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​ 

June 23, 2026
On May 14, 2026, Thailand published a ministerial regulation in the Government Gazette to prescribe measures for prevention and suppression of technology crimes. The regulation creates a comprehensive procedural framework for returning money and digital assets to victims of technology crimes. It will take effect 90 days after publication (in mid-August 2026), giving affected entities a limited window to prepare. Mandatory Reporting Obligations for Financial Institutions When a deposit account, e-money account, or digital asset wallet is frozen in connection with a technology crime, the relevant financial institution or business operator must report transaction data to the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) via AMLO’s designated electronic system. Required data elements include account numbers (sender and receiver), names, identification or passport numbers, legal entity registration numbers, phone numbers, remaining balance, damage amount, transaction reference numbers, and the bank case ID. Institutions that already share data through the information-sharing system under the emergency decree are deemed to have satisfied this reporting obligation, creating an incentive for platform participation. When the Royal Thai Police or the Department of Special Investigation seize or freeze assets related to technology crimes, they must provide AMLO with investigation reports, complaint evidence, money-trail data, and account statements. Notification and Claims Process Once the AMLO secretary-general approves verified reports of a technology crime, the account information of persons connected to the crime will be published in the Government Gazette, triggering a 90-day window for victims to file claims and for related persons to file objections. Officers will also publish details on AMLO’s electronic media and send registered mail to identified victims, which will be deemed received after 7 days domestically or 15 days internationally. Victims have 90 days from the date the crime is published in the Government Gazette to file claims through AMLO’s electronic system. Claims must include
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review
Read More
June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
Read More