By Nguyễn Lê Bảo Ngọc (Ngọc Prinny) · Reviewed by Ls. Lê Thị Kim Dung & Ls. Nguyễn Văn Điệp
⚠️ Reminder: As of 11 June 2026, no competent authority has reached any official conclusion about whether copyright infringement occurred. This is academic analysis only. All parties retain the presumption of innocence. This article presents legal education, not legal conclusions.
📖 Etymology Corner: "Controversy" — To Turn Against Each Other
The word "controversy" comes from the Latin controversia — from contra (against) + vertere (to turn). Literally: two sides turning against each other. What's fascinating is that the word doesn't imply one side is right. A controversia is a structured disagreement — and in Roman rhetoric, it was actually a formal debate exercise where students were required to argue both sides of a case. The Come My Way – Tàn Chỉ dispute has become one of the most heated controversiae on Vietnamese social media in 2026. Today, Ngọc Prinny plays the Roman rhetoric teacher: let's examine both sides of the argument — fairly, rigorously, and with the law as our referee. 🏛️⚖️
🎬 In a Nutshell
When the Come My Way copyright controversy erupted online, it didn't stay in the legal sphere for long. Within hours, two very distinct tribes had formed on Vietnamese social media — and they were speaking entirely different languages.
On one side: the Sky fandom (fans of Sơn Tùng M-TP) defending their artist, arguing the dispute was overblown, unfair, and driven by bad faith.
On the other: a coalition of copyright advocates, artists, designers, and legal commentators arguing that this was a textbook case of intellectual property being taken from a smaller artist without permission or credit.
Both sides had real passion. Both sides had some good points. And both sides made serious legal errors.
The problem: neither side is a court. And in a country governed by rule of law, that matters enormously.
Let's steelman both camps — give each their strongest possible argument — and then apply the law. 🔍
🌤️ Camp A: The Sky Fandom — Their Best Arguments
The fandom's defence deserves to be taken seriously before it's critiqued. Here are their strongest arguments, presented charitably:
"This is traditional cultural heritage — nobody owns that."
This is actually the most legally sophisticated argument in Camp A's repertoire. Vietnamese traditional architecture — đình làng columns, carved reliefs, weathered stone — is genuinely part of the shared cultural commons. Nobody owns "crumbling heritage" as a concept. The argument is that both Tàn Chỉ and the MV drew from the same well of collective cultural memory, and parallel independent creation from common sources is not infringement.
Legal assessment: Partially correct. Ideas and cultural themes are not protectable. But this argument proves too much if taken alone — it proves nothing about whether specific expressive choices were reproduced. The question was never whether the theme was copied. It was whether the specific visual arrangement was. More on this below. ⚡
"There's no court ruling — calling it plagiarism is unfair."
Factually and legally: absolutely correct. As of 08 June 2026, no competent authority has issued any finding. The presumption of innocence is a constitutional right (Article 31, Constitution 2013) and it applies here. No one should be publicly labelled a copyright infringer before a court says so.
Legal assessment: Fully correct on the law. The fandom is right to push back against premature conclusions. This argument stands. ✓
"The team apologised — isn't that enough?"
This argument reflects a genuinely human instinct: someone said sorry, can we move on? In personal relationships, that might be sufficient.
Legal assessment: In copyright law, no. An apology is not a legal remedy. It doesn't constitute a licence, it doesn't compensate for unauthorised use, and it doesn't resolve the question of infringement. The apology also specifically used the phrase "referencing visual language" — which is carefully crafted language that does not admit infringement. Lê Giang rejected the apology precisely because she regarded the framing as understating what had occurred. The gap between "we referenced your visual language" and "we infringed your copyright" is legally significant. ✗
"It's only 12 seconds — that's not worth all this drama."
A very relatable reaction. A 12-second after-credit in a 4-minute video feels trivial in the overall scheme of a major production.
Legal assessment: Duration of use is not a copyright threshold. Copyright law does not say "if you use less than X seconds, you're fine." What matters is whether protected expression was reproduced, not for how long. A single photograph can be the subject of a successful copyright infringement case. A 3-second sample in music has triggered litigation. The 12-second argument does not hold up legally. ✗
"Sơn Tùng didn't design the set himself — why is he being targeted?"
A fair factual point. Based on what's publicly known, Sơn Tùng was the performing artist. The set design decisions were made by Microwave Soups (the art direction team) under coordination by Antiantiart. There is no public evidence that he personally specified any visual element that references Tàn Chỉ.
