You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

April 25, 2023

Generative AI and Copyright: How Businesses Can Mitigate Legal Risks

Subscribe to Updates

As in many countries around the world, IP laws in Southeast Asia do not currently specify whether works generated by artificial intelligence (AI) are protected by copyright, and there is also uncertainty surrounding the issue of ownership with respect to works created by AI. While changes to the IP legal framework are expected to respond to the rapid development of AI technologies, existing copyright laws of most countries in Southeast Asia explicitly impose the requirement of a human author for copyright protection to arise.

AI-Generated Works and the Law

This is similar to the position in the United States, where the US Copyright Office issued a policy statement in March 2023 reiterating the US Copyright Act’s requirement of human authorship to register copyright works. The policy document states that when an AI technology determines the expressive elements of the output, the generated materials do not fulfil the human authorship requirement.

However, the US Copyright Office also clarified that certain works containing AI-generated materials may nonetheless contain sufficient human authorship for a copyright claim, such as when a human selects or arranges the AI-generated materials in a sufficiently creative way for the resulting work as a whole to constitute an original work of authorship, or when an artist modifies material originally generated by AI technology to a degree that meets the standard for copyright protection. This is distinguishable from the position in countries such as the UK and Hong Kong, where absent specific provisions addressing AI-generated works, such works may arguably be considered by some as computer-generated works, with authorship assigned to the person who arranges for creation of the work.

New Challenges from Generative AI

The ongoing legal uncertainties surrounding the ownership and protection of AI-generated works create practical challenges for businesses that use or develop generative AI tools. This includes infringement risks related to IP rights and other related rights, such as concerns about infringing third-party copyright through unauthorized reproduction of copyright works or unauthorized creation of derivative works. There are also risks of infringing on database rights or moral rights of authors.

Although the potential benefits of using generative AI technology are extensive, businesses must navigate the legal and regulatory landscape carefully to avoid potential legal issues arising from the use of generative AI. As a start, companies adopting third-party generative AI tools should carefully review the service providers’ terms of service and IP policies to determine whether content input by users is used to train the AI system, and who (i.e., the service provider or the user) owns the works generated by the AI system. Companies that use these AI tools in the provision of services should also consider disclosing this use to customers—and expressly specifying or disclaiming matters related to IP ownership and liability in their customer agreements.

Companies that commission third parties to develop customized generative AI tools should also be sure to conduct in-depth due diligence on any contracted developers and their practices. For example, companies should check whether the AI models were trained using licensed or other open-source content, or obtain confirmation from the developer that the training processes of the AI model did not involve the reproduction of copyright works in any material form that would infringe copyright laws.

Companies can also check whether the AI models’ text and data mining activities were carried out in a jurisdiction that has relevant exceptions for text and data mining. The commissioning agreements should contain relevant indemnities on IP infringement arising from use of third-party content in training the AI model.

Companies should also review and update their internal HR and procurement policy documents to prohibit employees and contractors from feeding confidential company information and trade secrets into text or image prompts of AI tools. As for companies that develop generative AI tools, they should ensure that their data is obtained from authorized sources or from proprietary data sets. To mitigate risks, AI developers should consider maintaining clear audit trails to track the provenance or keep a record of the material that “inspired” the AI-generated content. All companies, regardless of industry, should also ensure that all employees undergo regular IP awareness training, and should exercise clear supervision and control over the employees’ work-related activities.

Tackling Legal Risks from Generative AI

While the development and use of generative AI technology present significant advantages to businesses, it also brings with it a range of legal and regulatory challenges. By understanding these challenges and their complexity, businesses can proactively develop comprehensive strategies to mitigate legal risks and ensure that their use of generative AI aligns with existing IP laws and regulations.

One key aspect of this strategy is to work closely with legal advisors who specialize in IP and technology law, as they can provide tailored advice and guidance to address the specific challenges and risks that arise in this field. Businesses should also monitor regulatory and legal developments relevant to the field of AI on an ongoing basis, as changes in the legal landscape could have significant impacts on their operations and IP strategies. Ultimately, a proactive and comprehensive approach to navigating the legal and regulatory challenges surrounding generative AI will help businesses realize the full potential of this powerful technology while minimizing legal risks and protecting their valuable intellectual assets.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Intellectual Property

