Vietnam Center for Music Copyright Protection (VCPMC).
  • Or you should only choose songs that have expired protection, public music or copyright-free music.

The above is an article on “Is livestreaming singing someone else’s music considered a copyright violation?” that VCD wants to share with you. Hopefully you have a better understanding of the regulations on music copyright and what to pay attention to when livestreaming.

Sincerely,

1. If you livestream singing just for fun and don’t charge money, will you be fined?

Even if you don’t charge money or have no commercial purpose, the law still considers this an act of public use of a work. Therefore, if the song is still under protection and you don’t ask for permission, you can still be administratively fined or asked to remove the infringing content. The fine can be up to 35 million VND according to Decree 131/2013/ND-CP.

2. If the singer or musician allows you to livestream, do you still need to apply for copyright?

This also depends on the copyright and related rights holder. In fact, not all singers are the copyright owners of the song, this right can belong to the composer, producer, or recording company. Therefore, even if the singer agrees, you should still contact the official copyright owner to ask for permission or sign a legal use agreement before livestreaming.

Is creating AI-based virtual characters protected?

The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) has opened a new era where virtual characters simulating real people can appear and act like humans in the digital world. From virtual models, virtual singers to virtual influencers, all are becoming trends. But amid this explosion, the legal question is: Are virtual characters created by AI protected by law? Let’s find out with VCD in the article below!

What is creating AI-based virtual characters based on real people?

In the era of technology 4.0, artificial intelligence (AI) is gradually changing the way people create, communicate and express themselves. One of the main prominent applications that has received a lot of attention is creating virtual characters (AI avatars) based on real people.

Simply put, an AI-based virtual character is an image, voice or expressive style simulated from a specific individual in real life. Through deep learning algorithms and image and sound processing techniques, the AI ​​system can recreate the face, voice, even gestures and emotions of a person, thereby creating a vivid “digital version”.

For example:

  • An artist can use AI to create a virtual copy of themselves for advertising or interacting with fans.
  • A brand can use the image of a celebrity to create a virtual brand ambassador (virtual influencer), helping to maintain operations even when the real character is not directly involved.

However, creating virtual characters that “borrow the image” of real people raises many complex legal issues, especially related to personal rights, image rights and copyright.

Is creating AI-based virtual characters protected?

Is creating a virtual character using AI based on a real person protected?

The answer to “Is creating a virtual character using AI based on a real person protected?” depends on many factors: Who is the creator, is the character independently creative, and is the use of the image of a real person with their consent?

According to the 2022 Law on Intellectual Property of Vietnam, copyright is protected for works directly created by the author, which are original and creative. However, virtual characters created by AI are not simply human products, they are the result of data processing, algorithms and machine learning. Therefore, to be protected by copyright, virtual characters must meet the following conditions:

The work must be created by humans

Clause 1, Article 14 of the 2022 Intellectual Property Law stipulates: “A work protected by copyright is a creative product in the field of literature, art and science directly created by the author through his/her intellectual labor, without copying from the work of others.”

This means that AI cannot be named as the author. The person who directly uses the AI ​​tool, comes up with ideas, selects training data and directs new creative direction is the subject that can be protected by copyright (if it can be proven that there is a real creative contribution).

For example, if you use AI to create a completely new virtual character, not based on a real person, and you are the one who decides the design, features, style, then that character can be protected by copyright as a digital work of art.

On the contrary, if the virtual character is based on the face or voice of a real person (especially a famous person), the issue is not only about copyright but also directly related to image rights and personal rights.

The image rights of real people must be respected

According to Article 32 of the 2015 Civil Code, it is clearly stated: “The use of an individual’s image must have the consent of that person. The use of an image for commercial purposes must have the written consent of the person whose image is used.”

Therefore, if AI creates a virtual character that simulates the face, voice or demeanor of a real person without permission, this act can be considered an infringement of personal rights and will be handled according to the law.

For example: A business using AI to create a virtual copy of singer A to advertise a product without permission, even if it is only a “90% similar character”, can still be considered an infringement of image rights. In this case, the real person can request: Removal of the infringing content; apologize, publicly correct; compensate for damages (if there is a commercial element causing damage).

Virtual characters based on real people can be protected within a certain scope

Although AI is not considered an “author”, the programmer, AI controller or system owner can be protected for ownership of the virtual character, if they can prove: There is creative and technical investment in building and training the AI ​​model; there is intellectual contribution in perfecting the character (such as designing the appearance, style, behavior, etc.) and the use of the image of a real person has legal consent.

