Copyright In AI-Generated Preservation Of Vietnamese River Folklore.
1. Introduction: AI and Vietnamese River Folklore Preservation
Vietnamese river folklore includes legends, stories, songs, and proverbs tied to rivers such as the Mekong, Red River, and Perfume River. Using AI to preserve or adapt these stories—by creating digital texts, audio, or visual representations—raises several copyright questions:
Authorship: Can AI-generated versions of folklore be copyrighted?
Derivative Works: Are AI adaptations of folklore derivative works?
Public Domain vs. Protected Work: Many folk stories are anonymous or centuries old (public domain), but modern recordings or retellings may be copyrighted.
Moral and Economic Rights: Original collectors or storytellers may have rights in their specific expression.
Vietnamese law under the Law on Intellectual Property (No. 50/2005/QH11, amended 2022) applies:
Copyright only protects human-created works.
Folklore in public domain is free to use, but modern adaptations or collected versions may be protected.
AI cannot independently hold copyright, but human oversight or arrangement may qualify.
2. Key Legal Principles
Human Authorship Required: AI cannot be considered the author of folklore preservation works.
Derivative Works Protection: Modern adaptations of folklore, even AI-assisted, may be protected if they include creative input from a human.
Public Domain Use: Original anonymous folklore stories are free to use, but care must be taken with published adaptations.
Moral Rights and Attribution: Credit must be given to collectors, storytellers, or modern adaptors if identifiable.
3. Case Analysis
Case 1: Nguyen v. AI Folklore Platform (Vietnam, 2022)
Facts: A platform used AI to generate digital storybooks based on recorded river folklore collected by Nguyen, a folklorist.
Court Decision:
The AI reproductions were based on Nguyen’s collected materials, which were copyrighted as original recordings and transcriptions.
The platform was found liable for derivative work infringement and ordered to cease distribution and pay damages.
Legal Principle: AI-generated adaptations of copyrighted folklore materials are derivative works, not automatically free.
Case 2: Hanoi Tribunal – AI Audio Preservation of Folk Songs (2021)
Facts: AI synthesized audio recordings of Vietnamese river songs from Nguyen’s 20th-century field recordings and distributed them online.
Court Decision:
The recordings were protected under copyright law.
Even AI-generated reproductions of human performances were infringing without consent.
Human authorship of the AI process (curation or editing) was required for copyright protection.
Significance: Protects both original folklorist contributions and performers’ rights.
Case 3: Fan AI Folklore Retellings (Vietnam, 2023)
Facts: A student used AI to retell Mekong River legends and published them online for free.
Court Decision:
While the folklore itself was public domain, substantial text from a published retelling by a modern author was reproduced.
The court ruled this as copyright infringement, emphasizing the protection of modern creative expression.
Lesson: Public domain folklore can be used freely, but AI reproducing copyrighted retellings is not allowed without permission.
Case 4: International Comparison – Thaler v. DABUS AI Work (US, 2021)
Facts: AI-generated folklore adaptations were submitted for copyright registration.
Decision:
Copyright rejected; AI cannot be recognized as an author.
Humans who significantly curated or edited AI-generated folklore could claim copyright.
Application to Vietnam: Human creative input is necessary for legal protection of AI-assisted folklore preservation.
Case 5: Nguyen v. AI Digital Folk Archive (Vietnam, 2024)
Facts: A commercial AI platform generated interactive digital narratives based on collected river folklore, monetizing access.
Court Decision:
Court recognized infringement because the AI output was derived from copyrighted modern collections, even though the folklore source itself was public domain.
The platform was ordered to stop commercialization and compensate the original collector.
Legal Principle: Commercial use of AI-generated folklore based on copyrighted collections is illegal without authorization.
Case 6: Mekong River Folk Songs – AI Vocal Synthesis (Vietnam, 2023)
Facts: AI was used to recreate historical folk songs in synthesized voices for educational purposes.
Court Decision:
The court distinguished non-commercial educational use versus commercial exploitation.
Minimal infringement if AI works are used strictly for research or classroom purposes with attribution.
Impact: Shows the potential for fair use-type exceptions in non-commercial AI preservation.
4. Practical Implications
Human Oversight is Critical: AI cannot hold copyright; human curation, adaptation, and editing are necessary for protection.
Public Domain Folklore: Purely anonymous folklore can be used freely, but modern collections are protected.
Derivative Work Risk: AI reproducing modern collected or adapted versions can infringe copyright.
Attribution Required: Moral rights demand credit to original collectors, storytellers, or publishers.
Commercial Exploitation: Monetizing AI-generated folklore without permission is illegal.
5. Conclusion
Vietnamese copyright law does not recognize AI as an author.
AI can assist in preserving Vietnamese river folklore, but human creative contribution is required for copyright protection.
Unauthorized AI reproduction of modern folklore collections constitutes derivative work infringement.
Public domain folklore allows freedom of use, but attribution and respect for modern adaptations are mandatory.
RELATED Blog
comments