Copyright of Vietnam’s national anthem. Who is the owner?

When the Vietnamese national anthem (Moving forward or Ti?n Quan Ca in Vietnamese) was muted due to a potential copyright infringement, it has infuriated the country's people and created an intense backlash. Next Sports, a YouTube channel, silenced the song during the flag-raising ceremony in a football match between Vietnam and Laos. National fans were shocked seeing the channel's following apology.?"Due to copyrights reasons, we have to mute the song at the flag-raising ceremony. The audio signal will return to normal after this; we ask for your understanding."?This has sparked a debate about copyrights issues. Next Sports' action has raised an important question. Who is the copyright owner of the national anthem?

"Move forward" is a song written and composed by V?n Cao (1923-1995). In 1946, it was officially recognised as the national anthem by Vietnam's 1st?National Assembly. However, the copyright issues surrounding this work is quite dramatic. In 2010, Nghiêm Thúy B?ng, the wife of late musician V?n Cao, sent a letter to the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism proposing to donate the work to the public. This was also the wish of V?n Cao when he was still alive, quoted her words.

Unexpectedly in 2015, V?n Cao's eldest son V?n Thao registered the song with the Vietnam Center for Protection of Music Copyright (VCPMC), demanding royalties for all public performances except in certain situations like schools and "important state ceremonies". He argued that his family never reached a consensus on 'gifting' the song, so they authorised the centre to collect royalties on his father's work (link).

On 25 August 2015, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism sent an official letter to VCPMC asking them to stop collecting royalties on "Ti?n Quan Ca". On 8 July 2016, V?n Thao confirmed that the whole family would donate the song to the country as his father wished. A letter, signed by all the legal inheritors in the family, stated that they agreed to donate the piece to the government for free use.

So legally speaking, had the family not gifted the song to the government, it would have been under copyright protection until 2065 (70 years after the author's death). Because the Vietnamese government owns the work, it belongs to the public domain; anyone can perform the song without paying the right owner.

Things would have been much simpler if there was only one set of rights within the copyright law. However, another distinguished set of rights called?neighbouring rights (or related rights) refers to the rights of sound recordings producers, broadcasting organisations and performers. The owner of related rights is different from copyrights which are the Vietnamese government in this case. Vietnam's ownership of Ti?n Quan Ca does not terminate the rights of those who create a recording of this song, who perform or broadcast it. Different ownership embodied in this song (or in any tangible object) is the source of the current conflict.

The recording of Ti?n Quan Ca played on 6 December belongs to Marco Polo Records – a US company. (They have done an excellent job, I have to admit, putting aside the copyright issue. You can listen to their recording?here) Therefore, they can claim the right over this recording. Anyone who uses Marco Polo's recording must seek their permission, pay the royalty. To put it simply, the lyrics and music of this song belong to the Vietnamese government, but the recording belongs to Marco Polo or any other parties who want to create a different sound recording.

It is not an imaginary situation but a tested reality. On 16 November 2021, another YouTube channel – FPT, lost revenue in a football match between Vietnam and Saudi Arabia because the match organisers used Marco Polo's recording of Ti?n Quan Ca without their permission. If Next Sports did not turn off the national anthem during the football match, they would have paid a hefty amount of money to Marco Records as they did not have the company's consent to use the recording. It is only a speculation that Next Sports might have learned from FPT's experience and therefore taken precautions by muting the anthem to avoid revenue loss.

Right after the incident, the government quickly announced that national law prohibits individuals and organisations from preventing the dissemination of the national anthem. Although they did not cite any legal provisions, the song is no longer silenced in subsequent matches. While such an announcement proves to be a workable solution, it is?ad hoc. A more long-term solution is much needed. The government, for example, can produce several recordings of the anthem and distribute them freely so anyone can use them without the fear of paying royalties.