Locations

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 4, 2026
Foreign business restrictions on telecommunications, treasury center businesses, and intragroup support services were eased when Thailand published the Ministerial Regulation Prescribing Service Businesses Not Requiring Permission for Foreign Business Operations (No. 5) B.E. 2569 (2026) in the Government Gazette on August 28, 2026. The ministerial regulation expands the categories of service businesses that foreign investors may operate without a foreign business license (FBL) under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA). Of particular relevance to the telecommunications, fintech, and technology sectors, the ministerial regulation exempts: Type 1 telecommunications licensees, which do not have their own networks; Treasury center businesses operated in accordance with Thailand’s exchange control regulations; and Certain intragroup administrative, human resources, and information technology management services. Telecommunications Services Foreign-owned businesses providing telecommunications services under a type 1 telecommunications license may now operate without obtaining an FBL. This may streamline market entry for qualifying telecommunications and digital infrastructure businesses. The exemption applies only to the FBA licensing requirement. Operators must continue to comply with applicable requirements under the Telecommunications Business Act and the regulations of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, and the change does not affect foreign ownership restrictions applicable to type 2 or type 3 telecommunications businesses. Treasury Center Businesses The ministerial regulation also exempts qualifying treasury center businesses from the FBL requirement. This may facilitate centralized treasury functions in Thailand, including liquidity management, foreign exchange management, and intragroup funding arrangements. Treasury center operations remain subject to applicable requirements of the Bank of Thailand and other competent authorities. Intragroup Administrative, HR, and IT Services Certain administrative, human resources, and information technology management services provided between affiliated entities are also exempt, provided the relevant entities satisfy prescribed ownership or management criteria. The exemption is available where the service provider and recipient are related through specified ownership
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More
August 25, 2026
Vietnam has enacted a new decree establishing administrative penalties for violations in the fields of cybersecurity and personal data protection. Decree No. 330/2026/NĐ-CP (Decree 330), issued and effective from August 19, 2026, provides a detailed sanctions framework for noncompliance with the Law on Personal Data Protection (including its implementing regulations under Decree 356/2025/ND-CP) and the Law on Cybersecurity, together with their guiding decrees. The issuance of Decree 330 signals that the practical grace period previously perceived by many businesses may be drawing to a close, with active regulatory enforcement in these areas expected to commence in earnest. Scope and Key Provisions Decree 330 has extraterritorial effect and applies to both onshore and offshore companies. For offshore companies, it applies to those that (1) provide telecommunications, internet, online-content, information-technology, cybersecurity, or cross-border services and (2) are involved in or related to the processing of personal data of Vietnamese citizens and certain other people of Vietnamese origin. Decree 330’s key provisions cover the following areas: Administrative penalties for violations relating to the protection of national security and public order in cyberspace, including the dissemination of unlawful, false, or unverified information. Sanctions for cyberattacks, unauthorized access, introduction of harmful code or programs, and failure to cooperate with specialized cybersecurity forces. Sanctions for personal data protection violations, such as consent, cross-border data transfers, impact assessments, breach notification, and data-subject rights, among others—with maximum fines of up to 5% of an organization’s preceding-year revenue for cross-border transfer violations, or up to VND 3 billion for other data-protection breaches. Personal Data Protection Penalties The key sanctions for personal data protection violations are as follows: Consent violations: Fines of up to VND 70 million (approx. USD 2,642), plus potential additional sanctions and remedial measures including irreversible deletion of personal data collected without consent and confiscation of
Read More
August 25, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) is studying potential new regulatory measures for digital platform services that could significantly expand the country’s digital platform governance framework. The ETDA has already conducted one public consultation session on the proposed measures and will hold additional sessions on August 25 and September 2, 2026, covering five types of platform services under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Services B.E. 2565 (2022). The measures under study are preliminary and may be changed based on consultation outcomes. Foundational Measures Applicable to All Platform Types Seven baseline obligations would apply across all digital platform categories: Transparency reports. Platforms must prepare and publish statistical reports on platform governance activities, including the number of content items removed or restricted and appeal outcomes, in a comparable format. Notice and action mechanism. Platforms must establish minimum standards for channels to report potentially illegal content or goods, conduct case-by-case review, provide explanations when content is removed or restricted, and maintain an internal appeals channel. Rights over automated decision-making. Users significantly affected by automated decisions are granted rights to request an explanation, request human review, and contest the decision. Service level agreements (SLAs). Platforms must publish minimum standards for response times, processing timelines, progress notifications, and remedies for incidents on the platform. Labeling of AI-generated content. Content generated or modified by AI must carry visible labels and machine-readable metadata, with exceptions for creative works that disclose AI use in a nonmisleading manner. Prohibition of dark patterns. User interface designs that deceive, coerce, or distort user decision-making are prohibited, including hiding critical information, creating false urgency, or making service cancellation unreasonably difficult. Business user fairness. Platforms must meet minimum standards for the treatment of sellers, workers, and content creators, including advance notice of term changes, explanation of account suspensions or visibility reductions,
Read More