Malaysia's government has moved to clarify the legal requirements surrounding the use of copyrighted material in artificial intelligence development, confirming that copyright holders retain control over whether their works can be used for training AI systems. Deputy Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister Datuk Dr Fuziah Salleh made the pronouncement during parliamentary proceedings at the Dewan Negara, responding to concerns raised about the protection of local creative industry workers in an increasingly AI-driven economy.
The clarification addresses a growing tension in the global technology sector, where AI companies have been accused of harvesting copyrighted material—including books, articles, images, and music—without compensating original creators. Under Malaysia's existing Copyright Act 1987, the position is unambiguous: any use of a protected work, whether for artificial intelligence applications or conventional purposes, requires explicit permission from the copyright owner. This principle applies uniformly across all technologies and industries, establishing a clear legal foundation that predates the current AI boom.
For those seeking to use copyrighted material in AI training, Malaysia offers several pathways to obtain legitimate rights. The Copyright Act 1987 establishes that licensing arrangements and royalty payments must be negotiated and agreed upon between the relevant parties—typically the copyright owner or their representative and the party seeking to use the work. These arrangements can take multiple forms, ranging from direct licensing agreements between individual creators and technology companies to broader arrangements administered through Collective Management Organisations, or CMOs, which represent the interests of multiple copyright holders and negotiate licenses on their behalf.
Fuziah's response directly addressed questions from Senator Datuk Wu Him Ven, who raised concerns about whether the government would mandate copyright holder approval for AI training and whether formal licensing and royalty mechanisms would be established. The minister confirmed that Section 27 of the Copyright Act 1987 already provides the legal framework for such agreements, placing the onus on parties to negotiate compensation structures that reflect the value being extracted from copyrighted works. This approach delegates decision-making to market participants rather than imposing government-mandated rates, though it does require that some form of compensation mechanism be established.
A critical distinction emerges in how Malaysia's current copyright regime treats different categories of creative output. The law protects only works that demonstrate genuine originality through human effort, intellectual skill, and creative contribution. This definition has important implications for the AI era: fully artificial intelligence-generated content that lacks significant human creativity falls outside copyright protection entirely. This creates a legal asymmetry where human-created works used to train AI systems receive protection, but the output generated by those systems may not qualify for copyright if no substantial human involvement occurred in their creation.
Notably, Malaysia has not yet experienced any reported court cases involving copyright infringement arising specifically from AI technology usage. This absence of litigation reflects the relative newness of AI applications in the country's creative industries, but it should not be interpreted as evidence of an absence of copyright concerns. Rather, it suggests that either disputes have been resolved through private negotiation or that many copyright violations have simply not yet been challenged in court. As AI becomes more prevalent across Malaysian creative sectors, legal disputes are likely to increase, potentially establishing important precedents about how existing copyright law applies to emerging technologies.
The government acknowledged that a dedicated impact assessment of how AI-generated content affects employment and earnings in Malaysia's creative sector has not yet been completed. Senator Wan Martina Wan Yusoff raised this concern, highlighting worries that widespread AI adoption could displace creative workers or depress compensation in fields such as graphic design, copywriting, illustration, and music production. However, Fuziah indicated that such studies are still in progress, with the government engaged in ongoing consultations with various stakeholders across the creative industries.
International best practices are being studied as Malaysia considers its policy approach. Rather than rushing to enact new legislation or establish specific AI-related copyright frameworks, the government is examining how other countries have addressed the tension between fostering innovation and protecting creator rights. Some jurisdictions have established mandatory licensing arrangements for AI training, others have implemented specific carve-outs for certain uses, while some have maintained more permissive approaches. This comparative analysis could influence whether Malaysia modifies its existing Copyright Act or develops supplementary guidance for how the current law applies to AI scenarios.
The rapidly evolving nature of artificial intelligence technology itself presents a challenge to policymakers. The technology is advancing so quickly that any regulatory framework risks becoming outdated within months of implementation. This technical reality informed Fuziah's emphasis on the need for continued consultation and engagement with stakeholders—acknowledging that definitive policy positions may need to remain flexible until the trajectory and impact of AI development become clearer. For Malaysian creators and technology companies, this signals a period of uncertainty where copyright obligations remain grounded in existing law, but future policy could introduce additional requirements or restrictions.
For the Malaysian creative community, the government's stance affirms that their copyright rights remain enforceable in the AI era. Publishers, authors, photographers, composers, and other rights holders retain the ability to control how their works are used and to demand compensation for such use. However, enforcing these rights will require active engagement—negotiating with AI developers, potentially joining collective management organisations, and in some cases pursuing legal action against unauthorised use. The absence of Malaysian court precedents on AI copyright questions means that creators seeking to establish their rights may face significant legal costs and uncertainty.
The implications extend beyond individual creators to the broader Malaysian economy. The creative industries contribute significantly to Malaysia's GDP and employment, with potential growth in digital content, animation, game development, and design. If AI can be deployed freely using Malaysian creative works without compensation, it could undermine investment in local talent and content creation. Conversely, a framework that appropriately compensates creators while permitting legitimate AI applications could foster innovation in AI development while preserving incentives for human creativity. Finding this balance remains the central challenge for policymakers as they monitor developments and assess the need for new legal frameworks beyond the existing Copyright Act 1987.
Moving forward, Malaysian creators should ensure they understand their rights under the current law and actively protect them, while technology companies must recognise that the convenience of unfettered access to training data comes with legal obligations and reputational risks. The government's commitment to ongoing consultation suggests that Malaysia's approach to AI and copyright will continue to evolve, potentially through amendments to existing legislation, new regulatory guidance, or the establishment of industry standards that clarify how licensing and compensation should work in practice. Until such developments occur, the Copyright Act 1987 remains the governing legal framework, and permission from copyright holders remains a legal requirement rather than merely a courtesy.
