Vietnam Expands Copyright Office’s Enforcement Role: What Platforms Need to Know

Vietnam’s Decision No. 2558/QD-BVHTTDL gives the renamed Cultural Industries and Copyright Office a clearer role in handling copyright infringements and requiring platforms to remove or block infringing content. Rights holders and intermediaries should review how this institutional change affects their enforcement and compliance arrangements.

---

Vietnam has strengthened the enforcement mandate of its Copyright Office, giving the agency a new name and more direct responsibility for handling copyright infringements and expressly authorising it to require intermediary service providers to remove or block access to infringing digital content.

Decision No. 2558/QD-BVHTTDL, effective from 30 September 2026, sets out the responsibilities of the renamed Cultural Industries and Copyright Office (the Office). The principal change is the Office’s more explicit role in leading infringement handling and directing online removal or blocking. Previously, it already led certain compliance checks and complaint handling, while cooperating with other competent authorities on inspections and infringement cases.

For copyright holders, the revised mandate provides a clearer basis for approaching the Office over online infringement. For digital platforms and other intermediaries, it reinforces the importance of recognising official requests and responding under the applicable procedures. Existing copyright obligations and takedown rules continue to apply.

What has changed under Decision 2558?

Decision 2558 defines the functions, powers, and organisational structure of the Cultural Industries and Copyright Office under Vietnam’s Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism. It replaces the decision governing the former Copyright Office.

The revised framework combines copyright and related-rights protection with cultural industries development. It also includes a Copyright Management and Enforcement Division within the Office’s structure.

The Office’s published mandate identifies two enforcement responsibilities particularly relevant to businesses:

• Leading and coordinating with competent authorities on copyright compliance checks, complaints, denunciations, and infringement handling.
• Requiring intermediary service providers to remove or block access to digital content infringing copyright or related rights, in accordance with the law.

The Office also continues to cooperate with competent authorities on formal inspections.

This gives the agency a clearer institutional role in enforcement. The decision does not, by itself, establish that complaints will be resolved faster or that enforcement activity will increase.

Can Vietnam’s Cultural Industries and Copyright Office require platforms to remove content?

Yes. The Office’s mandate expressly allows it to require intermediary service providers to remove or block access to digital content that infringes copyright or related rights. That authority must be exercised within Vietnam’s existing legal framework.

For rights holders, this creates a clearer point of engagement where infringing material is distributed through an intermediary. A successful request will still depend on the evidence, the applicable procedure, and the circumstances of the alleged infringement.

For platforms, the practical priority is to ensure that official requests reach personnel who can assess and implement them promptly. A regulatory request should be distinguished from a private complaint because different procedures may apply.

What is the deadline for responding to a copyright takedown request?

A 24-hour removal or blocking deadline applies to specified intermediaries receiving qualifying written requests from the relevant authorities. The applicable framework also requires notification to the affected content provider and reporting within 24 hours after processing.

This deadline is not a universal rule for every platform or copyright complaint. Vietnam’s copyright regulations distinguish authority requests from rights-holder notices, which follow a separate procedure. Businesses should assess their service category, the sender’s authority, and the nature of the request before determining the required response.

Decision 2558 operates within this established framework. Companies should comply with existing requirements while monitoring guidance on how the reorganised Office exercises its responsibilities.

What does the change mean for copyright holders?

Copyright owners have a clearer basis for engaging the Office on infringement matters, particularly where digital content and intermediaries are involved.

Businesses seeking enforcement should prepare evidence that establishes their rights and identifies the alleged infringement. Useful records include ownership documents, licensing agreements, authorisations to act, relevant URLs, screenshots, and correspondence with the content provider or platform.

The enforcement route should reflect the commercial objective. Removing online content may address its immediate availability, while compensation, administrative penalties, or disputed ownership may require separate assessment.

Rights holders should therefore evaluate the Office’s role alongside other available remedies, rather than assume that a removal request will resolve every aspect of a dispute.

How should platforms prepare for copyright enforcement requests?

Digital platforms and intermediaries should test whether their procedures can distinguish, assess, and respond to different types of copyright requests.

Compliance priority	Recommended action
Service classification	Establish which intermediary obligations apply to each service offered.
Request assessment	Separate authority requests, rights-holder notices, and other complaints.
Internal responsibility	Assign clear roles across legal, moderation, and technical teams.
Response readiness	Ensure urgent requests reach responsible personnel, including outside normal working hours.
Record keeping	Preserve evidence of receipt, assessment, action taken, notifications, and reporting.

These measures help reduce delays caused by misdirected requests, unclear responsibilities, or incomplete records. They also support consistent decision-making when a request involves disputed rights or insufficient information.

Does the Office’s expanded role create new copyright penalties?

Decision 2558 sets out the Office’s organisational mandate. Administrative offences, penalties, and sanctioning powers are governed separately.

Vietnam’s Decree No. 341/2025/ND-CP, effective from 15 February 2026, addresses copyright and related-rights administrative violations, sanctions, remedial measures, and the authority to impose penalties.

Businesses should distinguish a compliance check or removal request from a sanctioning decision. When receiving an official communication, they should identify the issuing authority, legal basis, scope, response deadline, and available procedural options.

Can foreign platforms face copyright enforcement in Vietnam?

Foreign organisations can fall within Vietnam’s copyright administrative enforcement framework when the relevant online violations involve users or consumers in Vietnam.

Decree 341 expressly covers foreign organisations committing online copyright or related-rights administrative violations where consumers, users, or persons exploiting or using the digital content are in Vietnam. This provision predates Decision 2558.

Foreign businesses should assess which group entity operates the Vietnam-facing service and controls the relevant content or response process. A review limited to a Vietnamese subsidiary may overlook activities managed by an overseas entity.

Clear coordination between local management, headquarters legal teams, and technical personnel can help ensure that requests are assessed and addressed by the appropriate business unit.

What should businesses do now?

Businesses should align their copyright records and response procedures with the Office’s clarified enforcement role.

Copyright holders should maintain accessible evidence of ownership and licensing. Platforms should review request-handling procedures and applicable deadlines. Companies using third-party software, images, music, films, or other content should check that licences cover their actual activities, territories, and group entities.

Implementation guidance and published enforcement cases will help clarify how the Office handles complaints and coordinates with other authorities. In the meantime, businesses should apply existing rules and maintain a documented process for responding to copyright concerns.