Author: Editor VCD

In creative activities, many people often assume that the person who directly creates a work is automatically the copyright owner of that work. However, according to Vietnamese law, this understanding is not entirely accurate. Copyright law clearly distinguishes between the author and the copyright owner, and these two entities do not always coincide. So, is the author automatically the copyright owner? This article by VCD will help you.

The author and the copyright owner are two different entities according to the law

According to intellectual property law, the concepts of author and copyright owner are defined with different legal meanings. Specifically, according to Clause 1, Article 13 of the current Intellectual Property Law, an author is a person who directly creates all or part of a work. Meanwhile, according to Article 36 of the Intellectual Property Law, the copyright owner is the organization or individual holding the property rights to the work. This shows that the creator of the work is not necessarily the one who has the right to exploit the full economic value of the work.

Distinguishing between these two entities is important in practice, because if ownership is determined solely based on the creative element, it can lead to misinterpretations of the law. In reality, when determining rights to a work, it is necessary to consider all factors such as:

• The circumstances surrounding the creation of the work

• The relationship between the creator and the related organization

• Agreements or contracts that have been signed

These factors can change the subject of ownership of property rights to the work, even though the creator is still identified as the author.

Is the author automatically the copyright owner?

When is the author also the owner?

In many cases, the author is the copyright owner, especially when the creation is independent. According to Article 39 of the Intellectual Property Law, an organization or individual who directly creates a work through their own efforts and expenses is the copyright owner of that work, unless otherwise agreed. This regulation reflects the fundamental principle of copyright law, which is that the person who invests effort and expense in creating the work is entitled to the right to exploit it.

Generally, the author is also the copyright owner in the following cases:

• The work was created independently, not as part of an assigned task.

•  There is no commission or employment contract requiring the creation of the work.

• There is no agreement to transfer the property rights to another party.

In these cases, the author has full rights to the work, including the right to publish the work, allow others to use it, transfer the rights, or exploit the work for economic gain. For example, if an individual writes a book in their spare time using personal means, not at the request of any organization, then that person is both the author and the copyright owner of the book. However, this ownership is not immutable, because if the author later signs a contract transferring the property rights as stipulated in Article 45 of the Intellectual Property Law, the owner of the property rights may change.

In which cases is the author not simultaneously the copyright owner?

Besides cases of independent creation, the law also recognizes many situations where the author is not the owner of the property rights to the work. According to Articles 39 and 40 of the Intellectual Property Law, copyright ownership may belong to another organization or individual when a work is created under assignment or contract.

Specifically, the author may not be the owner in the following cases:

Works created under assignment for an agency or organization:

When an employee creates a work as part of an assigned task during their work, the organization assigning the task is usually the owner of the property rights to the work, unless otherwise agreed. In this case, the employee is still identified as the author according to Clause 1, Article 13 of the Intellectual Property Law, but the right to commercially exploit the work belongs to the organization.

Works created under a contract:

When an individual or organization undertakes a creative work under a contract, ownership of the intellectual property rights is determined according to the contract’s terms, in accordance with Article 40 of the Intellectual Property Law. If the contract stipulates that the commissioning party is the owner, then the author only retains the status of the creator.

Author transferring intellectual property rights to another party:

According to Article 45 of the Intellectual Property Law, intellectual property rights to a work can be transferred to another organization or individual. After the transfer is completed, the transferee becomes the owner of the intellectual property rights, and the author no longer has the right to commercially exploit the work.

These cases show that determining copyright ownership is not only based on the creative element but also depends on the legal relationship between the parties.

Above is the article “Is the author automatically the copyright owner?” that VCD sent to you. We hope this article is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

FAQ

Using free online templates for work or business is becoming a common trend, especially in the fields of design and online marketing. However, many people mistakenly believe that anything “free” can be freely downloaded, edited, and resold to others. In reality, each template comes with its own rules regarding usage, and if you don’t understand them, you might be penalized. So, is reselling free templates subject to penalties? Let’s explore this in detail in the article below.

What are free online templates and are they truly “completely free”?

Free templates are design templates that are publicly shared on internet platforms, allowing users to download and use them without any initial payment. These templates are often provided by:

• Individual designers who want to share their work

• Businesses using them for brand marketing

• Design platforms that provide resources to users

Common template types include:

• Website templates (HTML, WordPress, landing pages)

• PowerPoint templates, Google Slides templates

• Canva templates, advertising banners

• CV templates, personal portfolio templates

• Graphic design templates (PSD, AI, Figma)

However, it’s important to understand that “free” doesn’t mean you have unlimited rights to use them as you wish. Most templates come with a license that specifies:

• Scope of use (personal or commercial)

• Modification rights

• Redistribution or resale rights

Therefore, understanding the license correctly is crucial in determining whether your actions are legal.

Will reselling free templates online result in penalties?

