Judgment Reference: Appellate Civil Judgment No. 163/2023/DS-PT, dated 11 April 2023 — Hanoi People's Court | First Instance: Civil Judgment No. 13/2022/DS-ST, dated 22 February 2022 — Hai Ba Trung District People's Court, Hanoi
📖 Etymology corner, before we dive in
The word "image" comes from Latin imago — a likeness, a copy, a representation. The Romans used it not just for portraits but for wax death masks of ancestors displayed in family homes — a person's face as property of the lineage, to be displayed or retired on the family's terms.
The word "authorize" comes from Latin auctorizare — to give official approval — rooted in auctor, "one who creates or causes." An author of an authorization is the only one who can grant the right to use what is theirs.
Put them together: unauthorized image use is, etymologically, a very old kind of wrong — using someone else's likeness without the authority to do so. Today's case turns on exactly that ancient concept, now playing out across Facebook pages, YouTube channels, and Vietnamese beauty spa websites. Ngọc Prinny-mode: on. 🦊
🧐 The cast of characters
To keep things clear, we've renamed the parties for readability:
- Actress Lily Pham — the plaintiff. A working actress and public figure, born 1983.
- Glam Glow Corp. (inspired by the defendant, a major beauty spa chain) — the defendant. A well-resourced company with multiple clinics and a dedicated legal team.
- VP Nick Chen — Glam Glow's Vice Director who physically signed the image-use contract with Lily.
- CEO Terry Nguyen — Glam Glow's Director and legal representative, who later claimed he knew nothing about the contract.
- Accountant Amy Tran — Glam Glow's bookkeeper, a key witness who transferred payment from her personal account.
- Journalist Jenny Do — the middleperson who introduced Lily to Glam Glow and signed her own separate brokerage contract.
🎬 The setup: a beauty spa, an actress, and a contract with a very expensive clause
5 December 2018. Lily Pham signs Service Contract No. 22012019/2019/HĐDV with Glam Glow Corp. The deal:
- Glam Glow gets to use Lily's image for 3 months (5 January → 4 April 2019)
- Total contract price: 15 million VND (already paid in full, confirmed)
- The shoot takes place on 5 December 2018 at a Hanoi Glam Glow branch — livestream format, showing Lily experiencing spa services
And buried in Article 3, Section 6 of that contract, a clause that later became the center of everything:
"After the 3-month period, if Glam Glow continues using Lily's image, they must pay a fee of 100,000,000 VND per month."
That clause is either a deliberate, fully-negotiated penalty rate — or a typo. The entire case turns on which one it is.
📅 The timeline — here's what actually happened
The visual above maps it all out. In short:
- 5 April 2019: Lily's licensed image use period ends
- 5 April → 16 December 2019: Lily's images continue appearing on Glam Glow's Facebook fanpage, YouTube channel, website thammyvienNevada.com, and other platforms — without new authorization, without new payment
- 16 December 2019: A bailiff's office in Ho Chi Minh City formally documents the ongoing use in Procès-Verbal No. 2161/2019/VB-TPL — a legal evidentiary record under Vietnamese law
- 16 December 2019: Lily's law firm, Ngoc Phu Law, sends its first cease-and-desist letter
- 17 December 2019: Glam Glow removes all infringing content — but does not pay the overdue fees or issue a public apology
- 27 December 2019: Second C&D letter sent; Glam Glow stays silent
- 3 March 2020: Glam Glow's own legal representative responds, acknowledging the extended use but attributing it to a staff oversight, not deliberate infringement
- Litigation commences; Lily also later voluntarily withdraws her demand for a public apology in the newspapers
Lily's claim when she filed: 800 million VND — 8 months × 100 million VND/month per the contract clause.
⚖️ Round 1: The First Instance Judgment — District Court of Hai Ba Trung
Judgment No. 13/2022/DS-ST, dated 22 February 2022
The first-instance court heard Glam Glow's three main defences — and rejected most of them. Here's how each argument played out:
Glam Glow's defence 1: "The contract signer had no authority."
