Copyright Protection in Malaysia amid Legal Challenges of AI-Generated Content

Copyright Protection in Malaysia amid Legal Challenges of AI-Generated Content

Nasihah Naimat, Mimi Sofiah Ahmad Mustafa, Ida Rahayu Mahat

Department of Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Cawangan Melaka,78000 Melaka, Malaysia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.906000127

Received: 22 May 2025; Accepted: 30 May 2025; Published: 03 July 2025

ABSTRACT

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has introduced significant legal challenges to copyright protection in Malaysia. Currently, there are no specific laws addressing AI-generated content. The Malaysia Copyright Act 1987 provides a framework for protecting the rights of copyright owners while promoting creativity and innovation. However, it does not adequately address the complexities associated with works created by AI. The main issue in this context is the question of authorship and ownership, particularly whether autonomously created AI works can qualify for copyright protection under the Copyright Act 1987. Furthermore, the lack of judicial precedents leaves many questions unresolved regarding the rights of AI developers and those who input prompts into AI systems Additionally, issues related to originality and the potential for copyright infringement during AI training processes add to the complexity. The challenge of determining whether AI-generated works can be classified as original creations under current laws emphasizes the need for reform. Thus, this paper aims to analyse the legal challenges associated with AI-generated content under Malaysian copyright law and propose pathways for reform to ensure the country remains competitive in the global AI landscape while safeguarding the rights of creators and innovators. A qualitative approach was employed, which included a review of existing literature such as journal articles and legal analyses. The findings of this study suggest that as Malaysia continues to adopt AI technologies, establishing a comprehensive regulatory framework is essential to address these challenges while protecting intellectual property rights.

Keywords- Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, Protection, Regulation, Malaysia.

INTRODUCTION

Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies have witnessed growth and integration across various sectors, which transforming industries and reshaping societal norms. The rapid development of AI, featured by the advancements in machine learning, natural language processing and generative models has enabled machines to perform tasks that usually done using human intelligence, such as content creation, data analysis and decision-making (Çebi, 2023; Lucchi, 2023). This evolution has not only enhanced productivity but also leading to a few problems especially regarding the intellectual property rights as existing legal frameworks struggle to keep pace with technological advancements (Adaka & Olubiyi, 2022; Israhadi, 2023).

In Malaysia, the importance of addressing legal challenges related to AI is becoming increasingly critical especially concerning copyright issues. With the growth of AI-generated growing rapidly, questions arise regarding authorship, originality and the rights of creators against those of AI systems (Miernicki & Ng, 2020; Degli et al., 2019). Like many other countries, Malaysia is facing new challenges in copyright law due to the rise of AI which requires a thorough examination of how these technologies engage with existing legal frameworks (Çebi, 2023; Israhadi, 2023). The unique challenges surrounding AI-generated content which include potential copyright infringements and the redefinition of traditional concepts of authorship, highlight the immediate need for legal reform (Lucchi, 2023; Degli et al., 2019).

Based on this context, this article aims to analyse the challenges presented by AI-generated works under Malaysian copyright law and propose recommendations for reform. By examining the current legal landscape and identifying gaps within the existing framework, the study seeks to provide insights into how Malaysia can improve its copyright laws to align with the realities of AI technologies. This is essential for establishing a legal environment that not only protects the rights of creators but also encourages innovation and the responsible use of AI in creative processes (Çebi, 2023; Israhadi, 2023; Miernicki & Ng, 2020).

Nonetheless, it is necessary to acknowledge the limitations of this study. While the study offers valuable insights into the implications of the Copyright Act 1987 on AI-generated works, it does not provide a comprehensive analysis. The discussions presented here serve as a brief overview of the key issues and do not encompass the full spectrum of legal complexities associated with copyright law and AI. The findings should therefore be regarded as preliminary which require further exploration and elaboration in future research.

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Overview of the Malaysia Copyright Act 1987

The Malaysian Copyright Act 1987 serves as Malaysia’s primary legal framework for regulating copyright protection and ownership. It outlines the rights of creators and provides mechanisms to safeguard intellectual property by emphasizing on human authorship. By establishing clear guidelines for ownership and the rights of authors, the Act aims to encourage creativity ensure proper attribution and promote innovation within the country.

