• Give titles to their works
• Attach their real names or pseudonyms to their works
• Publish their works
• Protect the integrity of their works

• Make derivative
• Reproduce works
• Display their works to the public
• Communicate their works to the public
• Distribute or import the original or copies of their works
• Lease the original or copies of cinematographic works and computer programs

• Legal arguments: article 28.6, .7 and .8
• Factual arguments: the similarity between 11,500 lines of Android code and Java SE declaring code, i.e. they are both expressed in the same form of computer codes.

• Oracle and Google can go into mediation to resolve the conflict.
• If unable to solve the conflict, Oracle can request for a portion of Google's revenue out of the distribution of Android. 
• "Fair use" consideration.

2. Background:

• The right to give titles to their works
• The right to attach their real names or pseudonyms to their works
• The right to publish their works
• The right to protect the integrity of their works

• The right to reproduce works
• The right to make derivatives
• The right to display their works to the public
• The right to communicate their works to the public
• The right to distribute or import the original or copies of their works
• The right to lease the original or copies of cinematographic works and computer programs.

3. Case description: 

• Reproduced works & made derivatives. These are the economic rights of Phan Thi, Ltd., so there are no infringements, but they also...
• Modified, edited, and distorted a work. These are infringements of Mr. Le Linh’s moral rights (Art. 28, Vietnam IP Law).

4. Keypoints:

5. Result/Recommendation

1. Recognition of Mr. Le Linh as the sole author who created the image of 4 characters: Ti, Ox, Dan, Meo also known as Trang Ti, Suu Oo, Dan Beo, Ca Meo.
2. Phan Thi Company stopped exploiting these characters in subsequent works for infringing on the integrity of the work.
3. Apologize to the author publicly for giving false information about Ms. Phan Thi My Hanh's co-authorship, misleading the public.
4. Phan Thi Company indemnified 15 million VND for Mr. Linh Le's attorney fees.
5. Additionally, the Trial Panel added, the time to exercise the right to appeal against the defendant is 15 days.

1. Before signing a contract and starting to create a work, authors need to understand clearly intellectual property rights, copyright as well as related rights and obligations. In addition, it is necessary to learn about the owners' rights and obligations with respect to their works and publications.
2. When signing the contract and related documents, it is necessary to carefully check all the terms; especially the terms related to the above benefits. In particular, it is necessary to emphasize the moral rights of the author, ensuring that the author clearly understands the rights and obligations mentioned in the contract. At the same time, both parties should have legal representatives who have the expertise to assist in understanding and evaluating contract terms. 
3. That the author registers a trademark for his work to avoid copyright infringement is necessary. 
4. Throughout the working process, the author always needs to prepare and collect documents to prove that he is the sole author or co-author of the work.
5. The contract and related documents should clearly identify the person who created the idea and the person who performed the work in the event that it is not the same person.
6. During the contract's validity, all information and activities related to the work from both sides (the author and the owner) should be transparent and clear in terms of both economic and spiritual benefits.

• Authors: the movie directors and film studios.  
• Moral rights: 

1. To title the work
2. Attach name or pseudonyms to the work
3. Publish the work
4. Protect the integrity of the work

• Owners: Contributors who has conducted actions that directly affect the production ofthe works. 
• Economic rights: 

1. To reproduce the work
2. Make derivative
3. Display the work to the public
4. Communicate their works to the public
5. Distribute import, and lease

• Phimmoi, who is neither the authors nor the owners  of the cinematic works, has dubplicated, produced copies, distributed, displayed and communicated artistic works to the public on online media and digital media without the permission of the copyright owner. 
• This action has violated the economic rights of the owners to make derivative or copy, publish the original or copy of the work to the public.
• Phimmoi has made amendment to the original works (putting Vietnamese subtitles) for illegally commercial purposes, without any written consents from the authors or the owners. The website also refused to pay remuneration to the owner for the use of these works. This is an act of violating moral rights of author, specifically the right to protect the integrity of the work. 

• Legal arguments
  • The acts of Phimmoi have violated Act 28 of Vietnam IPL 2005, in which it has duplicated, distributed, displayed, or communicated works on online media and digital media. 
  • What’s more, all of the artistic works on this platform were released without written consent from the original owners nor remuneration, which has been clearly stated in Clause 8 and 10 Article 28 of the Intellectual Property Law.  
• Factual arguments:
  • Many paid or freemium platforms do not provide films and content that are out-of-dated, yet there are still demands for them. Phimmoi, on the other hand, provides a collection of movies from the 2010s till recent -> Phimmoi can satisfy more demands -> gain more visitors. 
  • Some people with binge-watching habits would not want to pay for a whole year's services -> they will choose to watch on free online movie websites like Phimmoi -> popularity remains. 

• The intellectual property rights sanctions for dealing with infringement in the digital environment are not enough of a deterrent. In order to thoroughly handle infringing acts, it is necessary to have active support from network operators and step in more strongly from the authorities.
• Technological measures may be applied to prevent acts of infringement of intellectual property rights specified in Clause 1, Article 49 of Decree 22/2018 dated May 23, 2018. 

1. author:  to title the work, to attach name or pseudonyms to the work, to publish the work, to protect the integrity of the work
2. owner: display/communicate the work to public, distribute import, reproduce the work.