Legal assessment: Partially correct, with important nuance. Personal non-involvement in set design significantly reduces — though may not eliminate — Sơn Tùng's personal liability. However, as the artist whose image and commercial brand is central to the MV, and as a beneficiary of M-TP Entertainment's commercial exploitation, some residual considerations may exist depending on his contractual arrangements. That said, the fandom's instinct to resist personalising corporate/production responsibility onto the individual performer is legally reasonable. ⚡
⚖️ Camp B: The Copyright Defenders — Their Best Arguments
Now Camp B, also presented at full strength:
"Tàn Chỉ's specific creative expression — not just the cultural theme — appears in the MV."
This is the heart of the copyright claim. The argument is not "both works use Vietnamese heritage imagery" (Camp A keeps responding to that strawman). It's that the specific spatial arrangement, material treatment, decomposed-column composition, and overall visual grammar of Tàn Chỉ appears in the after-credit sequence in ways that go beyond independent parallel creation.
Legal assessment: This is the correct legal framing of the question. Whether the similarity rises to the legal threshold of substantial similarity in protected expression is what must be determined by experts and authorities — but this is the right question to ask. ✓
"An apology for 'referencing visual language' is not an acknowledgment of infringement."
Lê Giang's rejection of the Microwave Soups apology was grounded in this precise point. The language used in the public statement acknowledged a creative reference but refused to frame it as wrongdoing. She argued — correctly — that framing the issue as "we used your visual language" reframes a potential legal violation as a stylistic choice.
Legal assessment: Entirely correct. The distinction between "we were inspired by your work" and "we reproduced your protected expression" is the entire legal question. An apology phrased in the former terms doesn't resolve the latter. ✓
"The lack of a court ruling means process hasn't concluded — not that no violation occurred."
This is a subtle but important counter to Camp A's "no ruling = no violation" argument. Camp B's point is that the absence of a formal finding reflects the fact that the legal process hasn't been completed — not that the facts have been evaluated and cleared. The claim is pending, not dismissed.
Legal assessment: Correct in nuance. "Not yet adjudicated" and "found to be without merit" are very different legal statuses. The dispute is ongoing. ✓
"Copyright applies equally to a 12-second sequence and a 12-minute film."
Duration has never been a legal threshold for copyright protection or infringement. A work's protected expression doesn't become public domain because it appears briefly.
Legal assessment: Legally correct. Duration is one factor considered in fair use/fair dealing analysis in some jurisdictions, but it is not a threshold that excuses infringement. Vietnam's IP Law does not recognise a "de minimis duration" exception. ✓
"Commercial beneficiaries of allegedly infringing content can face liability."
Camp B correctly identifies that "I didn't design it" is not a complete liability shield for entities that commercially exploit a work. The nemo dat principle — you cannot transfer rights you don't have — means that a production chain cannot launder an IP violation through subcontracting.
Legal assessment: Legally correct as a principle. The practical application depends heavily on contractual structures, good faith, and the specific role of each party. But the abstract legal principle is sound. ✓
🔬 Section 3: The Argument Neither Side Is Making — The Most Important One
Here's what both camps are missing: the question that actually determines the entire legal outcome is one that cannot be answered by scrolling through comparison photos on social media.
The test is substantial similarity in protected expression after filtering out unprotectable elements. In plain language: once you take away everything that belongs to the cultural commons (traditional architecture, heritage decay themes, crumbling ancient Vietnam), does what's left show that the specific creative choices of Tàn Chỉ — the precise compositional decisions Lê Giang made — appear in the MV?
That question requires:
- Expert art analysis comparing the works element by element
- A Copyright Assessment Council or court-appointed examiner
- Formal proceedings with evidence from all parties
- A legally binding determination
None of that has happened yet. Until it does, every confident claim — in either direction — is a civilian playing judge in a case they haven't been appointed to hear. 🏛️
🚨 Section 4: The "Trial by Social Media" Problem — Who Gets Hurt?
The legal analysis in our source document raises a critical dimension that gets lost in the heat of fandom warfare: social media verdicts hurt everyone, not just the "guilty" party.
For the production team and M-TP Entertainment: reputational damage and harassment campaigns have run ahead of any formal finding. In a functioning rule-of-law system, this is backwards.
For Lê Giang herself: the moment her dispute entered the court of public opinion at full volume, every statement she made became subject to intense scrutiny, potential counter-claims, and the risk that framing gets distorted by the mob dynamics on both sides.