Reselling free templates online can be penalized or completely legal, depending on the type of license that comes with the template. Each license clearly defines the scope of rights a user is allowed to exploit, including personal use, commercial use, modification, redistribution, or resale. Therefore, to determine whether your actions violate the law, each case needs to be considered specifically below.

Cases where reselling free templates online is not penalized

You will not violate the law if the template falls into one of the following categories:

Templates with licenses allowing commercial use and resale

Some templates are released with commercial use licenses. In these cases, you can use the template to create business products, modify, adapt the content, and even resell it if you have a clear license.

However, it’s important to note that each type of license may come with its own conditions, such as not being allowed to be sold in its original form, requiring significant modifications, or not being allowed to be redistributed for free. Therefore, you should not only read but also thoroughly understand the license content before using it.

Public domain templates

Templates in the public domain are public property and are no longer protected by copyright. Therefore, you have the full right to copy, modify, distribute, and resell them without permission. This is a completely safe legal situation.

Reselling free templates online can Lead to penalties

Conversely, you may face administrative penalties or even lawsuits if you use a template in violation of regulations.

Reselling templates is not allowed

Many free templates only allow personal or commercial use but not resale.

If you download a template, you are essentially keeping the content intact and then reselling it to others. This behavior is considered copyright infringement, specifically the infringement of the right to copy and distribute the work.

According to Article 20 of the Vietnamese Intellectual Property Law, the owner has the right to: copy the work; distribute and communicate the work to the public.

Furthermore, Article 28 of the Vietnamese Intellectual Property Law stipulates that copyright infringement includes: copying the work without permission, and distributing copies of the work without the owner’s consent.

Therefore, if you resell the template without permission, you are directly violating these rights.

Penalties for reselling free templates online

According to Decree 131/2013/ND-CP on administrative penalties for violations in the field of copyright and related rights, the act of copying and distributing templates without permission from the copyright owner can be subject to quite severe penalties. Specifically, violators may be fined from 10 million VND to 35 million VND depending on the nature, extent, and consequences of the act, especially in cases where the act is commercial in nature or is committed repeatedly.

Beyond monetary penalties, infringing individuals or organizations may also face mandatory remedial measures, including the removal of all infringing content from platforms where it was posted or sold, and the destruction of infringing template copies to completely cease copyright infringement. In cases where actual damages are caused to the copyright owner, the infringer may also be required to compensate for the corresponding damages as stipulated by civil law.

Notably, if the infringement is large-scale, seriously affecting the legitimate rights and interests of the copyright owner, or results in significant illicit gains, in addition to administrative penalties, the infringer may face civil lawsuits in court, potentially resulting in compensation claims far exceeding the initial administrative fines. This could lead to additional legal costs and negatively impact personal reputation or long-term business operations.

How to use free templates legally and safely?

To avoid unnecessary legal risks, you need to apply some important principles below when using free templates.

• Always carefully check the license: This is a mandatory step before downloading and using any template. If the license information is not clearly visible, it is best not to use it for commercial purposes.

• Do not resell the original template: Even if it is permitted for commercial use, you should still make significant edits to the content, colors, and layout, turning the template into a completely new product.

• Prioritize reputable sources: Download templates from official websites, large design platforms, and sources with transparent information. Avoid using files shared from unreliable sources or download links with unclear origins.

• Invest for the long term: Design it yourself or purchase a license if you plan on long-term business. This is a way to avoid legal risks, build a sustainable brand, and increase product value.

The above is an article titled “Is it illegal to resell free templates found online to others?”. As you can see, using free templates isn’t simply a matter of downloading and using them freely; it always comes with specific regulations regarding usage and commercial exploitation rights.

Sincerely,

FAQ

Using data to train AI models is becoming a global trend, especially in fields like facial recognition, image processing, and deepfake content creation. However, a crucial question arises: is using real-life photos to train AI a copyright violation? Let’s explore this in the article below!

What is using real-life photos to train AI?

“Training AI” is the process of providing data to a machine learning model so that it learns to recognize, analyze, or create new content. In this context, real-life photos are often used as input data for AI to learn characteristics such as:

• Face, expression

• Gender, age

• Behavior, gestures

• Image style

Examples:

• AI facial recognition requires millions of photos to distinguish between person A and person B

• AI image creation (like deepfake) requires original data to recreate the face of a specific person

It’s undeniable that the “smarter” the AI, the more diverse and authentic the input data needs to be. Therefore, real-life photos offer many advantages such as high accuracy, richness in shooting angles, lighting, context, and expression. However, it is precisely because of this value that many individuals and businesses have collected and used photos in bulk without fully assessing the potential legal consequences.

Does using real-life photos to train AI violate copyright?

The use of real-life images to train AI cannot be definitively judged as right or wrong; it depends heavily on the data source and the purpose of exploitation. To accurately assess this issue from a legal perspective, two important aspects must be considered simultaneously: copyright over the photograph and the rights to the personal image of the person appearing in the photograph.