One of the key provisions of the Act is its definition of an “author” as outlined in Section 3. The Act stipulates that an author is the person who created the work. This definition forms the basis for assigning ownership and copyright protection under Malaysian law. For example, in literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, the author is considered the creator which emphasizing the role of individual skill, labor and judgment in the creative process (Latif et al., 2024). Section 13 of the Act further elaborates by stating that the author is the first owner of the copyright in their work. However, if a work is created as part of employment, the employer is deemed the copyright owner unless an agreement specifies otherwise. This provision highlights the Act’s consideration of contractual arrangements and its recognition of employment-based intellectual property.

The Act also grants authors several exclusive rights, including the rights to reproduce, distribute, and display their works publicly. These rights ensure that authors can control how their works are used and this will protect their ability to benefit economically from their creations. The Act’s provisions align with international standards, such as those outlined in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, of which Malaysia is a member. By emphasizing the importance of originality, the Act requires that protected works reflect the author’s skill, effort and personal input, distinguishing them from mere ideas or facts (Sik, 2021).

Another important component of the Act is its recognition of moral rights. Section 3(1) of the Act provides authors with the right to attribution and the right to object to derogatory treatment of their work. These moral rights are designed to protect the personal and reputational interests of authors, ensuring that they maintain a connection to their creations and can object to any alterations that might harm their integrity (Azmi, 2017). For example, an author may invoke moral rights to prevent their work from being altered or used in a manner inconsistent with their original intent.

The Act also accommodates the economic rights of copyright owners by granting them control over licensing and the transfer of ownership. This ensures that creators can monetize their works while retaining the ability to enforce their rights against unauthorized use. The emphasis on these economic protections reflects the Act’s goal of balancing creators’ interests with the broader societal benefits of intellectual property. Litoama (2023) discusses the importance of legitimate ownership and the role of copyright in ensuring that creators can manage their rights effectively, which is crucial for the monetization of their works. The ability to license and transfer ownership allows creators to engage in commercial activities that can lead to financial benefits, thereby incentivizing creativity and innovation.

However, the Act’s emphasis on human creativity is evident throughout its provisions, as it requires that all works originate from human authorship. The Act is silent on the legal status of works generated without human intervention, such as those created by autonomous systems or AI (Leng & Khan, 2011). While the Act effectively addresses traditional forms of authorship and ownership, its current provisions do not account for the complexities introduced by technological advancements.

Authorship and Ownership Challenges

The key legal question of whether AI can be recognized as an author under the Malaysian Copyright Act 1987 is complex and complicated. The Malaysian Copyright Act 1987 defines authorship as a human-centric concept, in line with many international copyright laws. This emphasis on human creativity raises significant challenges in the context of AI-generated works. According to the Act, authorship is tied to the individual who creates the work, with the author being the first owner of the copyright unless the work is created in the course of employment. This framework excludes the possibility of AI being recognized as an author. This creates a legal gap for works generated without human intervention (Latif, 2024; Çebi, 2023).

The absence of a human author in AI-generated works leads to questions about ownership and rights. Without legal recognition for AI as an author, it remains unclear who holds copyright for works created by AI. Is it the programmer who designed the AI, the user who provided input, or does the work fall into the public domain due to the lack of a recognized author? This ambiguity creates challenges, particularly in commercial contexts where the value of AI-generated content is substantial (Mazzi, 2024; Putri, 2024).

Moreover, the concept of moral rights which safeguards the personal and reputational interests of authors, does not extend to AI-generated works. Since moral rights are inherently related with the identity and intentions of a human creator, the absence of a human author means that these rights cannot be applied to AI outputs (Azmi, 2017; Mezei, 2020). This gives rise to ethical concerns about how such works might be used, misrepresented, or altered, especially without mechanisms to protect the integrity or reputation of the creator.