In that case, the virtual character can be protected as a “derivative work” (according to Article 14, Clause 2, Point m of the Intellectual Property Law 2022), provided that it does not infringe the rights of the original work or the simulated individual.

For example: A company cooperates with actor B to create an AI copy for a commercial film. If there is a clear contract, agreement on image usage rights, commercial rights, and the real person agrees, then this virtual character is protected as a legitimate creative product.

Currently, Vietnam does not have specific regulations on protection or handling of violations of AI-generated virtual characters, but acts of infringement of image, reputation, or personal rights can be handled according to:

  • Decree 131/2015/ND-CP: Administrative sanctions for acts of infringement of copyright and related rights.
  • Article 592 of the 2015 Civil Code: Regulations on compensation for damages when infringing on the honor, dignity, and reputation of individuals.
  • Article 288 of the 2015 Penal Code: Criminal handling if the unauthorized use of images or voices causes serious consequences or is for the purpose of profiteering.

Thus, AI-generated virtual characters based on real people are only protected when they have human creative elements and the legal consent of the real people they simulate. Otherwise, the creation, use or commercialization of such virtual characters may be considered an infringement of image rights, personal rights, or even copyright.

In the AI ​​era, the line between “creation” and “infringement” has become more fragile than ever. Therefore, individuals and businesses when exploiting real people’s images to create virtual characters need to sign clear contracts, ask for full permission and respect personal rights, to avoid legal risks and protect their own creative value.

Above is the complete answer to the question “Is creating virtual characters using AI based on real people protected?”. VCD hopes that through this article, you will better understand the protection regulations for virtual characters using AI based on real people.

Sincerely,

1. Can virtual characters based on real people be considered derivative works?

According to Article 14 of the 2022 Intellectual Property Law, a derivative work is: “A work that is translated, adapted, transformed, annotated, or selected.” If a virtual character is created from the image of a real person with legal consent and has independent creative elements (e.g., editing, redesigning, changing the context, etc.), it can be recognized as a derivative work and protected by copyright.

2. Does the creator of an AI virtual character need to sign an image rights transfer contract?

Yes. When a virtual character is created based on the image of a real person, a written agreement is required to ensure rights and avoid disputes. Pursuant to Article 32 of the 2015 Civil Code and Article 47 of the 2022 Intellectual Property Law, this contract should clearly stipulate the scope of use, commercial purpose, term, remuneration, or rights of the person being simulated.

Is using beats from other people’s songs a copyright violation?

The trend of covering, remixing or making short videos with “catchy” background music is spreading across social media channels: TikTok, YouTube, Facebook. But among those countless attractive remixes, few people know that just by reusing someone else’s beat without permission, you can violate music copyright. So is using beats from other people’s songs really illegal? Let’s find out with VCD!

What is a beat? Who owns the copyright to the beat?

“Music beat” is understood as the background music or arrangement without lyrics, which acts as a framework, creating emotions and rhythm for the entire song. In the process of music production, beats are often created by arrangers, music producers (producers) or record labels, to serve as a background for singers, rappers or content creators to use to sing, rap, remix or make videos. It can be said that, although it does not contain lyrics, the beat is the “soul” that contributes to shaping the style, color and appeal of a musical work.

Not only does it have artistic value, the beat is also an intellectual property with economic value. In many cases, a beat can be sold, licensed or transferred at a very high price, especially when it is created by famous music producers. Therefore, the beat is not simply “background music for singing” but also an independent creative product, protected by law similar to the lyrics or melody of a song.

According to Article 14 of the Intellectual Property Law 2022, protected musical works include harmony, arrangement, accompaniment, beat and melody. This provision affirms that each element in a song, whether lyrics, melody or beat, is considered part of the original musical work and can be protected independently if it meets the conditions of creativity.

That also means that the creator of the beat is the copyright owner of that music, unless they have transferred or signed a contract to transfer ownership to another party such as a record company, singer or production unit. In that case, the right to use, exploit and allow others to use the beat will be decided by the recipient.

In short, a beat is not only a part of music but also a fully copyrighted work with legal, artistic and commercial value. Understanding this nature helps content creators, artists or businesses using music know how to respect intellectual property rights and avoid copyright infringement risks during the exploitation process.

Is using a beat from someone else’s song a copyright infringement?

Even if it is just a few dozen seconds of background music, that beat is still considered an independent musical work protected by law. Therefore, reusing a beat without the owner’s permission is an infringement of copyright, an act that can be handled according to the provisions of the Intellectual Property Law.