For commenters and content creators: publicly stating as established fact — rather than allegation — that named individuals committed IP violations carries real legal risk under Decree 15/2020/NĐ-CP. Fines of 10–20 million VND for posting unverified information that damages someone's reputation. Calling someone a "criminal" or "thief" before a court does: potential civil liability for defamation under Article 34 of the Civil Code.
The internet wants a winner and a loser. Copyright law wants a fair process. These are different things.
🏠🚗 Real-Life Examples — The Same Debate in Other Contexts
Example 1 — The craft beer logo: 🍺 An independent craft brewery designs a distinctive logo with a stylised lotus flower and traditional decorative border. Two years later, a larger commercial brewery releases packaging with a logo using a very similar lotus arrangement and border treatment. The large brewery says: "Lotus and traditional patterns are Vietnamese cultural heritage — nobody owns those." The small brewery says: "Our specific graphic composition of those elements is our protected design." Who's right? Both are partially right about different things. The theme is free. The specific creative execution of the theme may not be.
Example 2 — The film set designer: 🎬 A film's production designer creates a distinctive dystopian urban aesthetic with specific architectural fragmentations, colour gradations, and spatial arrangements for an independent Vietnamese film. Three years later, a commercial blockbuster features an almost identical aesthetic in a 2-minute sequence. The independent designer raises a copyright concern. "It's just a generic dystopian aesthetic — can't claim that." Counter: "It's not the genre that's being claimed. It's the specific visual choices within that genre."
Example 3 — The music sample: 🎵 A hip-hop producer samples 4 seconds of a Vietnamese traditional melody, processed through synthesizers. The original musician claims infringement. "It's only 4 seconds!" Counter: "Duration is not the legal threshold." Courts around the world have found infringement in samples shorter than this. Duration alone has never been a legal safe harbour.
🤔 Did You Know?
The Come My Way – Tàn Chỉ dispute is not Vietnam's first major copyright controversy involving the entertainment industry and visual arts. In 2019, several music videos were found to have used photographs by Vietnamese photographers without authorisation — leading to settlements, takedowns, and increased awareness of image licensing in commercial production. But Come My Way is notable for involving an installation artwork — a category of art that is relatively uncommon in Vietnamese copyright jurisprudence and will likely produce one of the first substantive legal analyses of how Article 6 of Decree 17/2023/NĐ-CP applies to disputes of this scale and commercial significance. 📚
🌿 Law in Nature — The Ecosystem Equilibrium Parallel
The two-camp debate mirrors the dynamics of predator-prey population cycles in ecology. When a predator population (copyright defenders) increases, prey population (fan defenders) responds with heightened protective behaviour. The prey mobilise countermeasures. The predator population adjusts. Neither side eliminates the other; both are necessary for a functioning ecosystem.
In healthy ecological systems, a regulatory mechanism exists — seasonal scarcity, geographic limits — that prevents either population from consuming the other entirely. In a healthy legal ecosystem, that regulatory mechanism is the court system: it doesn't take sides, it applies rules, and it prevents either camp from simply overrunning the other through sheer volume of noise.
The problem in Come My Way is that both camps have been fighting in the ecosystem without waiting for the regulatory mechanism to activate. The result is a temporary population explosion of hot takes, followed by a crash when everyone realises the actual legal process hasn't even started yet. 🐺🦌
💡 Tips — For Fans, Commenters, and Anyone Following Online IP Disputes
For fans defending an artist: You can defend them without making legally incorrect claims. "The dispute is unresolved and no finding of infringement has been made" is a legally accurate, completely defensible statement. "This isn't plagiarism because traditional culture is public domain" is not — because it conflates cultural theme (unprotectable) with specific expressive arrangement (potentially protected).
For copyright advocates: The strength of your case is undermined when public statements overreach the evidence. "There appears to be substantial similarity that warrants expert examination and formal review" is stronger than "This is clearly copyright infringement." The first is an allegation appropriate to the stage of proceedings. The second is a legal conclusion you're not authorised to make.
For content creators on social media commenting on disputes: Before you share your take, check: am I reporting (documenting what happened), or am I adjudicating (declaring who's guilty)? Reporting is protected speech. Adjudication of unproven facts that damages someone's reputation is actionable. The line matters.