The role of AI as a tool further complicates the issue of authorship. Although AI systems can operate independently, numerous AI applications require human involvement through prompt engineering or collaborative creation. This raises questions about whether such works can be considered co-authored and whether the human element is sufficient to meet the legal criteria for authorship under Malaysian law (Bozkurt, 2023). These challenges highlight the necessity for clearer legal definitions of authorship and ownership in the context of AI-generated works.

Challenges of Originality and Copyright Infringement

The concept of originality under Malaysian copyright law 1987 stipulates that for a work to be protected, it must be original and fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Originality, in this context, is understood as the product of an author’s skill, labor, and judgment, reflecting a degree of creativity that is not trivial (Israhadi, 2023). This definition aligns with the broader international standards set by treaties such as the Berne Convention, which emphasizes that originality does not necessitate novelty but rather a personal touch from the creator. The Malaysian legal framework thus requires that the work must not only be independently created but also possess some degree of creativity, distinguishing it from mere ideas or facts (Sik, 2021).

However, the application of this standard becomes increasingly complex with AI-generated works, where creativity comes from algorithms rather than direct human effort. The fundamental challenge lies in determining whether AI-generated outputs fulfill the legal definition of originality. AI systems can produce works that mimic human creativity, nevertheless, the absence of human involvement in the creative process complicates the attribution of originality. Traditional copyright law is human-centric concept that emphasizes human creativity as a prerequisite for protection. This raises questions about whether outputs generated solely by AI can qualify as original works under the Act (Mezei, 2020; Savchenko, 2023).

The evolving nature of AI technologies adds further complexity. As AI systems become more sophisticated, distinguishing between AI-assisted and AI-generated works becomes increasingly difficult. For example, works created with substantial human input may meet the originality standard, while those produced autonomously by AI might not. This ambiguity highlights the limitations of existing legal frameworks and the need for reevaluating how originality is defined in the context of AI (Lee, 2021; Çebi, 2023). Without clear legal distinctions, the stakeholders encounter uncertainty regarding the ownership and protection of such works that might lead to potential disputes in commercial and creative industries.

Another significant concern is the use of copyrighted material in AI training processes. AI systems often depend on big datasets which include copyrighted works. However, the Malaysian Copyright Act 1987 does not currently address whether such use constitutes copyright infringement, leaving developers to legal risks (Lucchi, 2023; Lee, 2023). Without clear guidelines, the use of copyrighted materials for AI training could result in violations of creators’ rights, even when used for non-commercial purposes. This legal ambiguity may deter developers from fully utilizing AI’s potential, fearing unintentional infringement and subsequent litigation. Furthermore, creators may perceive that their works are being exploited without proper consent or recognition, raising ethical concerns that may damage trust within the creative and technological industries.

Ethical considerations further complicate the landscape. The reliance on existing works raises concerns about attribution and compensation for original creators. Numerous creators feel that their works are exploited without proper consent or recognition which may damage trust in the creative industries (Miernicki & Ng, 2020; Rahmawan, 2023). This sense of exploitation can discourage creators from sharing their works or engaging with AI-driven platforms, potentially hindering creative collaboration and innovation. To address these concerns, ethical guidelines governing the use of copyrighted materials in AI training are essential. These guidelines should balance the interests of AI developers with the rights of creators, promoting innovation while ensuring fair treatment of intellectual property (Xudaybergenov, 2023). Moreover, such guidelines would promote transparency in AI practices, encouraging greater trust between creators, developers, and stakeholders in the creative industries.