According to Article 20 of the Intellectual Property Law 2022, the owner of a musical work has the full right to perform or allow others to perform the following acts:

  • Copy, distribute, or communicate the work to the public (for example, publish, post on social networks, YouTube, etc.);
  • Create derivative works (such as remixing, remixing, adding new lyrics, or using the original beat for a cover).

Thus, if you take a beat from someone else’s song to record, remix, sing a cover, or use it in a promotional video without permission, you have infringed on the property rights of the author or beat owner. Even if you clearly state the source or “just for fun”, that action can still be considered an infringement, because copyright does not depend on commercial or non-commercial purposes, just using it without permission is an infringement.

If you violate copyright by using beats from other people’s songs, you may face the following forms of handling:

  • Administrative sanctions: According to Decree 17/2023/ND-CP, copyright infringement can be fined from 10 to 30 million VND; forced to remove videos, posts containing infringing beats; forced to destroy infringing evidence (discs, music files, etc.).
  • Video removed, blocked from monetization or account locked: Platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, TikTok all have Content ID systems that automatically detect copyrighted beats. When detected, the video can be removed or monetized; receive copyright warnings; the account can be deleted if it violates repeatedly.
  • Civil and criminal liability: In serious cases, the beat owner has the right to sue for compensation for damages (licensing costs, reputational damage, etc.). If the act has a commercial element or causes great damage, you may be prosecuted under Article 225 of the 2015 Penal Code, with a fine of up to 1 billion VND or imprisonment of up to 3 years.
Is using beats from other people's songs a copyright violation?

Cases of using beats that are not considered copyright infringement

In some cases, using beats from other people’s songs is not considered copyright infringement, as long as the user complies with the provisions of copyright law. Here are some legal exceptions allowed by law:

  • With the owner’s permission: You can buy the copyright of the beat or ask for permission to use it from the owner. Sign a contract to use the beat within the permitted scope (Example: Only use for livestream, not for performing).
  • Using free beats: Some beats can be shared as “free beats” or in the public domain, meaning anyone can use them without permission. However, you need to check the terms of use carefully: Many producers allow free use but not commercialization (Example: Do not post YouTube with monetization enabled).
  • Using beats for research, teaching, or commentary purposes: According to Article 25 of the Intellectual Property Law 2022, reasonable citation of published works for non-commercial purposes (teaching, commenting, research, etc.) is not considered copyright infringement. However, you still need to clearly state the source and not affect the owner’s exploitation rights.

Above is the article on “Is using beats from other people’s songs a copyright infringement?” that VCD shares with you. Hopefully, respecting copyright not only helps you protect your personal reputation and brand, but also contributes to building a healthy, professional and fair music creation environment for everyone.

Sincerely,

1. If you only use a short beat of a few seconds, is it considered an infringement?

Yes. The law does not specify a “minimum length” for a protected piece of music, so using just a part of a beat without permission is an act of copyright infringement. Platforms like YouTube or TikTok have automatic audio recognition systems (Content ID) that can detect duplicate beats, leading to videos being removed, blocked from monetization or copyright claims.

2. How to use beats legally without worrying about copyright infringement?

You can use beats legally by:
Buying or licensing the beat from the author or record label;
Using free beats with a clear license (royalty-free, creative commons, etc.);
Producing or hiring a producer to compose new beats;
Avoiding using beats extracted from commercial songs without permission.
Complying with copyright not only helps you avoid legal risks but also shows respect for the artist’s creative efforts.

Is it a copyright violation to post a football highlight video cut from a TV channel?

What is a football highlight video cut from a TV channel?

Football highlight videos are short videos that summarize outstanding, notable situations in a match, usually goals, saves, dangerous shots, or controversial situations. The purpose of highlights is to help viewers quickly grasp the main developments of the match without having to watch the entire 90 minutes.

Currently, highlight videos are widely released on many platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, TikTok or official sports sites. However, not everyone can produce and publish football highlights. Usually, the copyright to broadcast and edit highlights belongs to the unit that holds the copyright of the match, such as VTV, K+ or FPT Play in Vietnam.

That means, if you do not own or have not been licensed to use the image content from this source, cutting and re-posting the highlight video may violate the copyright and related rights of the copyright holder.

Is posting a football highlight video cut from a TV channel a copyright violation?

According to the 2022 Vietnamese Intellectual Property Law, copyright includes personal rights and property rights to the work, including broadcasting rights, copying rights, distribution rights and communication rights to the public.

