The rapid growth of artificial intelligence (“AI”), digital platforms and online content distribution has fundamentally changed how copyright works are created, accessed, used and commercialised.
While copyright law has traditionally focused on protecting authors and copyright owners against unauthorised reproduction and exploitation, the digital economy has introduced increasingly complex questions. These include whether copyrighted materials may be used to train AI models, whether AI-generated outputs qualify for copyright protection, how copyright should respond to new technologies, and the extent to which online intermediaries should bear responsibility for infringing content hosted or transmitted through their services.
Recognising these developments, the Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (“MyIPO”) released its Public Consultation Paper on the Proposed Amendments to the Copyright Act 1987 (“Consultation Paper”) on 3 July 2026 for public consultation. The Consultation Paper proposes a broad range of reforms aimed at modernising Malaysia’s copyright framework by addressing emerging technologies, strengthening digital copyright enforcement, improving copyright administration and commercialisation, and aligning Malaysia’s copyright regime with international developments.
Although the proposals remain subject to consultation, they provide valuable insight into the future direction of copyright law in Malaysia. The proposed reforms extend beyond traditional creators and copyright owners, and will have significant implications for AI developers, software companies, digital platforms, internet service providers, online marketplaces and businesses that increasingly rely on intellectual property as a strategic commercial asset.
In this article, we highlight eight key proposals from the Consultation Paper that businesses and copyright owners should closely monitor.
Key Takeaway 1: AI and Copyright
AI has become one of the most significant copyright issues globally. As generative AI systems become increasingly capable of producing text, images, music, videos and source code for software, copyright law is being asked to address many questions that did not arise when existing legislative frameworks were developed.
The Consultation Paper focuses on two key issues. The first concerns whether copyrighted materials may be used to train AI models. Modern AI systems require enormous volumes of data to identify patterns and improve performance, with training datasets frequently containing works protected by copyright. This has led to ongoing debate over whether AI training constitutes copyright infringement or whether it should instead be permitted through a statutory exception.
In considering possible reforms, the Consultation Paper refers to developments in jurisdictions such as Japan and Singapore. Japan permits the use of copyrighted works for information analysis (including AI training), provided that such use does not unreasonably prejudice the interests of the copyright owner. Singapore, by contrast, provides exception for the use of copyright work for AI training and other forms of computational analysis under certain circumstances, as long as the have lawful access to the relevant copyright work.
The second issue raised in the Consultation Paper is whether AI-generated outputs should qualify for copyright protection. Traditional copyright law assumes that copyright subsists in works created where there is sufficient human creativity and authorship in the work. However, as AI systems become increasingly capable of autonomously generating creative content, questions arise as to whether copyright protection should depend upon the degree of human involvement and, if so, who should own any resulting rights.
These issues are no longer confined to technology companies. Businesses across a wide range of industries are increasingly using AI to generate marketing materials, software code, reports, product designs and other commercially valuable content. Greater legal certainty regarding AI training and ownership of AI-generated works will therefore become increasingly important for businesses seeking to commercialise AI while managing intellectual property risks.
In practical terms, these reforms would definitely address some of the most consequential questions at the intersection of AI and copyright, as they will directly influence how companies may lawfully collect and use data to train AI models, as well as the degree of autonomy that may be given to AI systems in generating commercially valuable outputs. This will become increasingly important with the rise of AI agents, where data collection, model training and content generation may progressively occur with limited or no meaningful human involvement. The legal position ultimately adopted will therefore shape not only how businesses manage copyright risk, but also the extent to which they can deploy, scale and commercialise increasingly autonomous AI systems in the future.
Key Takeaway 2: Stronger Protection for TPMs and RMI
The Consultation Paper also proposes strengthening the protection afforded to Technological Protection Measures (“TPMs”) and Rights Management Information (“RMI”), recognising that copyright protection today extends beyond legal rights, and should also include the technologies used to safeguard digital content.
TPMs refer to technologies such as encryption, password protection, digital rights management (“DRM”) systems and access controls that prevent unauthorised access to or copying of copyright works. RMI, on the other hand, refers to information identifying copyright owners, authors or licensing terms that facilitate copyright management and licensing.