Are real-life photos protected by copyright?

According to the Vietnamese Intellectual Property Law, photographs can be protected by copyright if they meet the conditions of being a creative work.

Specifically, Clause 1, Article 14 of the Intellectual Property Law clearly states: “Photographic works are one of the types of works protected by copyright.”

This means that most photographs, including real-life photos, can be considered photographic works, and the photographer or the legal owner of the photograph will hold copyright over that work.

Furthermore, Article 20 of the Intellectual Property Law also stipulates the property rights of the owner of a work, including important rights such as:

• The right to copy the work in any form

• The right to distribute and import the original or copies of the work

• The right to communicate the work to the public

In this context, using images to train AI can essentially be considered “data copying,” because you are feeding images into the system for processing, storage, and analysis. If this is done without the owner’s permission, it can be considered copyright infringement.

Rights to personal images

Besides copyright, another important legal aspect to consider is the right to personal images, as stipulated in the Vietnamese Civil Code.

According to Article 32 of the 2015 Civil Code, the law clearly states: “The use of an individual’s image must be with their consent.”

This regulation shows that even if you have the right to use the image (for example, you have purchased the stock image or have been granted copyright), using the image of the person appearing in the image still requires their consent, especially in cases of commercial use or where it may affect their honor or dignity.

Therefore, if you use real people’s images to train AI without their consent, you may be violating their personal rights, even if you are not violating copyright in the traditional sense.

Cases where using real-person photos to train AI does not violate copyright

Not all cases of using real-person photos to train AI violate the law. In fact, you can absolutely use the data legally if it falls under one of the following cases:

First, the image is in the public domain

These are works whose copyright protection has expired or whose owners have relinquished their rights. In this case, you can freely use them without permission.

Second, the image has a clear usage license

Many platforms provide images with licenses such as Creative Commons (CC0, CC BY…), allowing use for various purposes, including AI training, as long as the license conditions are complied with.

Third, with the owner’s permission

This is the safest legal way, when you sign a contract or have written consent from the image owner or the person in the image to use the data for AI training purposes.

Fourth, use within the scope of research and teaching (with limitations)

According to Article 25 of the Intellectual Property Law, the law allows the use of works without permission in certain special cases such as scientific research or teaching, provided it is not for commercial purposes and the source is clearly stated.

However, it is important to note that if you initially use the data for research purposes but then commercialize the AI ​​product (e.g., selling software, providing services), this act may still be considered copyright infringement without legal permission.

The above is an article titled “Is using real people’s photos to train AI a copyright violation?”. It can be seen that using images to train AI is a complex issue, not only involving technological factors but also closely related to legal regulations on copyright and personal image rights. In the context of data becoming an increasingly important “digital asset,” all actions involving the collection, exploitation, and use of images need careful consideration to avoid unnecessary legal risks.

Sincerely,

FAQ

In the age of AI explosion, creating deepfake videos of celebrities is no longer uncommon. With just a few simple tools, anyone can “transform” the face and voice of a singer, actor, or KOL into any content. However, many people wonder if creating deepfake videos of celebrities is punishable. Let’s find out in the article below!

What is Deepfake?

Deepfake is a technology that applies artificial intelligence (AI), especially deep learning techniques, to create fake videos, images, or sounds with extremely high realism. This technology can “swap” a person’s face and voice onto completely different content, making it difficult for viewers to distinguish between real and fake with the naked eye.

With just a relatively small amount of input data, such as portraits, short videos, or voice samples, current AI tools can create deepfake videos with incredible accuracy. Therefore, deepfakes are becoming increasingly popular in content creation, entertainment, and marketing.

However, precisely because of their “realistic” nature, deepfakes pose serious legal risks. Specifically:

• Deepfakes can infringe on the honor, dignity, and reputation of individuals by superimposing images of others onto false or offensive content.

• They can be exploited for fraud and property theft, especially in scenarios where celebrities are impersonated to solicit investments or sales.

• They can cause misinformation, distort viewers’ perceptions, and affect social order.

It is noteworthy that Vietnamese law currently lacks a specific legal document directly regulating “deepfakes.” However, this does not mean that this behavior is beyond control. On the contrary, the current legal system, such as the Cybersecurity Law, the Civil Code, the Criminal Code, and the Intellectual Property Law, has sufficient grounds to handle the misuse of deepfakes.

Is creating deepfake videos of celebrities punishable?

In reality, whether or not creating deepfake videos of celebrities is punishable is not applied rigidly, but depends on the purpose of use, the content expressed, and the extent of the impact the act has on individuals, organizations, and society.