These challenges are compounded by the global nature of AI development. AI systems frequently depend on data sourced from various jurisdictions, each with its own copyright laws and standards. This creates additional complexities for developers operating in Malaysia, where the lack of clear guidelines on originality and infringement increases the risks associated with using copyrighted materials in AI training. Moreover, the ambiguous boundaries of what constitutes fair use in AI contexts further complicate compliance efforts for developers. In order to resolve these concerns, it will require both legislative reform and international cooperation to develop harmonized standards for managing AI-generated content, ensuring consistency across jurisdictions and mitigating legal uncertainties (Xudaybergenov, 2023). Such measures are crucial not only for fostering innovation but also for protecting the rights of copyright holders in the digital era.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The study adopts a qualitative approach, which is particularly well-suited for exploring complex legal issues and understanding the complex nature of copyright law in the context of AI and its implications for authorship and ownership. This qualitative methodology allows for an examination of the existing legal framework, facilitating an understanding of the relationship between technology and copyright law. The research employs a doctrinal approach, utilizing a library-based method that involves engagement with primary legal sources. The primary focus of the analysis is on the Malaysian Copyright Act 1987, scrutinizing relevant sections to understand how these provisions apply to human-created works and the limitations the Act impose on AI-generated content. Following this analysis, the study incorporates secondary data, including published journals, books, unpublished works and internet resources. By analyzing both primary legal texts and secondary data, the study aims to highlight gaps and ambiguities in the law that may hinder the protection of AI-generated works. Due to time and resource limits, it does not include a review of court cases on authorship and originality in AI-generated content.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The issue of authorship and copyright for AI-generated works poses significant legal challenges across Malaysia, the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU). These jurisdictions take distinct approaches to copyright law, reflecting their unique legal frameworks and cultural contexts. However, Malaysia’s lack of judicial precedents and regulatory clarity makes it more difficult to manage AI-generated content, placing the country at a comparative disadvantage.

Malaysia’s Copyright Act 1987 primarily recognizes human authorship, serves as the fundamental basis for establishing copyright ownership. For a work to be protected, it must meet the legal standard of originality, which under Malaysian law is defined as the product of an author’s skill, labor and judgment. This definition reflects international standards, such as those set by the Berne Convention, emphasizing that originality does not require novelty but instead requires a personal touch from the creator (Israhadi, 2023; Sik, 2021). This framework functions well for traditional works but poses significant challenges when applied to AI-generated content.

The Malaysian law does not explicitly address the complexities introduced by AI technologies, leaving critical questions about ownership and originality unresolved (Çebi, 2023; Shen, 2024). AI systems can produce outputs that appear original and creative but are generated through algorithms and data processing rather than human labor. This distinction creates a legal gap, as traditional copyright law is human-centric, focusing exclusively on human creators. Therefore, the lack of a human author in AI-generated works makes it more difficult to the attribution of originality, leaving such outputs unprotected under current Malaysian copyright law (Mezei, 2021; Frosio, 2022).

The lack of judicial precedents addressing AI-related copyright issues further compounds this problem. Without case law to guide interpretations of the Malaysia law, creators, developers, and users of AI technologies face significant uncertainty. This unpredictability extends to questions about whether AI outputs meet the originality standard or qualify for protection under existing frameworks (Çebi, 2023; Shen, 2024). The lack of judicial guidance deters investment in AI technologies, as stakeholders are reluctant to engage in projects that could lead to complex legal disputes without a clear understanding of their rights and obligations (Ruan, 2024; Latif et al., 2024).

In addition, the gap in judicial precedents leaves unresolved ethical considerations surrounding AI-generated works. Questions about moral rights, attribution and the responsibilities of AI developers and users remain largely unaddressed in the Malaysian legal context. In contrast to jurisdictions like the EU, where moral rights provide clear standards for attribution and protection of creators, Malaysia currently lacks specific legal provisions to address such concerns in the context of AI-generated works (Çebi, 2023; Miernicki & Ng, 2020). This creates the potential for exploitation of creators’ rights and insufficient recognition of their contributions, further highlighting the need for legislative reform (Ruan, 2024; Shen, 2024).

In contrast, the UK has adopted a more nuanced approach to AI copyright issues. Section 178 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA) 1988 provides that computer-generated works can be protected by copyright, but authorship is attributed to the person who made the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work (Çebi, 2023). This framework acknowledges the role of human involvement in AI-generated content, allowing for a level of flexibility that is absent in Malaysian law. By attributing authorship to the individual responsible for the AI’s output, the UK strikes a balance between innovation and the protection of intellectual property rights (Putri, 2024).

