Copyright Perspective: The Singer Noo Phước Thịnh Case and a U.S. Composer

In music copyright disputes, the person on screen is not always the person legally at fault. The Zack Hemsey - U.S. Composer and Noo Phước Thịnh case offers a clear lesson on how responsibility is actually determined in the music industry.

Disclaimer: This Article is for general informational purposes only and does not replace legal advice for specific situations.

TL; DR

In late January 2026, the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City issued its first-instance judgment in an intellectual property dispute between American Composer Zack Hemsey and Vietnamese singer Noo Phước Thịnh concerning the use of the song "The Way" in the music video "Chạm khẽ tim anh một chút thôi."

The plaintiff alleged that his song had been used without authorization and requested that the defendant cease the infringing act, remove the music video, issue a public apology, and compensate for damages. However, after reviewing the case file and evidence, the court rejected all claims against Noo Phước Thịnh, determining that the singer was not the party responsible for copyright (Quyền tác giả) or related rights (Quyền liên quan) infringement in this case.

Case Background

The dispute originated from the use of a portion of the sound recording "The Way", composed by American Composer Zack Hemsey, in the aforementioned music video. According to the plaintiff, the Sound recording was incorporated into the MV without permission from the owner of the Sound recording rights.

After discovering the use, the Composer requested the removal of the MV and subsequently initiated legal proceedings in Vietnam, seeking cessation of the alleged infringement, a public apology, and compensation for damages. The MV was later removed from YouTube before the case proceeded to trial.

During the proceedings, the central legal issue extended beyond whether the Sound recording had been properly licensed. The more significant question was determining which party bore legal responsibility for the use of the recording within the music product.

Key Point of the Judgment

A crucial aspect of the ruling was the court's clear distinction between the legal roles of the performer and the product owner.

According to the case records, the MV did contain a portion of the sound recording that had not been authorized by the rights holder. However, Mr. Lê Tuấn Khang, who invested in and produced the MV and managed the distribution channel, was identified as the party responsible for the content and its commercial exploitation. The singer participated solely as a performer under a cooperation agreement and was not involved in the production or management of the MV.

As a result, the court found insufficient grounds to determine that the singer had directly infringed intellectual property rights. This highlights a common misconception within the music industry: appearing in a product does not automatically make a person legally responsible for copyright clearance or content usage.

Copyright Perspective: The Two Layers of Rights in Music

The case also clearly illustrates the dual-layer structure of music copyright.

Music copyright generally consists of two separate layers of rights: 

• The Musical work (composition), which includes melody and lyrics,and
• The Sound recording, which refers to the specific recorded performance. 

See more: "Những phần nào của bài hát được bảo hộ bản quyền"

In this case, Zack Hemsey was both the author of the Musical work "The Way" and the owner of Sound recording. Therefore, the use of the song implicated not only the author's rights in the Composition but also the related rights associated with the Sound recording itself according to Vietnamese legal framework.

Accordingly, if the producer intended to use "The Way" in the MV, permission and licensing fees would have been required for both layers of rights to ensure lawful use.

Legal lessons for Artists and Producers

1. Identifying the correct liable party

The case offers several important lessons for the music industry, beginning with the need to correctly identify the legally responsible party. In music production and exploitation, liability does not automatically fall on the Performer. Legal responsibility is typically associated with producers, distributors, or owners of commercial distribution channels — the parties who control how content is used and released. A Performer who does not participate in production decisions or content management is not automatically liable in copyright disputes.

2. Contracts as the key mechanism for allocating responsibility

The dispute also highlights the critical role of contracts in allocating responsibility among collaborators. A well-drafted agreement should clearly specify who is responsible for copyright clearance, who guarantees that licenses have been properly obtained, and how indemnification obligations will be handled if disputes arise. When these matters are not addressed at the outset, legal risks often surface only after a work has been publicly released and commercially exploited.

3. Copyright disputes are increasingly cross-border in nature

Another notable aspect is the increasingly cross-border nature of copyright disputes. In the digital environment, a sound recording can be registered, distributed, and monetized across multiple jurisdictions simultaneously, making enforcement and liability inherently global. This reality requires artists, producers, and businesses to better understand the international scope of music rights and the legal obligations that accompany them.

Conclusion

From a broader perspective, this case is not merely a legal dispute between two individuals. It reflects a fundamental reality of the modern music industry: when a music product involves multiple contributors, a clear understanding of ownership and legal responsibility becomes essential.

For Artists, Producers, and businesses working with music, copyright is not only a matter of creativity — it is the legal foundation that protects the long-term commercial value of a work.