These technologies underpin many modern digital business models. Streaming services rely on DRM to prevent unauthorised copying of films and music; software developers utilise licence authentication systems to combat piracy, while digital publishers increasingly depend on access controls and embedded ownership information to manage subscriptions and licensing.
In response to these developments, the Consultation Paper seeks feedback on whether Malaysia’s existing legal protections remain adequate in light of technological developments. Stronger protection for TPMs and RMIs would help deter circumvention technologies that undermine subscription-based services and digital licensing models, while reinforcing the technological safeguards upon which copyright owners increasingly rely to commercialise their works.
For businesses operating streaming platforms, SaaS products, software licensing models and other digital content services, these proposals demonstrate that effective copyright protection is increasingly as much about protecting the technological safeguards deployed as protecting the underlying works themselves.
Key Takeaway 3: Dynamic Injunctions Against Online Copyright Infringement
The Consultation Paper also recognises that traditional enforcement mechanisms are increasingly being thwarted by the speed and scale of online copyright infringement. Infringing content can now be reproduced and made available across multiple websites within minutes, often reappearing under different domain names even after successful court action has been taken against the original website.
To address this issue, the Consultation Paper considers introducing dynamic injunctions as an additional enforcement mechanism. Unlike conventional injunctions, which are generally directed at specific websites identified at the time the order is granted, dynamic injunctions may enable rights holders to extend the effect of an existing injunction to new domains or online locations that subsequently facilitate substantially the same infringing activity.
Several jurisdictions have adopted similar mechanisms in recognition of the practical difficulties associated with combating online piracy. Rather than requiring copyright owners to commence fresh court proceedings each time infringing content migrates to a different website, dynamic injunctions may provide a more efficient means of responding to persistent online infringement.
If adopted, these reforms would strengthen the enforcement toolkit available to copyright owners, particularly those operating in industries that experience widespread digital piracy, such as film, music, software, publishing and live sports broadcasting. At the same time, internet service providers and other intermediaries may face increased obligations in implementing and complying with such court orders.
Therefore, this would be a welcome development, as from both a cost and practical perspective, dynamic injunctions could significantly streamline the enforcement process by reducing the need for rights holders to commence repeated proceedings against substantially similar infringing websites. Especially in a fast-moving digital economy, where online content can be replicated and relocated almost instantaneously, a more responsive and adaptable enforcement mechanism is increasingly necessary. If implemented with appropriate safeguards, this reform would bring Malaysia’s copyright framework a meaningful step forward and better equip rights holders, intermediaries and the courts to respond to the realities of modern online infringement.
Key Takeaway 4: ISP Liability and Safe Harbour
The Consultation Paper also revisits Malaysia’s safe harbour framework governing the liability of internet service providers (“ISPs”) and other online intermediaries. As digital platforms increasingly facilitate the hosting, storage and transmission of user-generated content, questions surrounding intermediary liability have become an important aspect of modern copyright law.
Malaysia’s existing safe harbour regime seeks to balance two competing objectives. On the one hand, copyright owners require effective mechanisms to protect their works from online infringement. On the other, ISPs and online platforms should not automatically incur liability for infringing acts committed by their users where they merely provide the infrastructure through which content is transmitted.
The Consultation Paper seeks feedback on whether the existing framework should be updated, including the scope of safe harbour protection, the conditions that intermediaries must satisfy to qualify for immunity, and whether Malaysia’s notice-and-takedown procedures remain appropriate in today’s digital environment.
These issues extend well beyond traditional internet service providers. Online marketplaces, cloud service providers, social media platforms, content-sharing platforms and other digital intermediaries increasingly face questions regarding their responsibilities in responding to allegations of copyright infringement.
For businesses operating online platforms, any reforms to the safe harbour regime may have significant compliance implications. Organisations should therefore continue to review their internal governance frameworks, notice-and-takedown procedures and content moderation policies to ensure they remain capable of responding to evolving legal requirements.
Key Takeaway 5: Commercialising Copyright Through the Artist’s Resale Right and Orphan Works
Beyond strengthening copyright protection, the Consultation Paper also seeks to enhance the commercial value and accessibility of copyright works through the proposed introduction of an Artist’s Resale Right (“ARR”) and a legislative framework governing orphan works. These proposals reflect a broader recognition that copyright should not merely protect creative works from infringement, but also facilitate their continued commercial exploitation and public use.