VP Nick Chen, who signed the contract, was a Deputy Director — not the company's legal representative. Glam Glow argued this made the contract invalid (citing Articles 85 and 87, Civil Code 2015).
Court's implicit finding: The contract bore Glam Glow's official company seal, which under Vietnamese corporate practice requires director-level approval before being affixed. Furthermore, a 15-million-VND payment was made by Glam Glow's own accountant Amy Tran, explicitly labeled "NEVADA KOL payment." Witness Nick Chen himself confirmed that all contracts he signed passed through the Director and the legal department before sealing. The "unauthorized signature" argument collapsed under the weight of the seal, the payment, and the witnesses' own testimony.
Glam Glow's defence 2: "The 100 million VND/month figure is a typo."
Glam Glow argued the figure made no economic sense — comparing it to contracts with more famous celebrities (a runner-up beauty queen, other actors) that only paid 5–10 million VND/month.
Court's implicit finding: The amount was written in figures rather than also in words — which Glam Glow said indicated a drafting error. But witness Journalist Jenny Do (who brokered the original deal) testified she specifically relayed Lily's own 100 million VND/month demand to Glam Glow, and that this figure was incorporated into the contract deliberately. Lily's own team pointed out: Glam Glow is a large, established company with a professional legal team — claiming you didn't notice a 100-million-per-month clause in a contract you sealed is not a credible position.
Glam Glow's defence 3: "We didn't really use the images commercially."
Their lawyer suggested the continued presence of Lily's images was merely a "staff oversight," not active commercial use.
Court's finding: The procès-verbal documentary evidence showed Lily's images on active commercial pages of Glam Glow — a registered e-commerce-website operator whose Director, as the website's legal responsible person, "knew or should have known" what content was being published.
First instance verdict:
- ✅ Accepted Lily's claim for 800 million VND (8 months × 100M)
- ✅ Ordered Glam Glow to pay — plus statutory interest until fully executed
- ✅ Discontinued the public-apology demand (Lily had withdrawn it)
- Glam Glow ordered to pay 18 million VND in first-instance court fees
⚖️ Round 2: The Appellate Judgment — The Twist
Judgment No. 163/2023/DS-PT, dated 11 April 2023 — Hanoi People's Court
Glam Glow appealed. But here's where the real story gets interesting — the case never actually got re-argued on the merits at appellate level. Instead, something more practical happened:
On 5 April 2023 — six days before the appellate hearing date — both parties reached a settlement:
Glam Glow Corp. agrees to pay Lily Pham 250,000,000 VND for the unauthorized continued use of her image. Payment confirmed transferred to Lily's authorized representative.
The Hanoi People's Court recognized the settlement as voluntary, legally consistent, and appropriate — and modified the first-instance judgment accordingly, reducing the payment obligation from 800 million to 250 million VND.
The key differences between first instance and appeal:
| First Instance | Appellate | |
|---|---|---|
| Forum | Hai Ba Trung District Court | Hanoi People's Court |
| Decision type | Full judgment on merits | Settlement recognition |
| Amount ordered | 800,000,000 VND | 250,000,000 VND |
| Glam Glow pays court fees | 18,000,000 VND (first-instance) | 0 (appellate) + gets 300,000 VND deposit back |
| Public apology demand | Already discontinued | Same |
| Contract penalty/late interest | Lily waived voluntarily | Same |
The Hanoi Prosecutor's Office (VKS) agreed with the outcome, recommending the court recognize the settlement per Article 308.2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Appellate Panel concurred.
🏠🚗 Real-life analogies
- 🚗 The car rental that keeps your car. You rent a car for a weekend. The rental company keeps driving it for 8 more months for their own commercial use without telling you, then argues "the daily rate was a typo" when you invoice them. The contract says what it says — if the rate was wrong, the time to object was before you accepted the keys and drove the car.