For football matches, all images, sounds, commentary, graphics, logos, sound effects… recorded, edited and broadcast by the TV channel are considered copyrighted works or subjects related to copyright.

When you download videos from copyrighted TV channels such as VTV, K+, FPT Play, VTC, ON Sports…, then cut, edit and re-post them on platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, Facebook or personal websites without an agreement or license to use, that action is considered an infringement of copyright and related rights. The reason is because you are using part or all of the content that others have invested in producing, including the rights to record, broadcast, comment, editing techniques and even the creative elements of the production team. Even if you cite the source, attach a logo or declare it “non-profit”, that action is still a violation of the law if not permitted by the copyright owner.

Forms of handling according to legal regulations:

  • Administrative sanctions: According to Decree 17/2023/ND-CP, acts of copyright infringement can be fined from 10 to 30 million VND, along with measures to force the removal or destruction of the infringing video.
  • Risk of channel lockout, loss of revenue: Platforms like YouTube or TikTok have an automatic copyright scanning system (Content ID). If duplicate content is detected, your video may be deleted, monetized, or your account may be locked.
Is it a copyright violation to post a football highlight video cut from a TV channel?

How to create legal football content, avoid copyright infringement

In the era of strong social media development, football highlight videos are always a “gold mine” attracting views and interactions. However, many content creators, due to lack of legal knowledge, accidentally violate copyright, leading to loss of channel, loss of revenue, and even being fined.

To share your passion for football while complying with the law, you can refer to some of the following legal, creative and sustainable ways to create content:

  • Make your own videos commenting, analyzing, predicting or evaluating tactics, using legal illustrations (For example: Predicting results or comparing squads – “The strongest squad of Euro 2025 if not injured”.). This is the safest and most encouraged form. You can completely create unique videos with your own perspective and football knowledge.
  • Link or embed official highlight videos from copyrighted channels (for example, YouTube pages of K+, VTV, FPT Play …). This method not only helps viewers access legitimate sources, but also helps you build clean, trustworthy content, without worrying about having your videos deleted or your channel locked.
  • Make reaction videos, analyze situations but do not directly insert footage from copyrighted videos, instead only use photos or simulated graphics. This form is used by many professional football YouTube and TikTok channels, helping them to both ensure copyright protection and maintain attractive and unique content.
  • Cooperate or ask for copyright permission from broadcasting rights holders if you want to exploit official content for commercial purposes (For example: match review, re-report, post highlights to make money). Units such as K+, FPT Play, VTVcab, Next Media… often have policies on content cooperation or licensing for qualified media channels, partners or creators. When there is a cooperation agreement, you will be allowed to use highlight videos, interview clips or official graphics, and at the same time receive legal protection and the opportunity to legally earn money from football content. This is a professional and long-term direction if you really want to develop in the sports media sector.

Above is the article “Is posting football highlight videos cut from TV channels a copyright violation?” that VCD wants to share with you. Respecting copyright not only helps you avoid breaking the law but also builds a professional and trustworthy image in the sports content creation community.

Sincerely,

1. If I record my screen while watching football and post it online, is it a copyright violation?

Yes. Even if you record it yourself with your personal device, the content inside is still an image signal produced and broadcast by the TV station. Therefore, posting this video online without the consent of the copyright holder is still considered an infringement of broadcasting rights according to Article 44 of the Intellectual Property Law.

2. If I only post a short part of the match, is it considered a copyright violation?

According to Article 28 of the Intellectual Property Law, even if only a part of the content of a TV program is used without the consent of the owner, that act is still considered illegal copying and editing. Only in the case of reasonable quotation for commentary, illustration and clearly stating the source is considered a legal exception according to Article 25 of the Intellectual Property Law.

Is sharing free ebooks online a violation of copyright?

The habit of downloading and sharing free ebooks on social networks, forums, or Google Drive has become too familiar to many book lovers. However, this seemingly harmless action has the potential to seriously violate copyright. So, is sharing free ebooks a violation of copyright? Let’s find out with VCD in the article below!

What is an ebook?

An ebook (short for electronic book) is a form of book published in digital form and exists as an electronic file (digital file). Readers can use ebooks through personal devices such as computers, smartphones, tablets or specialized e-readers.

Unlike traditional printed books, ebooks are published and distributed on the Internet, allowing users to buy, download and read right on their devices whether connected or not. Popular ebook formats include EPUB, PDF, MOBI, AZW, TXT…, which are designed to prevent content editing but still allow readers to customize the display interface such as font size, font style, landscape – portrait, compatible with many different screen sizes.

