Intellectual Property Rights Redefining Authorship: AI and Copyright Protection in Malaysia

ABSTRACT 

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in creative fields such as music, art, and writing raises critical questions regarding intellectual property rights. This article explores whether AI should be granted copyright, or if ownership should reside with the creators of AI or the users of AI software. It analyzes the implications of current copyright laws and argues for potential reforms to address the unique challenges posed by AI-generated works. 

This article explores whether AI-generated works should receive copyright protection and, if not, whether such rights should belong to AI developers or users. The current Malaysian legal framework, which centres on human authorship, faces challenges in accommodating the complexities introduced by non-human creativity. This paper examines Malaysian copyright laws, compares international perspectives, and analyses the potential need for legal reform. It also discusses the ethical implications, including concerns over accountability and the diminishing value of human creativity. The article ultimately argues for a hybrid approach to copyright ownership and calls for adaptive legislation that embraces innovation while safeguarding the integrity of human authorship , Ethical considerations, including accountability and the potential devaluation of human creativity, are also addressed. Ultimately, the article advocates for adaptive legal frameworks and international dialogue to balance the rights of human creators and the contributions of AI in the evolving creative landscape.

INTRODUCTION 

The primary function of artificial intelligence (AI) technology, which is developing at an unprecedented rate, is to produce creative works in a variety of fields, such as music, literature, visual arts, and even science. Significant concerns about intellectual property rights are brought up by the rise in AI-generated content, especially in relation to whether AI itself needs copyright protection. Conventional copyright laws were created with human authorship in mind, highlighting the significance of originality, creativity, and intention qualities that artificial intelligence, as a non-sentient creature, lacks. This article examines the difficulties in determining authorship, the effects of AI-generated works on current copyright systems, and the possible necessity of legislative reform to meet these developing concerns. 

For a work to be original, according to Section 7(3) of the Copyright Act 1987, sufficient effort must be expended. Recently, the Federal Court held in YKL Engineering Sdn Bhd v Sungei Kahang Palm Oil Sdn Bhd & Anor [2022] 8 CLJ 32 that efforts in terms of skills, time, and labour must be expended . 

Supporters of providing copyright protection for AI-generated works argue that this will encourage innovation and investment in AI technology. By allowing creators to claim ownership of AI-generated content, the legal framework can foster a collaborative environment that recognizes both human and machine contributions. This view sees AI as a tool that enhances, rather than replaces, human creativity, like a camera or a musical instrument. Therefore, protecting these works under copyright law can create a richer and more diverse cultural environment. In contrast, critics of this view argue that granting copyright to AI-generated works undermines the fundamental principles of authorship and creativity. They argue that AI lacks the consciousness and emotional depth that human artists bring to their work. 

They argue that copyright is fundamentally tied to the human experience, that is, the expression of individual creativity and intention.The Malaysian Copyright Act 1987, similar to other jurisdictions, does not recognise AI as a legal person capable of holding rights. This paper explores the feasibility of copyright protection for AI-generated works within Malaysian law and suggests potential reform. It also weighs the ethical and economic impacts on Malaysian creators, and argues for a balanced, hybrid model of copyright ownership 

BACKGROUND 

The birth of artificial intelligence (AI) as a creative force has sparked significant debate within legal and artistic communities. Historically, intellectual property rights have been designed to protect works created by human authors. However, as AI technologies advance, their capability to generate original works ranging from paintings and music to written content challenges traditional notions of authorship and ownership. 

copyright has been grounded in the principle that authorship requires a human touch, encompassing originality, intent, and expression. However, with AI tools now capable of producing works that are indistinguishable from those created by humans, the legal frameworks governing copyright are becoming outdated. Current laws typically require a human author for copyright eligibility, leaving a legal void for AI-generated works The establishment of (AI) as a distinct field of study is often credited to the Dartmouth Conference held in 1956, a pivotal event organized by key figures including John McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Nathaniel Rochester, and Claude Shannon.1 This conference brought together a group of researchers who shared a vision of creating machines that could mimic human intelligence. The term “artificial intelligence” was officially coined during this gathering, signaling a shift in focus towards the development of intelligent systems capable of reasoning, learning, and problem-solving.2 The conference laid the groundwork for future AI research, with discussions centered on how machines could process information and replicate cognitive functions. Following the Dartmouth Conference, early AI developments emerged, including programs designed for symbolic reasoning and problem-solving tasks. Notably, John McCarthy developed LISP, a programming language that became foundational for AI research due to its effectiveness in symbolic computation.3 Additionally, Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon created the Logic Theorist, which is often regarded as one of the first AI programs, capable of proving mathematical theorems.4 These early efforts demonstrated the potential of AI and sparked significant interest, leading to the establishment of research labs and increased funding for the field. However, the journey of AI was not without challenges; it encountered several periods of reduced funding and interest, commonly referred to as “AI winters,” which arose due to unmet expectations and the limitations of early technologies. Despite these setbacks, the foundational ideas and early successes from the 1950s and 1960s continued to influence subsequent research5. As AI evolved, it began to branch into various subfields, including machine learning, natural language processing, and robotics, each contributing to the understanding and capabilities of intelligent systems. By the 1980s, expert systems gained prominence, as researchers sought to create programs that could emulate the decision-making abilities of human experts in specific domains. 