- 🏠 The landlord who keeps subletting after the lease. A tenant moves out on April 5th. The landlord immediately sublets the room under the tenant's registered lease for 8 more months without paying the original tenant anything. The use is documented, the benefit is real, and "we forgot to update the listing" doesn't undo the obligation.
🤔 Did you know? Quick legal trivia 🤔
- The procès-verbal (vi bằng) used to document Glam Glow's ongoing unauthorized use is a uniquely Vietnamese evidentiary instrument issued by licensed bailiffs (Thừa phát lại). It works as a contemporaneous, officially-witnessed record of facts — equivalent to having a notary physically sit with you while you screenshot infringing content, giving those screenshots real evidentiary weight in court.
- Under Article 3, Section 6 of the contract, the 100M/month clause was a liquidated damages clause — a pre-agreed figure for breach — not a "damages for actual loss" claim. This matters legally: Lily's team correctly argued she didn't need to prove what profit Glam Glow made or what actual losses she suffered. The clause set the rate in advance, and breach triggers the rate automatically.
- In Vietnamese civil procedure, if a settlement is reached during appellate proceedings, the appellate court modifies (not fully reverses) the first-instance judgment to reflect the settlement. The appealing party (Glam Glow) gets their appellate filing fee back, but still owes first-instance fees proportional to the settled amount.
- Signature authority (thẩm quyền ký kết) disputes are extremely common in Vietnamese commercial litigation. The practical rule of thumb: if the company seal appears on a contract, the company's defense that it "didn't know about" the contract faces a very steep uphill road, because Vietnamese law treats the seal as a controlled, director-supervised instrument.
📝 Quick self-quiz — are you image-rights-fluent yet?
- What Vietnamese legal instrument did Lily use to document Glam Glow's continuing unauthorized use?
A. Police report B. Notarized affidavit C. Procès-verbal (vi bằng) D. Tax audit record - Under Lily's contract, what triggered the 100M VND/month payment obligation?
A. Glam Glow earning profit from the images B. Lily proving she suffered actual loss C. Glam Glow continuing to use her image after the 3-month licensed period D. The images appearing more than 10 times - True or false: Glam Glow successfully argued the contract was void because VP Nick Chen lacked signing authority.
- The first-instance court ordered 800M VND. The appellate settlement was 250M VND. What percentage of the original award did Lily ultimately receive?
A. About 15% B. About 31% C. About 50% D. About 67% - In Vietnamese appellate civil procedure, if parties settle during the hearing, the appellate court:
A. Fully upholds the first-instance judgment B. Dismisses the case entirely C. Modifies the first-instance judgment to reflect the settlement D. Refers back to first-instance court
Answer key: 1-C · 2-C · 3-False · 4-B (250/800 ≈ 31.25%) · 5-C 🎉
💡 Practical tips for anyone licensing their image — or using someone else's
If you're the talent/image owner (like Lily):
- Build the overdue-use rate into the contract explicitly — as a liquidated damages clause, not a vague "additional fee may apply." Lily's clause worked because it named a specific figure.
- Get it documented the moment you spot unauthorized use — a procès-verbal or a screen-recording plus a notarized affidavit buys you evidentiary credibility that screenshots alone don't.
- Send written C&D notices promptly and keep copies. Lily's team sent two letters; Glam Glow's own (belated) response acknowledged the use — which became evidence for the plaintiff, not the defendant.
- Consult a lawyer before waiving anything — Lily voluntarily waived the public apology demand and the contract-breach penalty (separate from the image use fees). These were tactical choices, not inevitable ones.
If you're the company licensing talent:
- Never use images past the contract expiry date, even "temporarily." "We forgot to groom the social media pages" is not a defence — it's the factual basis of an 800-million-VND claim.
- Ensure your signer has documented authority, and keep the authorization paper on file. Nick Chen's authority was likely real (he sealed contracts routinely), but the paper trail wasn't there when Glam Glow needed it most.