Thanks to their convenience, ebooks are increasingly popular because they can save storage space, cost less than paper books, are easy to shop online and are convenient to carry when traveling.

According to the 2022 Intellectual Property Law, ebooks are still considered a literary work in electronic form, so they are protected by copyright law similar to traditional printed books. This means that ebooks are protected like traditional printed books, including personal rights (naming, title, protecting the integrity of the work) and property rights (copying, distributing, communicating, publishing the work…).

Does sharing free ebooks online violate copyright?

Every work, whether ebook, movie, music or image, is the result of the author’s creative and intellectual labor. Therefore, copying, posting or distributing without permission is a violation.

According to Article 20 of the Intellectual Property Law 2022, the copyright owner has the exclusive right to allow others to perform acts such as copying, distributing, and communicating the work to the public. Therefore, the act of sharing free ebooks online is considered a copyright violation if:

  • The ebook is still under copyright protection, that is, during the author’s lifetime and 50 years after the author’s death (as prescribed in Article 27 of the Intellectual Property Law 2022);
  • The sharer does not have permission from the author or publisher;
  • The ebook is copied, uploaded to social networks, websites, forums or publicly stored (such as Google Drive, Zalo, Telegram…).

For example: Downloading a paid ebook from Tiki or Waka and then reposting it publicly for everyone to download. This behavior is considered an infringement of the right to copy and distribute the work, even if you do not charge money.

On the contrary, cases of sharing ebooks that are considered legal include:

  • The ebook is published for free by the author with a clear notice of the sharing rights (For example, released under an open license such as Creative Commons).
  • The ebook has expired copyright protection, meaning the work belongs to the public domain.
  • You only share the link to a legal publishing site (such as Tiki, Waka, Google Books, or the author’s website), but do not post a copy of the ebook.
Is sharing free ebooks online a violation of copyright?

Legal consequences of sharing copyrighted ebooks

Sharing copyrighted ebooks is not just an act of “sharing for fun” as many people think, but is actually an infringement of copyright. Depending on the nature and severity of the violation, the perpetrator may be subject to different levels of sanctions.

According to Decree 17/2023/ND-CP, the administrative penalties for copyright infringement are as follows:

  • Acts of infringement of the right to distribute works: Fine from 10 – 30 million VND, forced removal of infringing copies of ebooks or destruction of infringing exhibits.
  • Acts of infringement of the right to communicate works to the public (posting, sharing ebooks online): Fine from 15 – 30 million VND, forced removal of infringing copies of works.
  • Acts of illegal copying of works: Fine from 15 – 35 million VND, and forced removal or destruction of illegal copies.

In addition to fines, violators may also be forced to remove infringing content, publicly apologize, and compensate for civil damages… if they affect the rights and interests of the author or publisher.

Thus, whether for the purpose of sharing, learning or entertainment, posting or spreading copyrighted ebooks without permission carries significant legal risks. The best way to avoid violations is to only read and share ebooks from legal sources, respect the author’s creative efforts, and contribute to building a transparent and copyright-respecting intellectual environment.

Above is the article “Does sharing free ebooks online violate copyright?” shared by VCD to help you better understand the legal consequences and how to use ebooks legally.

Sincerely,

1. Can I share ebooks if I only use them for personal study and research?

According to Article 25 of the Intellectual Property Law, users can copy a reasonable part of a work for personal study and research purposes without asking for permission and without paying royalties. However, posting an entire ebook online, even for study purposes, is still an act of unauthorized publication, because the content has been communicated to the public. Therefore, you should only quote or use it for personal use, not share it publicly.

2. Is it okay if I share a free ebook but clearly state the author’s name and source?

Statement of the author’s name and source only shows respect for personal rights, but does not replace asking for permission to use the work. According to Article 20 and Article 28 of the Intellectual Property Law, authors and owners still have the exclusive right to distribute, copy and communicate the work. Therefore, even if you clearly state the source but arbitrarily post the entire ebook online without permission, it is still considered copyright infringement and may be subject to administrative penalties.

Is rebroadcasting someone else’s livestream video a copyright infringement?

With the explosion of social networks, livestreaming has become a popular form of helping individuals and businesses quickly interact with audiences. However, a problem that makes many people wonder if rebroadcasting someone else’s livestream video is considered a copyright infringement? To understand clearly, let’s find out more details with VCD in the article below.

What is livestream and who owns the copyright?

