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

November 27, 2023

Navigating Legitimate Use of Intellectual Property in Generative AI

Subscribe to Updates

The emergence of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed the landscape for innovators and creators. As many legal practitioners have pointed out, it’s imperative for both developers of AI and artists using generative AI to understand the intricacies of intellectual property (IP) strategies so they can navigate this evolving terrain successfully. This article lays out some essential considerations relating to the major types of IP for both developers and creators in the realm of generative AI.

IP Strategies for Developers of Generative AI

Developers of generative AI technologies play a pivotal role in the innovation landscape. There are three overarching IP-related issues to consider: protecting their own intellectual property, mitigating the risk of violating other people’s IP rights, and IP commercialization. Key aspects of these concerns, along with suggested approaches for developers, are outlined below.

Protecting IP

  • Copyrights. One of the primary considerations for AI developers is the protection of AI-generated works, such as art and source code. The good news is that in most countries, these creations enjoy copyright protection without the need for registration. As a result, the works are automatically protected from the moment of creation. However, it’s crucial to maintain comprehensive records of your work to establish your ownership.
  • Trademarks. Trademarks are vital for AI developers looking to establish and protect their brand. Pay close attention to Nice classifications, particularly class 9 (for software), class 35 (for business management and online marketing), and class 42 (for software design and development). Registering trademarks in these classes can provide robust protection for your brand and products.
  • Patents. For truly innovative AI algorithms, techniques, or processes, consider the option of patenting. Patents offer strong protection, but they require a thorough application process and the documentation of your innovation, including evidence that the invention is novel, non-obvious, and practically applicable.
  • Trade secrets. Protect valuable assets such as training datasets and algorithms through trade secrets. Keep them confidential and restrict access to maintain their secrecy. Legal agreements, including nondisclosure agreements (NDAs), can be invaluable in safeguarding these critical components.

Mitigating the Risk of Infringing Others’ IP Rights

  • Data collection. When collecting datasets for training AI models, ensure that you use legally obtained data. Commissioned datasets and orphan works (copyright-protected works for which the author cannot be identified or found) often come with clear usage rights, making them safer choices. Exercise caution when dealing with datasets of uncertain origin to avoid potential infringement issues.
  • Data protection laws. AI training datasets may contain personal data, which can be subject to data protection laws such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe or the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) in Thailand. Noncompliance with applicable data protection laws such as these can harm individuals’ privacy rights and risk legal consequences.

IP Commercialization

  • Ownership issues. Ownership of IP can become complex, especially when multiple parties are involved in creating it. To avoid future disputes and legal complications, be diligent in clarifying ownership rights and potential liability issues.
  • Licensing components. Licensing IP rights is a fundamental tool for exploiting them commercially. The license should also define the scope of ownership over the work, including elements created independently by the author and those developed through the use of generative AI. When commercializing your AI-generated products, identify the components that you own or have created. Distinguishing between your own IP and components that incorporate open-source or others’ licensed IP can make it easier to craft effective licensing agreements while protecting your interests.

IP Strategies for Creators and Artists

Creators and artists using generative also face a range of IP challenges. While some of these relate to the broader topics identified above, the specific concerns and recommended approaches differ. For instance, creators and artists have their own unique concerns when it comes to IP commercialization and the risk of infringing IP rights. The issue of IP ownership, particularly in relation to derivative works and jointly created inventions using generative AI, also comes to the fore.

IP Commercialization and Licensing

  • Licensing and selling. Creators and artists using generative AI have the opportunity to license or sell their works if the end-user license agreement permits. This can provide a pathway for monetization and sharing your creative endeavors with a broader audience.
  • Ownership of IP rights: Determining ownership rights is a necessary prerequisite when considering the commercialization of IP created through generative AI and prompts. Factors such as the “sweat of the brow doctrine,” which considers the level of user contribution to the generated work, can influence ownership. Carefully examine the terms of use and licensing agreements for any AI tools and platforms used in creating a work. If explicit ownership terms are absent, the local laws in each jurisdiction may determine ownership.
  • Commercial arrangements. The type of service model, such as licensing or subscription, can also impact copyright ownership rights. Whether it’s a free or paid subscription, be aware of their implications on your ownership when using a third party’s AI software to create your works, as the ownership rights may be influenced by the chosen licensing or subscription models.

Ownership

  • Derivative works. When creating derivative works using generative AI, it may be necessary to obtain authorization from the original sources, especially if the original works are copyright protected.
  • Jointly created inventions. In situations involving jointly created inventions or when using generative AI as a collaborative tool, clearly defining ownership and responsibilities among collaborators (e.g., via agreement) can prevent disputes and ensure that all contributions are acknowledged and protected.

Risk of Infringing Others’ IP Rights

  • Utilizing trusted generative AI. To mitigate the risk of infringing others’ IP rights or breaking other laws (such as the GDPR), always use generative AI with legally sourced materials, including datasets and pretrained models.
  • Exercise caution with fair-use doctrine. Fair use requirements and exceptions can vary significantly across jurisdictions. What qualifies as fair use in one place may not be in another, so it’s necessary to understand the local legal context and be cautious about relying on fair use as a defense.