• Subject matter: 
  • Photograph
  • Art Rogers’ photograph named Puppies - a black and white photograph of a couple holding a line of puppies in a row.
• Legal status: the Puppies photograph is registered under the United States Copyright Office and protected under copyright law.
• Author: Art Rogers has moral rights
  • To title the work
  • To attach name or pseudonyms to the work
  • To publish the work
  • To protect the integrity of the work.
• Owner: Art Rogers has economic rights.
  • To reproduce the work
  • to make derivative
  • to display the work to the public, 
  • To communicate their works to the public
  • To distribute import, and lease

• Koons used the photograph and asked his assistant to make a sculpture based on it which he later on sold for monetary gain.
• The act infringe upon the owner’s economic rights: the rights to make derivative work of Rogers (Art. 20, Vietnam IP Law) 
• The act also falls under the Acts of infringing upon a copyright: making derivative works without permission of authors or holders of copyright to works used for the making of derivative works (No.7 Article 28, Vietnam IP Law)

• Although acknowledging that the photo has copyright, Jeff Koons ignored it and even tore the copyright label, directing his assistants to create a reproduction “just like this photo.” 
• Koons had produced this sculpture for monetary gain, which prejudiced the market for licensing of reproductions and derivative works of the original work through decreasing the demand for similar works. This can result in potential losses for Art Rogers

• Koons infringed on the economic right of Art Rogers: the right to create derivative work
  • The sculpture is based on the original photograph and is found to be an unauthorized derivative work. This is an infringement in the form of unauthorized derivative work. (No,7, Art.28, Vietnam IP Law)
• Koons did not infringe on the moral right of Art Rogers
  • However, since Koons demanded his assistant to make the sculpture, Koons is only the owner of the sculpture, not the author. Therefore, Koons did not directly infringe on Rogers moral rights, the assistants did.
• Koons used the defense of “fair use” for the sculpture, saying that the creation was meant for parody purposes.

• The court rejected the parody argument, the defense of fair use by Koon. The sculpture was found to be a copy of the work by Rogers.
• Koons and Rogers later on reached a confidential settlement.

• Parties:

1. DS Company - CEO: Viet Tu aka the author of the performance “Ngay xua” (known as Quintessence of Tonkin) and because DS Company has registered an exclusive copyrights for this peformance, DS company is also the owner of this performance
2. Tuan Chau Company - the investor of the performance

• Legal status: "Ngay xua" performance was registered an exclusive copyright protection by DS Company
• Rights entitled according to Vietnam IP Law

1. DS Company: moral rights (article 19)

• Give titles to their works
• Attach their real names or pseudonyms to their works
• Publish their works
• Protect the integrity of their works

1. Tuan Chau company: economic rights and the rights to publish works (article 20 and section 3, article 19)

• To reproduce the work
• Make derivative
• Display the work to the public
• Communicate their works to the public
• Distribute import, and lease
• Copyright subject matter: 
  • the outdoor performance named “Ngay xua” 
  • the derivative version performance - “Tinh hoa Bac Bo”

1. Tuan Chau company sued DS Company against these activities below:

• public the performance without Tuan Chau company’s permission. Because the DS Company holds moral rights over this performance which includes the right to publish works in a sufficient number of copies to satisfy the reasonable demand of the public. So that DS Company can publicize this project without any copyright infringements. 
• register for the exclusive copyright owner of the script of “Ngay xua” performance which affected the utilization of economic rights of Tuan Chau company with this project and required a compensation of 6 billion VND from DS Company. While DS company only owned the moral rights, Tuan Chau company had the economic rights over the Ngay xua performance and they should be the one who were granted ownership of this project

1. DS Company sued Tuan Chau company against the activity below:

• produced “Tinh hoa Bac Bo” performance with many elements in common with “Ngay xua”, which was regarded as a derivative version of “Ngay xua” without the permission of DS Company - the copyright owner of this performance. At that time, DS Company holds an exclusive copyright over “Ngay xua” performance which means that DS Company has controls over both moral and economic rights of this performance. As economic rights includes the rights to make derivatives, “Tinh hoa Bac Bo” as a derivative version of “Ngay xua” should be given the rights to implement by DS Company instead of Tuan Chau company

• For DS company:
  • DS company was granted authorship for this performance and had to transfer the exclusive copyrights to Tuan Chau company - the owner of this project. 
  • After the examination process, “Tinh hoa Bac Bo” was regarded as a derivative of “Ngay xua” and it is executed without any permission of DS company - the owner of “Ngay xua” at that time, so that Tuan Chau company had infringed copyrights and had to compensate for that
• For Tuan Chau company:
  • Tuan Chau company will receive the ownership of “Ngay xua” performance transferred from DS Company
  • Tuan Chau company had to bear a compensation of 600 million VND for the unpermitted production of “Tinh hoa Bac Bo” and other fees claimed by DS Company

• It is important to register your plans. When your plan is a critical component of a product, model, or drawing, it’s usually necessary to enlist the help of an idea selection to ensure its success.
• It must have a ‘unique character’. It must be feasible for a supposed ‘educated client’ to recognise the new plan and a pretty similar item. If the supposed educated client believes that the item configuration gives the same general impression as an idea that has previously been made available to the general public, it will lack adequate ‘singular character’ to be qualified for assurance. 
• To give design protection legislation teeth and prevent further widespread replication, the government should take stronger, more serious action against IP infringers in the textile industry. Because enforcing a court injunction is currently too time-consuming and costly.
• In conclusion: A good IP asset management strategy in a business or marketing plan helps to increase an enterprise’s value in the eyes of investors and lending institutions.