Livestream is a form of live video broadcasting on social networking platforms or websites such as Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, Shopee Live… During the broadcast, all images, sounds, words or content displayed are owned by the creator of the livestream, which can be the cameraman, speaker, organizer, content production business or the technical team behind it.

According to the Vietnamese Intellectual Property Law, livestreaming is considered an audiovisual work, which is a type of creative work with independent value, protected similarly to videos, films or television programs. This includes recording rights, broadcasting rights, copying rights, distribution rights and re-display rights.

The livestreamer is the copyright owner (or the organization authorized to hold the broadcasting rights) and any act of reusing, downloading, rebroadcasting or editing livestream content requires legal written permission from the owner. Unauthorized use not only infringes copyright but can also affect the reputation, image and economic interests of the original content creator.

Is rebroadcasting someone else’s livestream video a copyright infringement?

According to Article 28 of the Intellectual Property Law, the act of using, copying, broadcasting, distributing, or re-posting a work without the owner’s consent is considered copyright infringement.

Specifically, downloading someone else’s livestream video and rebroadcasting it on social media platforms can be considered copyright infringement, especially when:

  • You do not have the consent of the original content creator.
  • The replayed video does not clearly state the source or does not cite the exact source.
  • You cut, edit to advertise, attract views or profit.
  • You use the video for commercial purposes such as selling, running ads, or making money from views.

Depending on the level of violation, the person rebroadcasting someone else’s livestream video can be subject to:

  • Administrative fines of 15 – 35 million VND according to Decree 17/2023/ND-CP.
  • Forced to remove the infringing video or compensate the copyright owner for damages.
  • Channel locked, video deleted or civil lawsuit if the act causes serious damage.

Thus, even if it is just “re-sharing” or “re-broadcasting for fun”, using someone else’s livestream video without permission still poses a great legal risk.

Is rebroadcasting someone else's livestream video a copyright infringement?

When is it allowed to re-broadcast someone else’s livestream?

Not all cases of re-broadcasting a livestream are violations. There are some legal exceptions that you can apply, as long as you comply with copyright regulations.

  • With explicit permission from the owner: If you have permission from the author, streamer or organizer (in writing or via a confirmation message), you can absolutely re-broadcast the video without breaking the law. This is the safest and most transparent way.
  • Livestreams in the public domain: Some content voluntarily placed in the public domain by government agencies, public organizations, or authors can be reused without permission. However, you should check the source carefully to avoid confusion.
  • Use within scope: In some cases, you can quote a part of the livestream content for illustration, commentary, or reporting as long as it does not affect the rights of the original author. For example: Reporters use a short livestream in a news report, lecturers replay a part for teaching purposes, commentators take a small excerpt to criticize or analyze the content. However, this does not allow replaying the entire livestream, especially if you repost it on your personal channel or use it for commercial purposes.

How to legally use other people’s livestream videos

To avoid copyright infringement when using or replaying other people’s livestream videos, you should follow some important principles below. These tips will not only help you protect yourself from legal risks, but also show respect for the creative rights of others in the online environment:

  • Always ask for permission before using videos, especially with streamers, brands, or channels with a large number of viewers.
  • Clearly state the source, author’s name or original link when sharing.
  • Do not edit, cut, or attach your own logo to other people’s videos.
  • Avoid rebroadcasting the original on your channel, unless you have permission to rebroadcast.
  • If you want to use the video as illustrative material, keep it short, clearly annotated, and do not commercialize the content.

Above is the article “Is rebroadcasting someone else’s livestream video a copyright infringement?” compiled and shared by VCD. Hopefully this information will help you better understand digital content copyright regulations and know how to use livestream videos legally and safely.

Sincerely,

If I just re-share the livestream on Facebook or YouTube using the “Share” button, is it a copyright violation?

No. When you properly use the sharing feature (Share) provided by the platform, you do not copy or replay the content, so you do not infringe copyright. However, if you download the video, replay it on your own account, or insert your logo or advertisement, it is considered copying and unauthorized use of the work, violating Article 28 of the Intellectual Property Law 2022.

Can I re-use part of someone else’s livestream video to illustrate in my video?

According to Article 25 of the Intellectual Property Law 2022, you are only allowed to reasonably quote someone else’s work on the condition that you clearly state the author’s name, source, and do not distort the content. Cutting, editing or using livestream excerpts for commercial purposes without permission from the owner is still considered copyright infringement and may be subject to penalties.

If someone hires someone to design a jewelry model, who owns the copyright?