Under the proposed ARR regime, eligible artists would be entitled to receive a royalty when their original artistic works are resold on the secondary market, such as through galleries, auction houses or art dealers. While artists ordinarily receive payment upon the first sale of their works, they do not generally benefit from any subsequent increase in value. An ARR seeks to address this by allowing artists to participate in the future commercial success of their works. Similar regimes have already been implemented in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Australia and member states of the European Union.
The Consultation Paper also explores introducing a statutory framework governing orphan works. These are copyright works whose owners cannot be identified or located despite reasonable efforts. The absence of a clear legal framework often results in such works remaining inaccessible, as potential users are reluctant to risk copyright infringement where ownership cannot be verified.
A legislative framework could facilitate the use of orphan works by libraries, museums, educational institutions, archives and researchers while preserving appropriate safeguards should the copyright owner subsequently emerge. Such a framework may also encourage greater digitisation and preservation of historical and cultural materials that would otherwise remain unavailable to the public.
Collectively, these proposals recognise that copyright should support both the creation of new works and the continued commercial and cultural use of existing works. Taken together, the proposed ARR and orphan works frameworks represent a meaningful step towards achieving a more practical balance between protecting and recognising the rights of creators, while ensuring that valuable works can continue to be accessed, preserved and used where the relevant copyright owner cannot reasonably be identified or located. ARR would allow artists to share more fairly in the continuing commercial value of their works, whereas an orphan works regime would address the real-world difficulty of valuable cultural, historical and educational materials remaining unused simply because ownership cannot be verified. These proposals therefore respond to genuine practical gaps in the existing framework and could support a more balanced copyright system that protects creators without unnecessarily preventing the continued development and responsible use of existing works.
Key Takeaway 6: Modernising Copyright Administration
An effective copyright regime depends not only on substantive legal rights, but also on efficient institutions capable of administering those rights. Recognising this, the Consultation Paper proposes several reforms aimed at improving the governance and administration of Malaysia’s copyright system, particularly in relation to Collective Management Organisations (“CMOs”), the Copyright Tribunal and the Copyright Voluntary Notification (“CVN”) framework.
CMOs play an important role in administering copyright on behalf of creators and rights holders by granting licences, collecting royalties and distributing payments. Given their central role within the copyright ecosystem, the Consultation Paper considers measures to strengthen the regulation and governance of CMOs, with the objective of improving transparency, accountability and confidence in collective rights management.
The Consultation Paper also proposes reforms to the Copyright Tribunal, which serves as an avenue for resolving disputes relating to copyright licensing and other matters under the Copyright Act 1987. Enhancing the Tribunal’s efficiency and effectiveness may provide copyright owners and users with a more practical and accessible mechanism for resolving disputes without resorting to lengthy court proceedings.
In addition, MyIPO proposes improvements to the CVN framework. Although copyright protection arises automatically upon creation of an eligible work, voluntary notification provides evidence supporting ownership and the existence of copyright. Enhancements to the CVN framework may therefore strengthen evidential certainty while facilitating licensing, commercial transactions and enforcement activities.
While these proposals may appear administrative in nature, they have significant commercial implications. Efficient licensing mechanisms, transparent royalty administration and accessible dispute resolution processes contribute to a more predictable and commercially attractive copyright environment, ultimately benefiting both copyright owners and businesses that rely upon copyright-protected content.
Key Takeaway 7: Clarifying the Relationship Between Copyright and Industrial Design Protection
The Consultation Paper also considers clarifying the relationship between copyright protection and industrial design rights, an area that has historically given rise to legal uncertainty.
Although both copyright and industrial design law protect intellectual creations, they serve different purposes and operate under different legal regimes. Copyright generally protects original literary, musical, artistic works and etc., while industrial design law protects the visual appearance of articles produced through industrial processes. Where artistic works are subsequently applied to commercial products, questions may arise as to whether copyright protection continues to subsist, whether industrial design registration should instead be obtained, or whether both regimes may operate concurrently.
The Consultation Paper seeks feedback on clarifying this relationship to provide greater legal certainty for creators, designers and businesses. Clearer legislative guidance would assist businesses in determining the most appropriate form of intellectual property protection and reduce uncertainty regarding the scope and duration of available rights.