Similarly, the EU emphasizes the importance of human authorship for copyright protection. Its legal framework, as outlined in directives such as the EU Copyright Directive, requires that originality and creativity stem from human creators (Mazzi, 2024; Miernicki & Ng, 2020). While the EU is exploring potential reforms to address the complexities introduced by AI technologies, it has not yet reached a consensus on granting authorship to AI systems (Zhou & Rahman, 2024). Nevertheless, ongoing discussions within the EU reflect its cautious but proactive stance on adapting copyright laws to the realities of AI (Mukoji, 2024).

Despite the more advanced legal frameworks in the UK and EU, the distinction between AI-assisted and AI-generated works remains a challenge across all jurisdictions. As AI systems become increasingly sophisticated, the line between human and machine contributions grows blurred, creating uncertainties regarding the ownership and rights associated with such creations (Çebi, 2023). This issue is particularly evident in Malaysia, where the lack of regulatory clarity becomes even worse due to the uncertainty surrounding these distinctions.

The legal and ethical implications of using copyrighted material in AI training processes further complicate the landscape. AI systems often require big datasets for training, many of which include copyrighted works. In jurisdictions like Malaysia, the use of such materials without permission raises significant concerns about copyright infringement (Lucchi, 2023). The current copyright laws do not adequately address the complexities of AI training, leaving developers vulnerable to legal risks. This issue is compounded by the impracticality of obtaining licenses for all copyrighted materials used in AI training datasets, which are often extensive and diverse (Vesala, 2023).

Moreover, the ethical considerations surrounding the use of copyrighted material in AI training cannot be ignored. The reliance on existing works raises questions about the moral rights of creators, particularly concerning attribution and integrity. Creators may feel that their works are being exploited without proper recognition or compensation, leading to a potential erosion of trust in the creative industries (Miernicki & Ng, 2020; Rahmawan et al., 2023). These concerns highlight the importance of establishing ethical guidelines to regulate the use of copyrighted materials in AI training, which must strike a balance between the interests of AI developers and the rights of original creators (Xudaybergenov, 2023).

Malaysia’s lack of judicial precedents and regulatory clarity not only affects its domestic landscape but also hinders its ability to compete globally. Other jurisdictions, such as the UK and EU, are actively establishing frameworks and precedents to address AI-related copyright challenges. This proactive approach positions them as leaders in the digital economy, while Malaysia risks falling behind (Ruan, 2024; Zhou & Rahman, 2024). The need for comprehensive legislative reform in Malaysia is clear, as it must align with international standards to promote innovation and protect the rights of creators and stakeholders (Shen, 2024).

The comparison of AI copyright laws in Malaysia, the UK, and the EU highlights the major differences in their approaches to authorship, originality, and copyright infringement. While the UK and EU are making progress in adapting their legal frameworks to the realities of AI, Malaysia faces significant challenges due to its lack of judicial precedents and regulatory gaps. Addressing these gaps through legislative reform is essential for Malaysia to remain competitive in the global digital economy and to provide clarity and protection for stakeholders managing the complexities of AI-generated content.

SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

To effectively accommodate the challenges posed by AI in the area of copyright law, it is essential to propose specific reforms to the Copyright Act 1987 in Malaysia. These reforms should focus on two critical areas which are defining authorship for AI-generated content and establishing clear guidelines for originality and infringement in the context of AI. The existing legal framework lacks clarity regarding the status of AI as a creator, which complicates the determination of ownership and rights associated with AI-generated works. By explicitly defining authorship, the law can better accommodate the unique nature of AI-generated content while ensuring that human creators are recognized and protected (Israhadi, 2023; Çebi, 2023).

One potential reform could involve recognizing a dual authorship model, where both the AI system and the human operator or programmer are acknowledged as co-authors. This approach aligns with emerging trends in other jurisdictions, where legal frameworks are beginning to adapt to the realities of AI-generated content (Wang, 2023). Such a model would not only clarify the rights associated with AI-generated works but also promote collaboration between human creators and AI technologies, thereby encouraging innovation in the creative industries. Additionally, the Act could incorporate provisions that establish criteria for determining originality in AI-generated works, recognizing that the creative process may differ significantly from traditional human authorship. These criteria could include the degree of human input in the training and operation of the AI, as well as the uniqueness of the output generated (Israhadi, 2023; Çebi, 2023).

Furthermore, establishing clear guidelines for infringement is equally crucial. The current uncertainty surrounding copyright infringement in the context of AI-generated content can lead to disputes that are difficult to resolve. By defining what constitutes infringement in relation to AI-generated works, the law can provide clearer pathways for dispute resolution and reduce the risk of litigation. This could involve creating specific exceptions for AI training processes, allowing for the use of copyrighted materials under certain conditions, thereby encouraging innovation while respecting the rights of original creators (Wang, 2023). Such guidelines would help outline the boundaries of acceptable use and ensure that AI developers can operate within a legal framework that supports their activities without infringing on the rights of others.

CONCLUSION

The current framework of the Copyright Act 1987 in Malaysia is well established in protecting human-created works, but it reveals significant limitations when faced with the realities of AI and its ability to generate creative content. The Act’s strict definition of authorship as inherently human-centric, coupled with the absence of provisions addressing AI-generated works, creates a legal gap that leaves many stakeholders including developers, users and rights holders, uncertain about ownership and rights. As AI technology continues to advance at an unprecedented pace, the urgency of addressing these issues becomes increasingly critical. The lack of clarity surrounding authorship and ownership of AI-generated content not only hampers innovation but also poses risks of copyright infringement and ethical dilemmas regarding the treatment of such works. Furthermore, the absence of moral rights for AI-generated content raises concerns about the integrity and reputation of these works, which could lead to misuse or misrepresentation.

To keep pace with technological advancements, Malaysian policymakers must undertake a comprehensive review of the Copyright Act 1987. Legislative reforms should aim to incorporate clear guidelines that recognize the contributions of both human users and AI systems in the creative process. This may involve exploring new models of authorship and ownership that adapt to the evolving landscape of creativity in the digital age. In light of these considerations, the urgency to reform copyright law cannot be overstated. By proactively addressing these challenges, Malaysia can foster an environment that encourages innovation while ensuring that the rights of creators, both human and AI are adequately protected. This will not only enhance the legal framework surrounding copyright but also position Malaysia as a forward-thinking jurisdiction that can handling the complexities of the digital economy.

REFERENCES

1. Adaka, E. E., & Olubiyi, I. A. (2022). Lessons for Nigeria: determining authorship and inventorship of Artificial Intelligence generated works. J. Intell. Prop. & Info. Tech. L., 2, 15.
2. Azmi, I. M. A. G. (2017). Voices from the dead: the uneasy case of indigenous cultural expression. International Journal of Law and Management, 59(4), 522-533.
3. Bozkurt, A. (2023). Generative AI, synthetic contents, open educational resources (OER), and open educational practices (OEP): A new front in the openness landscape. Open Praxis, 15(3), 178-184
4. Çebi, E., Reisoğlu, P., & Goktas, E. (2023). The Influence of Artificial Intelligence on Copyright Law. Interdisciplinary Studies in Society, Law, and Politics, 2(2), 33-41
5. Díaz-Noci, J. (2020). Artificial intelligence systems-aided news and copyright: Assessing Legal implications for journalism practices. Future Internet, 12, 5, 85.
6. Degli Esposti, M., Lagioia, F., & Sartor, G. (2020). The use of copyrighted works by AI systems: Art works in the data Mill. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 11(1), 51-69
7. Frosio, G. (2022). Four theories in search of an A (I) uthor. In Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence (pp. 156-178). Edward Elgar Publishing.
8. Hu, Y. (2023, September). Literature in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. In 2023 9th International Conference on Humanities and Social Science Research (ICHSSR 2023) (pp. 1781-1787). Atlantis Press.
9. Hugenholtz, P. B., & Quintais, J. P. (2021). Copyright and artificial creation: does EU copyright law protect AI-assisted output?. IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 52(9), 1190-1216.
10. Israhadi, E. I. (2023). The Impact of Developments in Artificial Intelligence on Copyright and other Intellectual Property Laws. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 11(11), e1965-e1965.
11. Latif, M. S. A., Manap, N. A., & Althabhawi, N. M. (2024). Proposal for Copyright Compensation for Artificial Intelligence (AI) Data Training for Malaysia. IIUMLJ, 32, 159.
12. Leng, O. T. S., & Khan, S. (2011). Copyright Protection in Malaysia and the End UsersPerspective in E-Book. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 1(2), 121.
13. Litoama, F. (2024). The Legal Certainty of Legitimate Ownership in Copyright Works of Songs or Music, as well as Associated Rights in Non-Declarative Recording in accordance with the Royalty Management System under Government Regulation No. 56 of 2021 (Case Study on Copyright). Sinergi International Journal of Law, 2(1), 1-13.
14. Lucchi, N. (2024). ChatGPT: a case study on copyright challenges for generative artificial intelligence systems. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 15(3), 602-624.
15. Mahabbatli, A. (2023). Analysis of liability of internet intermediaries for copyright infringement and penalty procedure. Scientific Work, 17(4), 200-205.
16. Mazzi, F. (2024). Authorship in artificial intelligence‐generated works: Exploring originality in text prompts and artificial intelligence outputs through philosophical foundations of copyright and collage protection. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 27(3), 410-427.
17. Mezei, P. (2021). From Leonardo to the Next Rembrandt–the need for AI-Pessimism in the age of algorithms. UFITA Archiv für Medienrecht und Medienwissenschaft, 84(2), 390-429.
18. Miernicki, M., & Ng, I. (2021). Artificial intelligence and moral rights. Ai & Society, 36(1), 319-329.
19. Mukoji, C. (2024). Copyright Protection for AI-generated Works in Tanzania: The Need for Legal Reforms. East African Journal of Law and Ethics, 7(1), 149-160.
20. Putri, R. N., Nursalamah, P. A., Monica, A., & Putri, D. K. (2024). Penguatan Hukum Hak Cipta Atas Karya Seni Buatan AI di Indonesia dalam Rangka Penguatan Sektor Industri Kreatif 5.0. Wacana Hukum, 30(1), 1-16.
21. Rabago, G. (2024). Can AI Have a Signature: Legal Ownership and Authorship of Creative Materials Involving Artificial Intelligence. UC Merced Undergraduate Research Journal, 16(2).
22. Rahmawan, T. I., Amrulla, M. F., & Sunarjo, S. (2023). Juridical review of moral rights ownership in copyright of photographic works used for artificial intelligence algorithms. Jurnal Penelitian, 20(2), 69-83.
23. Savchenko, V., & Tsvar, O. (2023). Issues of copyright for objects created by artificial intelligence. Baltic Journal of Legal and Social Sciences, (3).
24. Sik, C. P. (2021). Yea or nay to artificial intelligence? More questions than answers under Malaysian copyright law. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 24(5-6), 368-382.
25. Singh, S. (2024). Navigating the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law: Challenges and implications. International Journal of Advanced Academic Studies, 6(4), 21-28.
26. Vesala, J. (2023). Developing artificial intelligence-based content creation: are EU copyright and antitrust law fit for purpose?. IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 54(3), 351-380.
27. Wang, F. F. (2023). Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Works: Solutions to Further Challenges from Generative AI. Amicus Curiae, 5, 88.
28. Xudaybergenov, A. (2023). Toward Legal Recognition of Artificial Intelligence Proposals for Limited Subject of law Status. International Journal of Law and Policy, 1(4).
29. Yang, W. (2024). Legal Regulation of Intellectual Property Rights in the Digital Age: A Perspective from AIGC Infringement. Science of Law Journal, 3(3), 164-173.
30. Zhou, T & Rahman, M. R. A. (2024). Legal perspective on the risk of copyright infringement by AI-Generated Contents in China. Jurnal Undang-Undang dan Masyarakat, 34(2), 141-153.