Vietnam's Cinema Department says AI-made short dramas spreading on social media and apps are films under the country's cinema law, however short they are, and it is moving to have unlicensed titles taken down and the apps behind them removed from app stores. Its director, Đặng Trần Cường, set out the position in an interview with VTC News that CafeF republished on 30 September.
Cường said the 2022 Cinema Law does not define a film by running time. A work counts as one if it tells a story in moving images, whether filmed or generated by technology, and is shown to the public; news footage, recorded performances, games and reality shows are excluded. A piece lasting a few minutes can therefore fall under film regulation, and being made wholly or partly with AI does not change that. He also warned against stretching the definition to every short video online, since hybrids of film, user content and generative AI are multiplying.
A first review by the department found groups and individuals distributing films on social networks, apps and websites without meeting the legal requirements. The gaps it listed were distributors that do not meet the conditions to distribute, films that were never classified or lack a classification licence, film lists and ratings not notified in advance, and missing age ratings, warnings and protections for viewers, children above all. Cases are still being checked with other agencies, he said, and no organisation or person has yet been found in breach.
Together with the Department of Broadcasting, Television and Electronic Information, the department is asking intermediary platforms to remove films at the links it has listed, asking for related apps to be pulled from the App Store and Google Play, and seeking to block some websites that show films without a classification licence. For AI dramas suspected of piracy, he said, rights in the film and in its parts, including images, sound, script and voices, have to be verified before action is taken with the authorities and platforms. Enforcement follows conduct and responsibility, not the use of AI or foreign origin in itself.
Cường avoided condemning the format. Storylines about money, power, romance, affairs or domineering tycoons are not grounds for action on their own, he said, and a work being good or bad is not the test. The concern is content that breaks the law or reaches the wrong age group, and violence, horror or sex shown without classification or warnings. Heavy exposure could build binge habits in children and teenagers, crowd out study and social life and normalise warped behaviour, but he said such risks should be judged on evidence rather than assumed of all short-form or AI work.
What worries the department more is cheap mass production chasing views and recommendation algorithms, which he said tends to harden into formulas that overuse violence, sex, horror, revenge, sensationalism and dangerous acts viewers might copy. Short, intense episodes fed one after another to young viewers deserve serious study, he said. His line throughout was that the issue is not AI against human-made film: any film shown to the public must meet the same legal standards.
He proposed three lines of response. First, enforce the existing rules on who may distribute films, classification and warnings, with platforms screening content and protecting minors. Second, tighten coordination between film regulators, online content regulators, platforms and app stores, including pinning down who is responsible for cross-border titles spread across many accounts and keeping records for inspection. Third, help audiences and parents choose content and use control tools, while encouraging good short work.
The department does not want to hold the technology back, Cường said. He called AI an increasingly important tool across filmmaking, from development and design to effects, post-production, restoration and marketing, and said young filmmakers are encouraged to use it to cut costs and experiment, provided they respect copyright, related rights and people's rights over their image and voice, disclose AI use where needed and answer for what they release. The cultural and artistic value of a work, in his view, must still be decided by people.
Sources · 1