- If you're using a post-contract rate that looks surprisingly high, re-read it before signing — don't countersign a clause you haven't understood and then call it a typo later.
🌿 A quick detour into nature's version of this rule
Ecologists describe a phenomenon in territory-marking behavior called "tenure overstay" — where an animal remains in a territory after its competitive dominance has expired, continuing to consume resources and derive benefits beyond its sanctioned period. When the rightful territory-holder returns and reasserts their claim, the overstaying animal faces a disproportionately aggressive response — because the longer the overstay, the more compensation the territory-holder needs to recoup. Lily's contract clause worked exactly like this: the longer Glam Glow overstayed in her licensed image-territory, the larger the bill. The clause wasn't punitive — it was evolutionary. It simply priced the overstay at a rate high enough to incentivize timely departure. 🦁
🗣️ Over to you
Do you think 250 million VND (the settlement figure) was a fair outcome given the facts — or should Lily have fought for the full 800 million? And where do you stand on the "typo vs. deliberate clause" debate — given that the contract was sealed with the company stamp and the payment was made? Drop your take in the comments. And if you're a creator, artist, or performer who's ever had your image used beyond its licensed window, this case is directly relevant to you. Tag them. 📣
#VietnamLaw #ImageRights #IntellectualProperty #CelebContract #CivilLaw #AppellateSettlement #DeluluVN #NgocPrinny #LegalEducation #ContractDispute
🚨 Fun but serious: a brief legal disclaimer 🚨
Hey there, legal explorer! 🕵️♀️ Before you close this tab —
- This article summarizes a real judgment — but it's a map, not a teleporter 🗺️ Your image contract situation has its own specific terms, facts, and jurisdiction.
- Party names have been adapted for readability; the legal facts are faithful to the judgment.
- For real-world image rights disputes, summon a professional legal wizard 🧙♀️ — may we suggest Thầy Điệp & Associates Law Firm.
- Reading this doesn't make you a litigation lawyer, the same way watching courtroom dramas doesn't make you one either. ⚖️😉
Full disclaimer: ngocprinny.blogspot.com/2024/08/disclaimer.html
#LegalInfo #delulu.vn #NotLegalAdvice #ConsultAPro #NgocPrinny
💝 Support your legal ninja's wellness fund! 🍵
This judgment ran 14 pages of dense Vietnamese legal prose — every clause, testimony, and counterargument — and you just got the distilled, readable version. That distillation runs on:
- Hours of close reading and legal analysis 📚
- 10+ years of hands-on legal expertise ⚖️
- A genuine love for a good courtroom story 📝
- And the usual herbal tea situation 🍵
If this case study helped you understand Vietnamese image rights law (or just gave you something fascinating to think about), consider treating this ninja to a green tea →. It keeps the analysis sharp and the next judgment coming. 🌱
More about the author and the DELULU world: delulu.vn/about-2/
Author: Nguyễn Lê Bảo Ngọc (Ngọc Prinny)
Reviewed by: Lawyer Lê Thị Kim Dung and Lawyer Nguyễn Văn Điệp, Thầy Điệp & Associates Law Firm
And a little closing wish, sized exactly to when you're reading this:
🌙 Nếu bạn đọc bài viết này vào buổi tối, chúc bạn ngủ thật ngon — và nhớ kiểm tra lại các hợp đồng hình ảnh của bạn trước khi đi ngủ nhé.
☀️ Nếu bạn đọc vào buổi sáng, chúc bạn một ngày tràn đầy năng lượng — và mong rằng mọi hình ảnh của bạn luôn được sử dụng đúng thỏa thuận.
🇬🇧 Wherever you're reading from — may your contracts be clear, your clauses be intentional, and your images stay within their licensed windows.
🇯🇵 いつ読んでいても、心穏やかな一日を。
🇫🇷 Et où que vous soyez, que vos droits à l'image soient toujours respectés. ☘️
.png)
.jpeg)