Conclusion

Generative AI presents both exciting opportunities and complex challenges for innovators, developers, creators, and artists. Legal complexities—particularly those related to IP—are prominent among the implications of this technology, so effective IP strategies are essential for safeguarding creations, avoiding legal pitfalls, and capitalizing on the benefits of innovation. Careful and well-thought-out legal IP strategies will help creators, innovators, and their organizations make meaningful progress in this dynamic landscape.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Intellectual Property

Locations

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 16, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require
Read More
July 14, 2026
Thailand’s National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) has published guidelines establishing a risk-based framework for the responsible use of artificial intelligence by telecom licensees. Released on July 2, 2026, the Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Telecommunications Services address governance structures, ethical principles, lifecycle management, and consumer protection obligations. Scope and Legal Context The nonbinding guidelines apply to holders of telecom business licenses under Thailand’s telecom licensing laws, but only with respect to the use of AI in providing licensed telecom services. Entities without such licenses are not directly subject to the guidelines, though they may be affected as third-party AI solution providers to licensees. The guidelines supplement and should be read alongside existing laws, including the Cybersecurity Act, the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), the Computer Crime Act, and the NBTC Notification regarding Measures to Protect Telecommunications Service Users’ Rights Regarding Personal Data, Privacy Rights, and Freedom of Telecommunications, as well as forthcoming AI governance legislation being drafted by the ETDA. AI Governance Structure Licensees are expected to establish committees, working groups, or designated officers at both policy and operational levels to set strategic direction for AI use, formulate governance policies and tools, and oversee risk management. Roles, responsibilities, and accountability should be clearly defined for all personnel across every stage of the AI lifecycle—including for third-party AI solution providers and outsourced service providers, whose obligations should be explicitly documented in service agreements. Core Principles The guidelines identify six core principles that licensees should adhere to when deploying AI: Compliance with laws, ethics, and international standards: AI should respect privacy, dignity, and human rights, and content filtering for inputs and outputs should be considered. For example, the AI should not be designed and developed to be used in generating false information, supporting illegal activities, or causing
Read More
July 10, 2026
Vietnam has taken a significant step in regulating its e-commerce sector with the issuance of a new decree guiding the country’s recently enacted Law on E-Commerce. Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP, issued on June 30, 2026, and taking effect the following day, addresses mandatory platform policies, registration requirements for offshore platforms, additional obligations on platform operators, and market access conditions for foreign investors. Mandatory Policy Contents The decree sets out detailed guidance on the required contents of various platform policies, covering pricing, payment, display priority, livestream sales, delivery, returns, method of service provision, and service termination and refunds. Clarification of Obligations for Platform Operators The decree provides clarification of the obligations applicable to platform operators. Notably, intermediary e-commerce platform operators with online ordering functions must: Collect specific information to implement electronic identity verification of sellers; Cooperate with regulators by reporting online through the state e-commerce management system and by blocking, suspending, or removing content upon request of a competent authority; Maintain a mechanism to store contract data, including price, product or service information, and parties’ information, for at least three years from the date of contract conclusion; and If qualifying as a “large digital platform” under consumer protection law, maintain an online system for receiving and handling complaints and requests, and comply with enhanced content-removal requirements. Registration Requirements for Offshore Platforms Offshore e-commerce platforms, whether direct-sales, intermediary, social-network-based, or integrated, that conduct e-commerce activity in Vietnam must register with the Ministry of Industry and Trade if the platform: Allows Vietnamese-language selection; Uses a “.vn” domain; or Reaches 100,000 or more transactions with Vietnam-based buyers within a calendar year. Notably, the registration requirement now captures not only traditional intermediary platforms, but also direct-sales platforms. Foreign Investment Conditions Foreign investors holding a controlling interest in an intermediary e-commerce platform, a social media platform
Read More
July 8, 2026
On July 7, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) issued a press release announcing the establishment of two new subcommittees designed to intensify oversight of digital platforms and modern trade businesses. The formation of the digital platform subcommittee marks a significant escalation in competition enforcement following the TCCT’s Guidelines on Multi-Sided Platforms and E-Commerce Businesses, which took effect on March 25, 2026. Platform operators, sellers, and related service providers should expect heightened regulatory scrutiny and potential investigations into practices already flagged under the March guidelines. Two Dedicated Enforcement Bodies The first new body is the digital platform subcommittee—formally the Subcommittee on Supervision, Monitoring, and Prevention of Trade Conduct in Digital Platform Business. It is tasked with driving intensive oversight of digital platform businesses. It will coordinate with government agencies, the private sector, business operators, and other relevant stakeholders to supervise and prevent trade conduct that may affect competition, and to promote free and fair competition in the digital platform sector. The subcommittee will be composed of TCCT members and representatives from the Department of Internal Trade. The second body—the Subcommittee on Determining Guidelines and Action Plans Concerning Competition Conditions in Modern Wholesale and Retail Business—will study, analyze, and monitor market structure in modern wholesale and retail businesses, compile databases to analyze retail business concentration, assess impacts on small-scale operators, and propose supervisory measures for the retail sector. TCCT members will serve on the subcommittee alongside experts from government and private organizations, including the Office of Industrial Economics, the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises Promotion, the Thai SME Federation, and the Thai SME Council. Operational Impact for Industry Participants These subcommittees provide the TCCT with a focused mechanism to investigate various trade practices deemed unfair, and the TCCT has authority under the Trade Competition Act to issue cease-and-desist
Read More