Son Doan, founding and managing partner at IP Max in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, said regulations and procedures should be in place to ensure that collective management organizations (CMOs) are professional and transparent in their practice.

“While many measures, including regulations, should facilitate activities of CMOs, it is also recommended that there are regulations and procedures to ensure that the practices of CMOs are professional, transparent and not affecting legitimate rights of others when making the legal use of copyrighted work,” said Doan.

Doan made these statements a few weeks after the International Conference on Data Processing and Information Technology held in Hanoi on February 26-27, 2025. The conference was hosted by the Center for Music Copyright (VCPMC), Vietnam’s own CMO for music composers. CMO leaders and members from different Asian countries attended the summit.

A CMO or collective management organization for copyright and related rights is a non-profit organization of authors, copyright owners and related rights holders with the aim of upholding copyright protection. Its responsibilities include the following: negotiating licensing agreements, collecting and distributing royalties, remuneration and other material benefits, protecting the legal rights and interests of its members, organizing mediation when disputes arise and others.

Among the topics tackled during the conference was copyright protection for the music industry. VCPMC deputy director Hoang Van Binh said during the event that their organization aims to align the country’s copyright protection initiatives with regional and global developments.

Doan mentioned the problems besetting Vietnam in relation to copyright and CMOs.

First, he said it seems a foreign CMO cannot independently operate as a rights management entity in Vietnam. However, it can engage in partnerships/agreements with local organizations. 

Second, the law does not offer clear guidance with regard to business entities or even individuals in addition to CMOs, collecting royalties for copyright owners with their authorization. “It can be argued that this should be possible under the provision of the Civil Code on authorization and representation. In practice, a number of enterprises are providing the services of representing copyright holders and collecting fees, in addition to CMOs. The law should be clear on this,” Doan emphasized.

Another problem involves VCPMC itself. According to Doan, there have been complaints about the CMO.

One such complaint is the organization’s non-transparency in terms of disclosing and applying proper schedules of royalties under the requirements of the law.

Another is the lack of clarity regarding the scope of authorization, paving the way for multiple demands of different types of royalties from VCPMC, the authors, the copyright owners and others.

There have also been complaints about its imposition of unreasonable royalty rates in certain circumstances and copyright fees beyond what is allowed under law, including cases of use under copyright exceptions. “For example, in some cases, they demanded, while threatening to sue, significant royalties to non-commercial use of theatrical works or other types of artistic performances in cultural activities and propaganda events,” revealed Doan.

- Espie Angelica A. de Leon