For businesses and production teams watching this unfold: This case is a masterclass in why IP compliance checks belong in the production workflow, not in the apology after launch. The legal, reputational, and commercial costs of post-release controversy dwarf the cost of a pre-production IP audit. The lesson is being taught in real time.
📝 Quick Quiz — Which Side Is Legally Correct?
Statement 1: "Because no court has ruled yet, Sơn Tùng's team hasn't done anything wrong."
Partially correct. No ruling = no established infringement. Presumption of innocence applies. But "not yet adjudicated" is different from "found to be without merit." The claim exists and deserves formal examination.
Statement 2: "Traditional Vietnamese architecture belongs to everyone, so no one can claim infringement based on using those images."
Legally incomplete. Ideas and cultural themes are unprotectable. However, the specific creative arrangement and expression of those elements can be protected. The question is never "did you use traditional architecture?" but "did you copy this specific creative treatment of traditional architecture?"
Statement 3: "Microwave Soups said sorry, so the matter is settled."
Legally incorrect. An apology is not a legal remedy, not a licence, and not an admission of infringement. The apology specifically used language that does not acknowledge legal wrongdoing. Lê Giang's rights and potential claims remain intact regardless of the apology.
Statement 4: "Copyright protection applies equally to 12 seconds as to an entire film."
Legally correct. Duration is not a threshold for copyright protection or infringement. The question is whether protected expression was reproduced — not for how long.
🗣️ Call to Action
Where do you stand — not on who's right in the dispute (we genuinely don't know yet), but on how the debate itself has been conducted? Has social media made it harder or easier to get to a fair legal resolution? Is the fandom energy helpful (creating public accountability) or harmful (prejudicing the process)? Is the copyright defender camp appropriately rigorous, or have some overstepped into adjudication? 💬
Drop your thoughts in the comments — reasoned, curious, analytical perspectives are especially welcome. Ngọc Prinny will engage with the ones that add to the legal conversation rather than just repeat the two-camp talking points. And share this with anyone who's been swept up in the debate — on either side — and might benefit from stepping back to look at the legal framework. 📤
🚨 Fun But Serious: A Brief Legal Disclaimer 🚨
Hey there, legal explorer! 🕵️♂️ Before you go...
- This article examines the public debate through a legal lens — it is NOT a finding on any party's liability, nor an endorsement of either camp's position 🗺️
- Every real legal situation is unique — and this one hasn't been officially adjudicated yet 🦄
- If you have a genuine IP concern, consult a professional 🧙♂️ — may we suggest Thầy Điệp & Associates Law Firm
- Need certified document services? Thu Thiem Notary Office is here 🖊️
Reading this doesn't make you a copyright adjudicator, just like having a hot take on Twitter doesn't make you a judge! ⚖️😉
Full disclaimer: ngocprinny.blogspot.com/2024/08/disclaimer.html
#LegalInfo #delulu.vn #NotLegalAdvice #ConsultAPro #NgocPrinny
💝 Support Your Legal Ninja's Wellness Fund! 🍵
Writing this article required reading both sides of a heated online debate with genuine intellectual fairness — arguably the hardest intellectual task a legal writer can face. Every article is powered by:
- Hours of careful research and dual-perspective analysis 📚
- 10+ years of legal expertise ⚖️
- The discipline to say "both sides are partially right" without losing anyone 📝
- And a genuinely extraordinary quantity of calming herbal tea 🍵
If these posts have helped you think more clearly about IP law and online discourse, consider buying me a green tea ☕ Your support keeps the analysis balanced and this ninja sharp! 🌱
If you're reading this at night — sweet dreams, and may you wake up having resolved the fan debate with clear legal thinking! 🌙✨
If you're reading this in the morning — wishing you a day full of nuanced takes, intellectual fairness, and zero defamatory tweets! ☀️💭
If you're reading this at lunch — enjoy every bite, and may your online disputes be more nourishing than your meal! 🍱⚖️
Whenever you're reading this — may you always be able to separate what you feel from what the law actually says! 🎵🔍
Author: Nguyễn Lê Bảo Ngọc (Ngọc Prinny) | Reviewed by Ls. Lê Thị Kim Dung & Ls. Nguyễn Văn Điệp
#ComMyWay #TànChỉ #CopyrightDebate #NgocPrinny #SkyFandom #delulu_vn #VietnamIP #FandomCulture #CopyrightVietnam #QuyềnTácGiả #OnlineDebate #LegalAnalysis #LêGiang #SơnTùng2026