This era saw renewed investment and interest in AI technologies, paving the way for more sophisticated applications. The late 1990s and early 2000s marked a resurgence in AI, particularly with the revival of neural networks and the development of algorithms that improved machine learning capabilities. Significant breakthroughs, such as support vector machines and advances in statistical methods, enhanced AI’s ability to analyze data and make predictions. 

In Malaysia, copyright law is governed by the Copyright Act 1987, which primarily recognises human authorship as the basis for ownership and protection. This legal framework, like those in many other jurisdictions, was crafted at a time when artificial intelligence (AI) was not yet capable of generating creative works, and therefore, it does not account for non-human creators. As AI technologies increasingly produce original content—ranging from artwork and music to written pieces—Malaysia faces a growing legal and ethical dilemma: how should copyright law evolve to accommodate works generated by machines? 

Under the current Act, copyright is only granted to a natural person or a legal entity, not to a machine or algorithm. Section 3 of the Act defines a “qualified person” as a citizen or permanent resident of Malaysia or a body corporate incorporated under Malaysian law. However, this definition excludes AI, which has no legal personality or capacity to hold rights. Consequently, any work that is autonomously produced by AI may fall outside the scope of legal protection, creating uncertainty for developers, users, and businesses that rely on AI to generate creative output. As computational power increased and vast amounts of data became available, the field progressed rapidly. The advent of deep learning in the 2010s represented a significant milestone, with convolutional neural networks enabling remarkable advancements in image and speech recognition. Notable achievements, like Google’s AlphaGo defeating world champion Go player Lee Sedol in 2016, showcased the capabilities of AI in complex strategic 6environments. 

Today, AI permeates various sectors, including healthcare, finance, and entertainment, illustrating its transformative impact on society. As the field continues to evolve, it faces ongoing challenges related to ethics, accountability, and the implications of increasingly autonomous systems. The trajectory of AI, from its birth at the Dartmouth Conference to its current applications, reflects a journey marked by innovation7, interdisciplinary collaboration, and an enduring research understanding and replicate the complexities of human thought and behavior. This ongoing exploration promises to shape the future of technology, creativity, and human interaction in profound ways. This evolving landscape prompts a reevaluation of existing intellectual property laws and poses essential questions about authorship. As AI technologies proliferate and their applications expand, the need for adaptive legal frameworks that address these challenges is more pressing than ever. The discussion surrounding AI and copyright is not just a legal issue but also encompasses ethical, cultural, and economic dimensions that shape our understanding of creativity in the 21st century. 

Analysis 

There is an ongoing debate as to whether or not AI will be granted intellectual property rights. The crux of attaining rights for intellectual property will normally be premised on a legal person to be an applicant. Under current laws, AI does not possess the rights because it definitely lacks the personhood which is a key element under IP protection. In the United States and the EU generally allow human being to only hold a copyright. As in the copyright case of ‘Zarya of the Dawn’, the court has held that output generated by AI cannot qualify for copyright protection. However, this may no longer be the case as seen in the groundbreaking court judgment of Li v Liu8 where the court has held that the picture that was generated by AI is protected by copyright as an original work as the plaintiff here has designed different elements of the picture by adjusting to the parameter settings. It was held to fall under a work of fine arts thereby protected as copyright9.  

Based on traditional copyright law, ownership generally is being granted to the person or the corporation that created the work. This has proven to be more difficult when AI is involved as it is difficult to determine who the creator or owner is. However, since AI cannot be considered to be an authority does not have the right to hold ownership as seen in the case of Li v Liu10. This was further affirmed in the case of Naruto v Slater11 where the court found that a human touch will be needed to receive any kind of legal ownership for the copyright protection12. The UK legislators has indeed touched on the issue of IP ownership. For example, under section 9(3) of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988,13 Based on the above, with the passing of the latest judgement of Li v Liu, there are still no fixed conclusion whether or not AI generated work can be granted IP rights. However, following the case of Liu, the court will still need to determine this based on each case. Moving forward, with the advancement of technology and the prevalent use of the AI, a hybrid model of IP ownership may be more practical14. For example, when a dispute with regards to the legal ownership of IP is brought to the court, the judge will have to first evaluate the contribution of the human entities towards the output generated by the IP. Developers of the AI program may be able to hold certain rights while users of such AI program may also hold certain ownership based on their creative direction. 

