Global Vietnam Lawyers would like to introduce our valued readers to an article by Lawyer Le Quang Vy titled “From Decree 174: A legal perspective on the distinction between pure news reporting and journalistic works” published in the Journalists & Public Opinion Electronic Newspaper on June 15, 2026.
***
(CLO) – July 1, 2026 marks the effective date of Decree No. 174/2026/ND-CP, issued by the Government on May 15, 2026, prescribing administrative sanctions in the fields of postal services, telecommunications, radio frequencies, electronic transactions, and information technology.
Under the Decree, sharing journalistic works on social media without the consent of the intellectual property rights holder may be subject to fines ranging from VND 20 million to VND 30 million. The provision has sparked considerable public debate. Many have questioned whether sharing a news article should always be regarded as copyright infringement? And where the boundary lies between the public’s right to access information and the intellectual property rights of press agencies and authors? In fact, answering these questions requires revisiting a fundamental legal principle that is often misunderstood: the distinction between “pure news reporting” and a “journalistic work.”
The practice of reproducing entire newspaper articles on fan pages, online forums, and digital platforms to attract traffic has long been a pressing concern for the journalism industry.
Under Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law), a journalistic work is an independently created and complete work, including genres such as reports, news features, chronicles, interviews, reflections, investigations, commentaries, editorials, essays, journalistic memoirs, and other forms of journalism published or broadcast through print media, radio, television, electronic newspapers, or other media platforms. By its nature, a journalistic work invariably involves the author’s creative contribution, including the selection of topics, collection and processing of information, structuring of content, distinctive style of expression, analysis, presentation of opinions or unique perspectives. Example: Investigative reports on smuggling activities or legal analyses of copyright disputes etc. Accordingly, journalistic works are protected under copyright law pursuant to Point c, Article 14.1 of the IP Law. In contrast, Article 15.1 of the IP Law expressly provides that “pure news reporting” is not subject to copyright protection. This is because pure news reporting merely conveys objective facts and events, typically answering the basic questions of: who, what, where, and when, with little or no creative element involved. Example: The Government held its regular meeting on June 5, 2026 …, or Typhoon No. 5 made landfall in Quy Nhon at 3:00 p.m. …, this is factual information belonging to the public domain and cannot be exclusively claimed by anyone.
Information and facts are not copyrightable
In today’s knowledge-based economy, particularly in the digital age, information is a valuable resource. However, not all information is subject to intellectual property protection. As noted above, Article 15.1 of Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Law expressly provides that “pure news reporting” does not fall within the scope of copyright protection. This provision reflects a fundamental principle of international intellectual property law. Article 2.8 of the Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works likewise permits member states to exclude from copyright protection “news of the day” and “factual press information.” The same principle is widely recognized in jurisdictions such as the United States and the European Union.
In other words, facts are not the exclusive property of anyone. A session of the National Assembly, a major fire, a government economic decision, or a foreign investment transaction are all objective facts that form part of public life. No news organization can claim exclusive rights over such events. This is precisely why multiple news outlets may report on the same event without giving rise to copyright disputes.
However, it would be incorrect to conclude that, because pure news reporting is not protected, an entire news article may be freely copied. For example, readers are free to use factual information reported in an article, such as: “The United States imposed a tariff of x% on Country Y.” What they may not do is reproduce the journalist’s analysis of the reasons behind, or consequences of, that tariff policy. In short, copyright law draws a clear distinction between facts, which are not protected, and the manner in which those facts are expressed, which is protected.
Protecting the expression of ideas
Indeed, what the law seeks to protect is human creativity. As we know, there is a significant gap between an objective event and a completed journalistic work. A reporter must choose an angle, gather materials, verify sources, conduct interviews, organize the content, and present it through his or her own voice and style. It is this creative process that generates value and merits legal protection.
At the same time, the rise of social media has given rise to a common misconception: reproducing an article in full is permissible so long as the source is cited. This view is incorrect. Attribution is primarily an ethical obligation, whereas the legal right to reproduce a work is governed by intellectual property law. In other words, citing the source does not automatically grant the right to copy an entire journalistic work. If a social media account republishes, without authorization, an investigative report, an economic commentary, or an in-depth feature article produced by a news organization, such conduct may constitute an infringement of the holder’s economic rights, even that the author’s name and the source are fully acknowledged.
For many years, the practice of reproducing entire newspaper articles on fan pages, online forums, and digital platforms to attract traffic has long been a pressing concern for the journalism industry. Many news organizations invest substantial resources in reporting and content production, only to see advertising revenues diverted to entities that republish their content without paying licensing fees.
The significance of Decree 174
Against the backdrop of widespread copyright infringement, the issuance of Decree No. 174/2026/ND-CP provides an additional enforcement tool for rights already recognized under the IP Law. In particular, the Decree introduces administrative sanctions for the unauthorized provision or sharing of journalistic works on social media without the consent of the intellectual property rights holder. More importantly, protecting journalistic works is not merely about safeguarding the interests of news organizations. It is also essential to sustaining investment in professional journalism, especially in forms of reporting that require substantial resources, such as investigative journalism, in-depth analysis, and solutions journalism.
Not all journalistic content can be equated with “pure news reporting.” While facts and events belong to society as a whole, the manner in which those facts are presented belongs to the creator. A business may use facts disclosed by the press to prepare its own research report. An expert may comment on the same event from an independent perspective. Likewise, a news organization may rely on the same source information to produce a new article of its own. What is not permissible, however, is the full reproduction of a work or the exploitation of an author’s creative expression. Ultimately, the public’s right to know and the creator’s right to legal protection are not competing values. They can coexist when the society recognizes a fundamental distinction: facts belong to everyone, but creative labor deserves protection and respect. The decisive criterion for distinguishing a journalistic work from pure news reporting lies in the element of creative expression.