Page 172 - AC-3-2

Arts & Communication Copyright protection for AI-generated works

intellectual property system is to grant rights to human international treaties to which Vietnam is a member state,
creators, encouraging creativity and innovation. 6 such as the BC, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects
As a result, the majority of the criticism against of Intellectual Property Rights, the European Union–
authorial recognition is grounded in the belief that “non- Vietnam Free Trade Agreement, the Comprehensive and
human authorship” should not exist. However, these Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and
7
critics do not suggest that AI-generated works should the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
remain unprotected. The prevailing view is that a sui Copyright Treaty. This work also reviewed the laws of the
generis approach would be the most appropriate solution. United States and the United Kingdom – two countries
with the most relevant regulations on copyright for
Thus, there remains potential for protecting AI-generated works. Precedents were also considered
AI-generated works under copyright. Davies argued that AI to clarify and contextualize the viewpoints reflected in
is more than a mere tool and continues to evolve, meaning recent legal frameworks regarding copyright protection
that current law provisions may be insufficient to govern for AI-generated works. A comparative examination
the new works created by AI as it advances . China made of Vietnam’s copyright law was also conducted. This
2 8
a significant move in this direction, granting copyright comparison provides insights into how Vietnam’s current
protection to an AI-generated text, which surprised the approach differs from global trends, serving as a foundation
global community . for synthesizing potential solutions moving forward.
3 9
2. Analytical approach to literature and 3. Analysis outcome and discussion on
other source materials on copyright law Vietnamese and global trends in copyright

The paper primarily adopts a traditional legal research laws
method (doctrinal research), focusing on analysis,
synthesis, and comparative approaches. Through the review process employing doctrinal research
methodology, the paper has identified key insights and
To determine how recent legal frameworks address the trends.
controversy surrounding AI-generated works, the current
work studied international treaties, national laws, and 3.1. Copyright protection rather than patent
precedents as key source materials. In addition, academic protection
articles and other relevant sources provided important At present, there are two approaches to intellectual
information that helped achieve the paper’s objectives. property rights protection for works created by AI:
Specifically, this paper reviewed the regulations on patent protection and copyright protection. The trend of
copyright protection for AI-generated works, starting with protecting AI-generated works through patent rights is
gaining more support due to its perceived advantages over
copyright protection.
8
2 Davies . Introduction:…. The modern artificial intelligent
computer is substantially more than a tool and accordingly However, meeting the requirements for patent
those provisions are no longer valid. Alternatives need to be protection poses significant challenges for AI-generated
considered…. works. One key requirement for patent protection is that
3 Shenzhen Tencent Computer. Sys. Co. v. Shanghai Yingxun “the work” must demonstrate “novelty.” According to
Tech. Co. In Shenzhen Tencent v. Shanghai Yingxun, the
9
Court ruled that the content generated by Dreamwriter WIPO, novelty is defined as the requirement that “the
software constituted a written work. However, it did not invention must show some new characteristic that is not
depart from the general legal principle that a work must known in the body of knowledge that existed before the
result from the author’s intellectual creation. To justify that filing date (or the priority date).” This body of knowledge
10
the AI-generated content qualified as a work, the Court is referred to as “prior art.” Thus, when assessing whether
emphasized that the article in question was produced by an invention is novel, it is necessary to examine whether
the creative team of the plaintiff Shenzhen Tencent using the foundational materials used to create the invention are
Dreamwriter software. The team’s intellectual activities, already widely known to the public and exist as prior art.
such as selecting data inputs, setting trigger conditions, and In the case of AI-generated works, the process of creation
choosing templates and corpus styles, were directly linked
to the article’s specific expression. The presentation of the begins either with the operator entering input data into the
article reflected the creative choices and arrangements made AI system, from which the AI automatically synthesizes a
by the plaintiff’s team, demonstrating a degree of originality new work, or with the AI itself, utilizing machine learning,
that qualified the work for protection under China’s accessing, and processing vast amounts of publicly available
copyright law. data from the internet.

Volume 3 Issue 2 (2025) 3 doi: 10.36922/ac.3745