Jewelry design is not only an art but also a valuable intellectual property. Many businesses, brands or individuals choose to hire a designer or a jewelry design unit instead of creating their own. However, when hiring a designer, who owns the copyright of the jewelry design, the hirer or the designer? Let’s find out more in the article below with VCD to avoid unnecessary legal risks.

  1. Are jewelry designs protected by copyright?

According to the Vietnamese Intellectual Property Law, works of applied art – including jewelry designs, accessories, and handicraft products – are all subject to copyright protection if they meet two conditions:

  • Have creativity and a unique mark, not copied from other works.
  • Expressed in a specific material form, such as a drawing, 3D model, CAD design or finished product sample.

Thus, each sketch, design drawing or jewelry sample is considered a creative work, and the creator will be recognized as the author by default by law, unless there is another agreement on ownership.

2. If someone hires someone to design a jewelry model, who owns the copyright?

This is a point that often causes confusion between “copyright” and “ownership of the work”. When you hire someone else to design jewelry, it is important to understand that: The person who directly creates the design (the designer) is still recognized by law as the author of the work. However, the copyright ownership, that is, the right to use, exploit, distribute or transfer the design, will belong to the lessee, if there is a contract between the two parties for hiring the creation of the work and it clearly stipulates the transfer of ownership.

This is specifically stipulated in Article 41 of the 2022 Intellectual Property Law: “The organization or individual to whom one, some or all of the rights are transferred as agreed in the contract is the copyright owner.”

If you hire a designer to create a jewelry design, you (the hirer) will be the copyright owner of that design if there is a written contract stating that all ownership of the work (including the right to copy, produce, and distribute) is transferred to you upon completion.

On the contrary, if there is no clear contract, the designer will still retain the copyright and ownership, while you only have the right to use the design within the scope of the verbal agreement or payment of the fee, which can easily lead to disputes later.

3. Risks of not clearly stating ownership in the design contract

In reality, many small businesses, workshops or individuals starting a business in the jewelry industry ignore this legal factor. The possible consequences of not clearly defining ownership in the design contract are:

  • The designer retains the right to publish or resell the design to others, because you do not have a document proving ownership.
  • The jewelry design is copied or copyrighted first, causing you to lose the right to exploit the product you ordered to design.
  • Difficulty in registering copyright or industrial design protection, because you cannot prove that you are the legal owner.
  • Commercial disputes occur when the design is used for mass production without a clear agreement on rights and profits.

Therefore, signing a detailed and legal design contract is mandatory if you want to protect your rights in the long term.

4. How to ensure copyright ownership when hiring a designer?

To avoid the above risks, businesses or individuals hiring designers should note the following important things:

  • Sign a clear contract with a clause on ownership transfer. The contract must clearly state that the designer creates the model according to the request of the lessee. After handover, all ownership and exploitation rights of the design belong to the lessee. The designer is not allowed to use, edit, resell or share the model with a third party.
  • Keep payment records and documents: Receipts, invoices, email exchanges, original sketches, etc. are evidence of the creative rental relationship, helping to protect your rights if a dispute arises.
  • Register copyright or industrial design early: After receiving the design, you should register for protection at the Copyright Office or the Intellectual Property Office. This helps confirm that you are the legal owner and have a clear legal basis when there is an act of copying or infringement.
  • Reuse or credit agreement: If you want to maintain a good working relationship, you can allow the designer to retain the right to credit the author, or display the design in a personal portfolio, as long as it is not used for commercial purposes.

Above is the article “If someone hires someone to design a jewelry model who owns the copyright?” compiled and shared by VCD. To avoid disputes and protect creative value, always sign a written contract, clearly stating rights and obligations, and register for protection for your designs early.

Sincerely,

What should a business do to ensure that it owns the copyright of a jewelry design after hiring a designer?

To ensure legal ownership, a business needs to:
*Sign a written design contract, which clearly stipulates:
– The designer transfers all property rights (copyrights, distribution, production, trade, etc.) to the business.
– The business has the exclusive right to use, register copyright, and commercially exploit that design.
– The remuneration, payment method, and time of transfer of ownership.
*Register copyright/design rights at the Copyright Office (Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism) as a legal basis in case of dispute.
*Keep design documents, contracts, and original products to prove ownership.

If a designer arbitrarily uses or resells a jewelry design designed for a business, is it considered a copyright infringement?

Yes. If the business has been transferred property rights under the contract, any act of using, copying, transferring, or reselling that design by the designer is considered an infringement of copyright under Article 28 of the Intellectual Property Law 2022.
Depending on the level of violation, the designer may be subject to administrative sanctions, civil compensation, or criminal prosecution if causing serious damage to the business.