The proposed clarification is particularly relevant for manufacturers, consumer goods companies, furniture designers, fashion businesses and product designers whose creations often possess both artistic and functional characteristics. Greater certainty in this area may also reduce disputes regarding the appropriate intellectual property regime applicable to commercially manufactured products.
Key Takeaway 8: Aligning Malaysia’s Copyright Framework with International Standards
The Consultation Paper also reflects Malaysia’s continued efforts to align its copyright framework with international developments through the proposed accession to the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances (“Beijing Treaty”) and the Brussels Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite (“Brussels Convention”).
The Beijing Treaty seeks to strengthen the rights of performers in audiovisual works by recognising various economic and moral rights relating to performances fixed in films and other audiovisual productions. Meanwhile, the Brussels Convention addresses the unauthorised distribution of programme-carrying signals transmitted by satellite, reflecting the growing importance of cross-border broadcasting and digital content distribution.
Accession to these international instruments would further align Malaysia’s copyright regime with internationally recognised standards while strengthening protection for creators and rights holders participating in global markets. For businesses engaged in the creation, licensing and distribution of copyright works across multiple jurisdictions, greater harmonisation may also improve legal certainty and facilitate cross-border commercial activities.
Taken together, these proposals demonstrate MyIPO’s intention to ensure that Malaysia’s copyright framework remains responsive not only to domestic technological developments, but also to the evolving international copyright landscape.
Closing Thoughts
The Consultation Paper represents one of the most significant reviews of Malaysia’s copyright framework in recent years. Rather than proposing isolated legislative amendments, it sets out a comprehensive programme of reform that seeks to ensure the Copyright Act 1987 remains fit for purpose in an increasingly digital, data-driven and interconnected economy. From AI and digital enforcement to copyright commercialisation, institutional governance and international alignment, the proposed reforms reflect a recognition that copyright law must continue to evolve alongside technological innovation and changing business models.
While the proposals remain subject to public consultation and may be refined before any legislative amendments are introduced, they provide a clear indication of the future direction of copyright law in Malaysia. Businesses that create, use or commercialise intellectual property should therefore monitor these developments closely and consider how the proposed reforms may affect their operations, contractual arrangements, compliance obligations and broader intellectual property strategies.
If you have any questions on artificial intelligence, copyright, intellectual property protection, AI-generated content, AI training data, digital enforcement or the structuring and commercialisation of AI and technology products in Malaysia, please feel free to reach out to the partners in our Technology Practice Group, Ong Johnson and Lo Khai Yi, for a consultation. We have extensive experience advising on AI, copyright, intellectual property, data protection, digital platforms, technology arrangements and related regulatory matters in Malaysia, and would be pleased to assist businesses in navigating the legal, regulatory and commercial considerations involved.
The Technology Practice Group of Halim Hong & Quek continues to be recognised by leading legal directories and industry benchmarks. Recent accolades include FinTech Law Firm of the Year at the ALB Malaysia Law Awards (2024, 2025 and 2026), Law Firm of the Year for Technology, Media and Telecommunications by the In-House Community, FinTech Law Firm of the Year by the Asia Business Law Journal, a Band 2 ranking for FinTech by Chambers and Partners, and a Tier 3 ranking by Legal 500. The strength of the practice is further reflected in the individual recognition of its partners, including a Band 1 ranking for FinTech by Chambers and Partners within the Technology Practice Group.
About the authors
Ong Johnson
Partner
Head of Technology Practice Group
Fintech, Data Protection,
Technology, Media & Telecommunications (“TMT”),
IP and Competition Law
johnson.ong@hhq.com.my
◦
Lo Khai Yi
Partner
Co-Head of Technology Practice Group
Technology, Media & Telecommunications (“TMT”), Technology
Acquisition and Outsourcing, Telecommunication Licensing and
Acquisition, Cybersecurity
ky.lo@hhq.com.my.
◦
Winn Wong Huang Wee
Principal Associate
Technology, Media & Telecommunications (“TMT”), Intellectual
Property, Intellectual Property Disputes
winn.wong@hhq.com.my.
More of our articles that you should read:
