Copyright In AI-Created Adaptations Of Neglected Vietnamese Legends.
I. Legal Status of Vietnamese Legends
1. Are “neglected” Vietnamese legends protected?
Most Vietnamese legends (e.g., Hùng Kings stories, Sơn Tinh – Thủy Tinh, Thánh Gióng, etc.) are:
Anonymous
Transmitted orally
Centuries old
Without identifiable authors
Under the Vietnamese Intellectual Property Law (2005, amended 2009, 2019, 2022):
Copyright lasts for life of author + 50 years.
For anonymous works: 75 years from first publication.
Folklore and traditional cultural expressions are generally considered part of the public cultural heritage.
Therefore:
Most traditional Vietnamese legends are in the public domain.
This means:
Anyone may adapt, rewrite, dramatize, illustrate, or reinterpret them.
No permission is required from an original author.
However:
⚠ The specific modern version of a legend (for example, a 1995 published literary adaptation) may still be protected if it shows original authorship.
II. AI-Generated Adaptations: Who Owns Copyright?
Vietnamese law requires:
A work must be directly created by a human author.
AI systems cannot be authors under current Vietnamese law.
Thus, we must analyze based on:
Level of human creative control
Degree of AI autonomy
Whether the output reflects human intellectual creation
III. Core Legal Issues in AI Adaptations
Is the legend public domain?
Is the AI output original?
Who qualifies as author?
Is it derivative of a protected modern adaptation?
Are moral rights implicated?
IV. Case Law Analysis (Comparative and Relevant)
Vietnam currently lacks direct AI copyright jurisprudence. Therefore, we look at influential international cases that shape legal reasoning.
1. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.
Legal Principle:
Originality requires:
Independent creation
Minimal degree of creativity
Facts:
Rural Telephone claimed copyright over its phone directory.
The Supreme Court held that mere listing of facts lacks creativity.
Application to Vietnamese Legends:
If AI:
Simply retells the legend verbatim
Rearranges traditional plot without creative additions
→ No new copyright.
But if AI (under human direction):
Adds new dialogue
Creates new characters
Reimagines narrative structure
→ It may satisfy originality threshold.
This case establishes the minimal creativity standard.
2. Naruto v. Slater
Legal Principle:
Non-humans cannot own copyright.
Facts:
A monkey took a selfie.
PETA argued the monkey owned copyright.
Court ruled only humans can be authors.
Application:
If an AI system autonomously generates an adaptation of:
“Sơn Tinh – Thủy Tinh”
without meaningful human involvement,
→ No copyright exists.
If a human:
Designs prompt
Edits output
Controls narrative direction
→ Human may claim authorship.
This case is critical in AI authorship analysis.
3. Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents
(Note: Later overturned, but reasoning remains influential.)
Legal Issue:
Can AI be an inventor/author?
Initial ruling: Yes.
Appeal: No — AI cannot legally hold rights.
Application:
Vietnamese courts are highly likely to follow the global consensus:
AI cannot be legal author.
Thus:
The programmer?
The user?
The person selecting output?
Authorship will depend on creative contribution.
4. Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forening
Legal Principle:
A work must reflect the “author’s own intellectual creation.”
Importance:
This is the dominant EU originality test.
If a human uses AI to:
Intentionally reshape the legend
Express personal creative choices
Modify structure, tone, and interpretation
Then the output reflects intellectual creation.
If AI randomly produces content without human shaping,
then no copyright.
5. Nova Productions Ltd v. Mazooma Games Ltd
Facts:
Players in a video game claimed copyright over gameplay visuals.
Court ruled:
The programmer — not player — was the author because player input did not create expressive content.
Application:
If a user merely types:
“Rewrite Thánh Gióng as sci-fi”
and AI autonomously generates full story,
→ User may not qualify as author.
But if user:
Iteratively revises
Selects plot directions
Edits substantially
→ Authorship may arise.
This case is key in determining control vs. automation.
6. Acohs Pty Ltd v. Ucorp Pty Ltd
Legal Principle:
Computer-generated documents with minimal human intellectual input lack authorship.
Court held:
Automated system output is not protected if no human author is identifiable.
Application:
Fully automated AI retelling of:
“Hùng Vương founding legend”
→ Likely no copyright.
7. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony
Legal Principle:
A photograph is protected because photographer made creative choices.
This is foundational to modern authorship law.
Application:
If AI user:
Selects artistic direction
Controls tone
Designs narrative reinterpretation
Edits final output
→ Comparable to photographer directing camera.
Thus, copyright likely vests in human.
V. Specific Scenarios in Vietnamese Context
Scenario 1:
AI rewrites a traditional public domain legend with no human editing.
Result:
Likely no copyright.
Scenario 2:
Author uses AI as drafting assistant, then substantially edits.
Result:
Human author owns copyright in new expression.
Scenario 3:
AI adaptation closely resembles a protected 2005 modern literary version.
Result:
Potential infringement of derivative work.
Scenario 4:
AI adaptation changes legend into:
Cyberpunk novel
Animated screenplay
Graphic novel with new characters
Result:
If sufficiently original → protectable derivative adaptation.
VI. Moral Rights in Vietnam
Vietnam strongly protects moral rights:
Right of attribution
Right to integrity of work
Right to publish
Even if economic rights expire, moral rights can be perpetual.
Thus:
If adapting culturally sensitive legend (e.g., sacred myth of Hùng Kings),
distortion that harms cultural dignity could raise ethical or policy issues.
However, folklore itself typically does not have an individual moral rights holder.
VII. Public Domain Does NOT Mean Free of All Risk
Risks include:
Using protected illustrations
Copying modern translations
Replicating modern academic commentary
Cultural heritage regulations
Misleading attribution
VIII. Ownership Matrix
| Situation | Copyright? | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| AI alone creates adaptation | Likely no | None |
| Human heavily edits AI draft | Yes | Human |
| AI adapts modern copyrighted version | Infringement risk | Original author |
| Human reimagines legend using AI tool | Yes (if original) | Human |
IX. Key Legal Conclusion
Under current law:
Traditional Vietnamese legends are public domain.
AI cannot be an author.
Human creative control determines ownership.
Minimal creativity is sufficient.
Fully automated AI output likely lacks protection.
Modern protected adaptations must not be copied.
X. Future Legal Uncertainty
Vietnam may eventually:
Introduce sui generis AI rights
Recognize AI-assisted works explicitly
Clarify authorship thresholds
But today, the legal framework relies on:
Human intellectual creation doctrine.
RELATED Blog
comments