Current Legal Framework 

The Status Quo: Copyright Protection and AI in Malaysia 

The current legal framework in Malaysia, as governed by the Copyright Act 1987 (Act 332), adheres strictly to the principle of human authorship. Section 3 of the Act defines an “author” as a “qualified person,” which refers to a natural person (i.e., a human) or a legal entity such as a corporation incorporated in Malaysia. This definition inherently excludes non-human creators, including artificial intelligence (AI) systems, from being eligible for copyright protection. At present, no statutory provisions or judicial decisions in Malaysia specifically address the legal status of AI-generated works. Consequently, works generated autonomously by AI, without direct human creative input, fall outside the scope of copyright protection. This creates legal uncertainty, particularly for businesses, artists, and developers who utilise AI tools in their creative processes. 

Moreover, unlike jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom—which explicitly provides for computer-generated works under Section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988—Malaysia has no equivalent provision in its domestic legislation. This legislative gap presents a challenge in protecting works where authorship is not clearly attributable to a human. 

Given the strict statutory construction applied by Malaysian courts, and the absence of relevant case law, it is currently understood that only human involvement can confer authorship. Therefore, the prevailing status quo maintains a human-centric approach to copyright, excluding AI from holding or being assigned any intellectual property right. 

Traditional Perspectives on Copyright 

Copyright law is fundamentally rooted in the idea of protecting the rights of creators, allowing them to control the use and distribution of their works. This protection is based on the premise that human authorship involves intent, emotional connection, and a unique expression of ideas. AI-generated works challenge traditional notions of creativity.AI-generated creations are changing our understanding of creativity. AI systems, especially those employing machine learning, are crafted to examine extensive datasets and produce outcomes using patterns and algorithms.The results can be remarkably original and mirror human creativity, but the process lacks the personal touch, emotional connection, and intentionality typical of human creators.This gives rise to fundamental questions about whether AI can be regarded as an author in the legal sense.The concept of authorship is linked not only to the final product but also to the underlying purpose in it. 

The Impact on Innovation 

One of the key arguments against granting copyrights to AI is the potential hindrance to innovation. If AI-generated works were granted copyright protection, it could lead to a situation where AI outputs are treated as proprietary, complicating the ability for other creators to build upon these works. The creative ecosystem thrives on collaboration and the free exchange of ideas; overly restrictive copyright protections for AI 

Legal Personhood and Copyright Eligibility under Malaysian Law 

The Copyright Act 1987 (Act 332) remains the principal legislation governing copyright in Malaysia. Under Section 3, the term “author” refers to “the person who creates the work” , indicating a clear emphasis on human authorship . This inherently excludes non-human entities such as artificial intelligence (AI) from holding copyright. 

Malaysia has not yet had a reported court decision directly dealing with AI-generated content and copyright. However, Malaysian legal interpretation traditionally aligns with strict statutory construction , suggesting that unless amended, the Act excludes non-human creators from legal authorship. 

Gaps in the Malaysian Legal Framework 

Applications for AI-generated works without human attribution would likely be rejected, as there is no statutory or judicial support for machine authorship. 

Additionally, unlike jurisdictions such as the UK (which has Section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988), Malaysia has no provision for computer-generated works or works created “without a human author.” This leaves a gap for creative works where AI plays a significant role but no human creator can be definitively identified. 

Human Involvement and Ownership 

Although Malaysian courts have not ruled on AI and copyright directly, local judicial principles suggest that human intervention or creative input is crucial. For instance, if a human uses an AI tool but guides its output (e.g., by providing prompts, editing, or selecting parameters), that person could potentially be considered the “author” under Malaysian law. 

For example, in the context of software or collaborative works, courts have historically looked at who made material contributions to the final output. This reasoning can be extended to AI-assisted creation, where the human user exercises sufficient control and judgment over the process. 

Proposal for Reform in Malaysia 

Given the current limitations of the Copyright Act 1987, Malaysia would benefit from adopting a hybrid model that accommodates AI-assisted works while preserving human authorship principles. A reform could include: 

– Recognising AI-assisted works where a human has made a creative or editorial contribution. 

– Creating a legal category for computer-generated works , assigning authorship to the  person who initiated or arranged the creation. 

– Ensuring that AI itself is never the owner, as it lacks legal personality. 

Until such reform is made, the safest interpretation is that only humans can hold copyright , and authorship must be proven through clear human involvement. 

