Copyright In AI-Generated Vietnamese Advertising Taglines
1. Core Legal Question
When an AI system generates a Vietnamese advertising tagline, who (if anyone) owns copyright?
Under most copyright regimes—including Vietnam, the U.S., the U.K., and the EU—copyright protects original works created by human authors. AI-generated content raises three central issues:
Authorship – Is there a human author?
Originality – Does the work reflect human intellectual creativity?
Ownership – If protectable, who owns it (advertiser, agency, AI user, or AI developer)?
Vietnamese advertising taglines are usually short phrases (e.g., “Chạm là yêu” or “Sống trọn từng khoảnh khắc”). Short slogans face an additional challenge: many jurisdictions consider very brief phrases insufficiently original.
Let’s analyze this through case law.
I. United States Case Law
1. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Legal Principle
The Court established the modern originality standard:
The work must be independently created by a human author.
It must contain at least a minimal degree of creativity.
Application to AI Vietnamese Taglines
If an AI independently generates:
“Tinh hoa vị Việt”
The key question becomes:
Did a human exercise creative control?
Or was the AI output automatic?
Under Feist, originality requires human intellectual creation. If a human merely presses “generate,” that may not meet the standard.
Thus:
Minimal human editing → weak claim
Substantial rewriting/selection → stronger claim
2. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony (1884)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Legal Principle
A photograph is protected because the photographer made creative decisions (pose, lighting, arrangement).
Importance for AI Content
This case is often cited to show:
Human creative control = authorship.
If a Vietnamese marketing team:
Designs prompts carefully,
Iterates 20 times,
Selects one tagline,
Refines tone and rhythm,
Then their role resembles Sarony’s creative control over the photograph.
If AI merely produces random outputs and no meaningful human creative judgment is applied → no copyright.
3. Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023)
Court: U.S. District Court (affirmed by U.S. Court of Appeals 2025)
Facts
Stephen Thaler tried to register artwork created solely by an AI system (“Creativity Machine”).
Holding
The court ruled:
Copyright requires human authorship.
Purely AI-generated works are not copyrightable in the U.S.
Impact on Vietnamese Advertising Taglines
If a Vietnamese company uses AI to produce:
“Vươn xa cùng tương lai”
And no human creatively shapes it, under U.S. law:
No copyright.
Anyone could reuse it.
However, if humans modify structure, rhythm, word choice:
It may become protectable.
4. Naruto v. Slater (2018) – The “Monkey Selfie” Case
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Facts
A monkey took a selfie using a photographer’s camera.
Holding
Non-humans cannot own copyright.
Relevance to AI
AI is legally treated like the monkey:
It cannot be an author.
It cannot own copyright.
This reinforces:
No human → no copyright.
Applied to Vietnamese advertising slogans, AI alone cannot claim authorship.
II. United Kingdom Case Law & Statute
5. Nova Productions Ltd v. Mazooma Games Ltd (2007)
Court: UK Court of Appeal
Facts
Concerned computer-generated frames in video games.
Holding
The author of computer-generated works is:
The person who makes the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work.
Statutory Context
Under UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Section 9(3)):
For computer-generated works:
The author is the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.
Application to Vietnamese AI Taglines
If a UK-style rule were applied:
The marketing strategist crafting prompts could be the author.
Even if AI autonomously generated the text.
This differs from U.S. law.
Vietnam does not explicitly adopt this UK approach, but it may influence comparative reasoning.
III. European Union Case Law
6. Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forening (2009)
Court: Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
Legal Principle
A work is protected if it reflects:
The author’s own intellectual creation.
Even 11-word extracts may be protected if sufficiently original.
Application to Vietnamese Taglines
Example tagline:
“Hương vị gắn kết triệu con tim”
If:
The structure reflects creative choice,
The expression is not purely generic,
It may satisfy EU originality standards.
However:
If AI generated it automatically without human creative imprint → not protected.
7. Painer v. Standard Verlags GmbH (2011)
Court: CJEU
Legal Principle
Originality depends on:
Free and creative choices.
Personal touch of the author.
AI Context
If a Vietnamese copywriter:
Adjusts tone to cultural nuances,
Crafts rhyme and rhythm in Vietnamese,
Intentionally selects symbolic words,
Then originality exists.
If AI randomly outputs text → no “personal touch.”
IV. Asian Perspective
8. Shenzhen Tencent v. Shanghai Yingxun (2019, China)
Court: Shenzhen Nanshan District Court
Facts
An AI system generated a financial news article.
Holding
The court recognized copyright because:
Human developers designed the system.
The system reflected intellectual investment and human input.
Significance
China has shown greater openness to protecting AI-assisted works.
For Vietnamese businesses operating in China:
AI-generated taglines may receive more favorable treatment.
V. Vietnamese Copyright Law Context
Under the Law on Intellectual Property of Vietnam (2005, amended 2022):
Protected works must be:
Literary, artistic, scientific works
Created directly by the author’s intellectual labor
Vietnamese law emphasizes “directly created by the author.”
Thus:
| Scenario | Likely Protection in Vietnam |
|---|---|
| AI fully automatic tagline | Not protected |
| Human edits AI output significantly | Likely protected |
| Human only selects from AI outputs | Uncertain |
| Human crafts detailed prompts + revises heavily | Stronger claim |
Short advertising slogans may also face rejection for:
Lack of originality
Being common phrases
VI. Key Legal Themes Across Cases
Across Feist, Burrow-Giles, Thaler, Naruto, Nova, Infopaq, Painer, Tencent, five principles emerge:
1. Human authorship is central (U.S., EU, Vietnam).
2. Minimal creativity is sufficient—but must be human.
3. Pure AI generation = no copyright (U.S. approach).
4. Some jurisdictions allow computer-generated works (UK model).
5. Short phrases require heightened originality.
VII. Practical Legal Strategy for Vietnamese Companies
If using AI for advertising taglines:
✔ Keep records of:
Prompt drafting
Human revisions
Brainstorm iterations
Creative discussions
✔ Ensure:
Substantial human rewriting
Cultural nuance added manually
Rhythmic or poetic elements crafted by humans
✔ Consider:
Trademark registration (often stronger protection for slogans than copyright)
VIII. Conclusion
For AI-generated Vietnamese advertising taglines:
U.S. law: No human = no copyright (Thaler, Naruto).
EU law: Requires intellectual creation (Infopaq, Painer).
UK law: More flexible for computer-generated works (Nova Productions).
China: More willing to recognize AI-assisted works (Tencent case).
Vietnam: Likely requires direct human intellectual creation.
The decisive factor is human creative control.
Without it, AI-generated taglines—no matter how clever—likely fall into the public domain in many jurisdictions.
RELATED Blog
comments