Case 1: Creating deepfake videos of celebrities is punishable

Besides creative applications, using deepfakes for malicious purposes or causing negative impacts can lead to legal penalties. In fact, most risks associated with deepfakes stem from the misuse of celebrity images without permission or for illegitimate purposes. Below are some typical cases that are easily punishable under Vietnamese law:

Using deepfakes to defame or insult the honor of celebrities

One of the most common acts is creating deepfake videos to falsely accuse celebrities of making shocking statements, fabricating scandals, and damaging their image and reputation.

According to Article 8 of the 2018 Cybersecurity Law, the act of posting false, distorted, slanderous, or insulting information about the honor and reputation of individuals is strictly prohibited.

Examples:

• Creating deepfake videos that make celebrities make “shocking statements”

• Fabricating sensitive clips to gain views and attention

In these cases, even if only for “entertainment” purposes, the perpetrator can still be punished if it causes negative impact.

Using deepfakes for advertising and illegally profiting

Exploiting the images of celebrities to advertise products using deepfakes is a serious violation of personal image rights.

Specifically:

• Adding the faces of KOLs and artists to advertising videos without their consent

• Creating “fake review” clips to increase product credibility

• Using deepfakes to sell goods and make profits

According to Decree 15/2020/ND-CP, the act of providing or sharing false or misleading information can be fined from 10 to 20 million VND and the infringing content must be removed. In addition, the infringed party has the right to claim compensation for damages as stipulated in the Civil Code.

Creating deepfakes for fraudulent purposes

This is the most dangerous case and can be subject to criminal prosecution. Common behaviors include:

• Impersonating celebrities to solicit investments and donations

• Using deepfake videos to gain trust and steal assets

• Impersonating KOLs to lure viewers into financial activities

In this case, the offender may be prosecuted under:

• Fraudulent appropriation of property (Article 174 of the Penal Code)

• Penalties can range from imprisonment depending on the amount stolen

At that point, deepfake is no longer a tool for entertainment, but becomes a means of committing crimes.

Disseminating deepfake content that negatively impacts society

Not only the creator, but also those who distribute or share deepfake videos can be prosecuted if the content causes public panic, affects social order, and spreads fake news online. According to the law, the act of sharing false information online is also subject to similar penalties as the creator of the content.

Case 2: Creating Deepfake Videos of Celebrities Without Penalties

Not all deepfake videos are considered illegal. In fact, there are cases where this technology is used legally, under control, and without negative consequences. However, for “legal safety,” content creators need to understand the following conditions.

Entertainment and creative purpose (with control)

Deepfakes can be used in the entertainment and content creation fields if they are transparent and do not cause misunderstanding.

Specifically:

• Videos that are parody, meme, or humorous for entertainment purposes, not offensive.

• Content must be clearly simulated and not lead viewers to believe it is a real statement or action by a celebrity.

• Deepfakes must not be used to defame, insult, or create a fabricated scandal.

For example: A video superimposing a celebrity’s face into a humorous situation, with clear captions and without distorting the individual’s image, may be considered acceptable.

However, it’s important to note: even a small misleading detail can turn content from “entertainment” to “violation.”

Consent of the person whose image is used is required.

This is the most important factor in making a deepfake video legal. In the following cases, creating a deepfake video will not be penalized because it does not infringe on the individual’s image rights.

• Advertising collaborations must have clear contractual agreements.

• Use of images in licensed art, film, and media projects is permitted.

• Written consent or authorization from the celebrity is required.

In reality, many marketing campaigns now use AI to recreate images of celebrities, but this is always accompanied by permission and strict content control.

Transparent and harmless content

A deepfake video is considered “safe” when it ensures transparency and does not negatively impact society.

Specifically:

• Clear annotations such as: “simulated content,” “AI-generated,” “deepfake”

• Does not spread false or misleading information

• Does not serve the purpose of profiteering, fraud, or manipulation of perception

Transparency helps viewers understand the true nature of the content, thereby minimizing legal risks for the creator. Although there are cases where no penalties are imposed, the line between legality and violation in deepfake technology is very thin.

A video might initially be purely for entertainment, but if it spreads widely and is misinterpreted, it can still be subject to legal action. Therefore, when using deepfake, especially with celebrities, content creators need to prioritize ethical and legal factors, always checking the impact before posting. In other words, deepfake itself isn’t wrong, but how you use it is what determines whether you violate the law.

The above is an article titled “Is creating deepfake videos of celebrities punishable?”. Hopefully, the information above has helped you understand the legal boundaries when using deepfake technology in practice.

Sincerely,

FAQ

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

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

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

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

Using KOLs in advertising offers several clear benefits:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is using KOLs’ images for advertising when collaborating illegal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

FAQ

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

The concept of a content editor in the field of copyright

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

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

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

Legal regulations on the conditions for recognizing ruthorship of a work

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

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

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

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

Can someone who edits content be considered an author?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some notes on determining copyright for edited content

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

FAQ