CONCLUSION 

Malaysia’s copyright framework, rooted in the Copyright Act 1987 , currently does not accommodate AI-generated works without human involvement. The legal definition of “author” necessitates a human creator, thereby excluding AI from holding copyright. As Malaysia continues to advance in digital innovation, this poses a significant legal and creative dilemma. To address the legal uncertainty, Malaysia should consider amending the Act to introduce provisions for AI-assisted works , drawing lessons from other jurisdictions while aligning with national legal principles. 

The question regarding whether AI deserves copyright for its creations is intricate and layered, necessitating thorough examination of legal, economic, and ethical aspects.While traditional copyright frameworks highlight human authorship and creativity, the emergence of AI questions these concepts and calls for a reassessment of current legislation.In the realm of creative industries, as society explores the effects of AI, it is crucial to establish legal frameworks that can adapt and recognize the distinctiveness of AI-generated content, all the while protecting the rights of human creators.The potential for exploring new categories of rights or hybrid models of authorship opens up promising pathways in tackling the challenges posed by AI. Ultimately, our aim should be to cultivate an inclusive creative environment that appreciates contributions from both humans and machines, all while nurturing innovation without compromising the foundational principles of artistic expression. Engaging in conversations among legislators, industry stakeholders, and creators will be essential in shaping the future of intellectual property rights in the era of AI.As we advance, collaboration and considerate regulation are becoming increasingly crucial. This paves the way for a balanced approach that fully embraces the potential of AI in this age of technological transformation . A hybrid model of ownership , recognising human direction or input in AI-assisted works, would provide clarity and encourage innovation. Such reform would ensure that creators, developers, and users of AI tools can collaborate meaningfully—without compromising the core principle that copyright is a human right . 

Reference (S)

Articles 

1. Julia Mccoy (2023) Unlock the AI and Copyright Puzzle: Who Owns Your AI Content? < https://contenthacker.com/ai-and-copyright/ > accessed 29 October 2024 
2. DS (2024) Who Owns AI-Generated Content? Navigating Credit and Ownership in the Age of Artificial Intelligence < https://designsensory.com/insights/ai-ownership/ > accessed 29 October 2024 
3. Neville (2024) Ownership of AI-generated content in the UK < https://www.aoshearman.com/en/insights/ownership-of-ai-generated-content-in-the-uk > accessed 29 October 2024 

4. Aleksandra J (2023) Who Owns the Content Produced By Artificial Intelligence Platforms? < https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/who-owns-content-produced-artificial-intelligence-platforms jarosz/ > accessed 29 October 2024 

5. LPP (2023) Who Owns the Copyright Work in AI-Generated Art? < https://lpplaw.my/insights/e-articles/who-owns-the-copyright-work-in-ai-generated-art/ > accessed 29 October 2024 
6. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1956). The Logic Theory Machine: A Complex Information Processing System. 

7. McCarthy, J. (1960). Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine, Part I 
8. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1957). The Process of Creative Thinking 

Cases 

1. Li v Liu (2022) NSWCA 67 
2. Naruto v Slater No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018) 
3. YKL Engineering Sdn Bhd v Sungei Kahang Palm Oil Sdn Bhd & Anor [2022] 8 Legislation 
4. Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988, s 9(3) 
5. Copyright Act 1987 (Act 332), s

1 McCarthy, J., Minsky, M. L., Rochester, N., & Shannon, C. E. (1956). A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence 

2 Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1956). The Logic Theory Machine: A Complex Information Processing System. 

3 McCarthy, J. (1960). Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine, Part I 

4 Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1957). The Process of Creative Thinking

5 Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon, “GPS: A Program that Simulates Human Thought” (1961) 1 Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 75. 

6 Silver, D., Schrittwieser, J., Sutton, R. S., et al. (2020). “Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm.” Science, 367(6481), 55-60. 

7 McCarthy, John, Marvin Minsky, Nathaniel Rochester, and Claude Shannon. (1956)

8 Li v Liu (2022) NSWCA 67 

9 Julia Mccoy (2023) Unlock the AI and Copyright Puzzle: Who Owns Your AI Content? < https://contenthacker.com/ai-and-copyright/ > accessed 29 October 2024 

10 Li v Liu (2022) NSWCA 67 

11 Naruto v Slater No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018) 

12 Aleksandra J (2023) Who Owns the Content Produced By Artificial Intelligence Platforms? < https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/who-owns-content-produced-artificial-intelligence-platforms-jarosz/ > accessed 29 October 2024 

13Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988, s 9(3) 

14 LPP (2023) Who Owns the Copyright Work in AI-Generated Art? < https://lpplaw.my/insights/e-articles/who-owns-the-copyright-work-in-ai-generated-art/ > accessed 29 October 2024