Can an author authorize another person to register a copyright?

In reality, the author cannot always directly submit a copyright registration application for his work. For reasons of time, geography or to ensure the accuracy of the application, many people choose to authorize another organization or individual to carry out the procedure on their behalf. However, many people still wonder whether authorizing copyright registration is permitted by law or not? The following article from VCD will help you.

1.      What is authorization? How long is the authorization period?

Authorization is an agreement between the parties according to which the authorized party will be obliged to perform the work on behalf of the authorizing party.

Authorization is one of two forms of representation as prescribed by law, recognized in Article 135 of the 2015 Civil Code. Accordingly, the right of representation is established by authorization between the represented person and the representative (called authorized representation) or by decision of a competent state agency, according to the charter of the legal entity or according to the provisions of law (generally called legal representation).

Regarding the term, currently, the 2015 Civil Code does not specifically regulate the power of attorney, but regulates authorization through a contract.

According to Article 563 of the 2015 Civil Code, the term of authorization is agreed upon by the parties or prescribed by law; if there is no agreement and no provision of law, the authorization contract is valid for 01 year from the date of establishment of authorization.

Therefore, according to the above provisions, the term of the authorization contract is determined in three cases:

  • The authorization term is agreed upon by the parties;
  • The authorization term is prescribed by law;
  • If there is no agreement and no provision of law, the authorization contract is valid for 01 year from the date of establishment of the authorization.
Can an author authorize another person to register a copyright?

2.      Can the author authorize another person to register copyright?

According to the provisions of Clause 1, Article 50 of the 2005 Law on Intellectual Property (amended and supplemented in 2022), the author or copyright owner can directly submit the application for copyright registration or authorize another organization or individual to submit the application on their behalf. This authorization is permitted by law to facilitate the applicant, especially in cases where they cannot directly carry out the procedure at the competent authority.

Pursuant to Clause 6, Article 38 of Decree 17/2023/ND-CP, the authorization document must be made in writing and include the following basic contents:

  • Information of the authorizing party and the authorized person (full name, address, contact);
  • Specific name of the work authorized for registration (for example: musical, literary, fine art, photographic work, etc.);
  • Scope of authorization, clearly stating the authorized person is allowed to perform tasks such as submitting documents, signing, monitoring documents, receiving the Certificate of Copyright Registration;
  • Duration of authorization;
  • In case the authorizing party is an individual, the authorization document must have a notarized signature to ensure legality.

According to the provisions of Article 39 of Decree 17/2023/ND-CP, in addition to the registration form and a copy of the work, the copyright registration dossier must also include a power of attorney in case the applicant is not the author or direct owner. The copyright registration dossier includes:

  • Copyright registration form (according to the form issued by the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism);
  • Two copies of the registered work (printed or hard copy; if there is an electronic copy, submit the data file);
  • Power of attorney (if the dossier is submitted through a representative, and the signature must be certified if the authorized party is an individual);
  • Documents proving ownership of the work (such as citizen identification card, business registration certificate, transfer contract, inheritance document, or decision to assign creative tasks, etc.);
  • Written consent of co-authors (in case the work has two or more authors);
  • Written consent of co-owners (if the work has multiple owners);
  • Written consent of the person with the image if the work uses a personal image;
  • Documents in foreign languages ​​(if any) must be translated into Vietnamese and properly certified.

In reality, copyright registration often requires an understanding of legal regulations and experience in handling documents. Many individuals have difficulty determining the type of work, preparing documents proving ownership or explaining to competent authorities. Therefore, authorizing a specialized organization or individual to carry out the registration procedure not only saves time and effort, but also ensures that the documents are prepared in accordance with regulations and limits legal risks.

Above is the article “Can an author authorize another person to register copyright?” that VCD sends to you. We hope this article is useful to you.

Sincerely,

Frequently asked questions

What should an author do if he/she cannot submit the copyright application in person

Answer: In case the author cannot submit the application in person, he/she can authorize an individual or organization to provide consulting or services on copyright and related rights that have been recognized and permitted by the Copyright Office.

Does the authorization document between the author and the individual or organization receiving the authorization have to be notarized?

Answer: According to the provisions of Clause 6, Article 38 of Decree 17/2023, “In case the authorizing party is an individual, the authorization document must be authenticated in accordance with the provisions of law”, therefore, if the author authorizes another individual or organization, that document must be authenticated or notarized by a competent authority.