The use of copyrighted works to train artificial intelligence models requires explicit approval from copyright holders under Malaysia’s existing legal framework, Deputy Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister Datuk Fuziah Salleh confirmed on August 4, 2026, during a Dewan Negara question-and-answer session. The clarification arrives at a critical juncture for Malaysia’s creative and technology sectors, as the global AI training data market — estimated at USD 2.5 billion in 2025 and projected to expand significantly through 2030 — continues to generate intense legal and policy debate worldwide.
Fuziah’s remarks establish that Malaysia’s Copyright Act 1987 functions as the operative legal instrument governing AI data use, placing the country alongside jurisdictions that have declined to carve out broad AI training exemptions from existing intellectual property law.
Malaysia’s Copyright Act 1987 Applies Fully to AI Training Data, With No Technology Exemption
Malaysia’s Copyright Act 1987 does not distinguish between AI-related and conventional uses of copyrighted material — the obligation to obtain owner approval applies universally. Fuziah stated directly: “Permission from the copyright owner is required for any work to be used, whether or not it involves AI technology.”
The clarification came in response to a supplementary question from Senator Datuk Wu Him Ven, who specifically asked whether AI model training involving copyrighted works requires copyright owner approval and whether formal licensing and royalty mechanisms would be introduced to protect local creators.
Fuziah confirmed that Section 27 of the Copyright Act 1987 governs the payment and licensing framework, with compensation arrangements subject to agreement between the relevant parties. These arrangements may be structured through direct licensing agreements, rights assignments, or via Collective Management Organisations (CMOs) — industry bodies that administer rights and collect royalties on behalf of copyright owners across sectors such as music, publishing, and visual arts. As of 2025, Malaysia’s best-known CMO in the music space, Music Authors’ Copyright Protection (MACP), collectively manages rights for over 10,000 registered members, illustrating the scale of the existing rights management infrastructure that AI developers would need to engage.
Royalty and Licensing Mechanisms for AI Use Already Exist Under Current Law; No New Framework Required Yet
Analysts observe that Malaysia’s position — applying existing copyright law rather than introducing AI-specific legislation — reflects a pragmatic, interim approach consistent with several comparable jurisdictions. Under the current framework, AI developers seeking to train models on Malaysian-originated creative content must negotiate licensing terms directly with rights holders or through established CMOs, with royalty rates determined by mutual agreement.
Fuziah’s statement implies that at least three pathways are available for compliant AI training data acquisition: direct licensing agreements between the AI developer and individual copyright owners; formal rights assignments transferring specific usage rights; and CMO-mediated licensing, which allows batch access to large catalogues of protected works. This third channel is particularly relevant for large language model developers requiring text corpora from local publishers, news organisations, and academic institutions.
No new legislative instrument has been tabled as of August 2026, meaning that companies currently training AI models on Malaysian content without authorisation are operating in breach of the Copyright Act 1987 — a position that carries civil liability exposure even in the absence of any recorded court cases to date.
AI-Generated Works Without Significant Human Creativity Receive No Copyright Protection Under Malaysian Law
Fuziah further clarified a second, distinct dimension of the legal landscape: the copyright status of AI-generated outputs. Under Malaysia’s Copyright Act 1987, protection extends only to works demonstrating originality through human effort, skill, and intellectual contribution. Fully AI-generated content — produced without significant human creative input — does not qualify for copyright protection under current law.
This position has material implications for the local creative economy. Content generated autonomously by AI systems cannot be registered, licenced, or monetised as a protected work by the AI developer or the prompt user. The practical effect is that human creators retain a structural legal advantage over purely automated content generation, at least within Malaysia’s jurisdiction.
Fuziah noted that the government has not yet conducted a dedicated impact assessment on how AI-generated content is affecting job opportunities and earnings within Malaysia’s creative industries — an acknowledgement of the sector’s growing concern. She added that ongoing stakeholder consultations and reviews of international policy models are underway before any new legislative frameworks are considered.
No AI-Related Copyright Court Cases Recorded in Malaysia to Date, But Regulatory Attention Is Escalating
Fuziah confirmed that Malaysia has yet to record any court cases involving copyright violations arising specifically from AI technology use — a data point that reflects the early stage of enforcement, rather than the absence of infringement. Globally, landmark AI copyright litigation has accelerated sharply since 2023, with cases filed against major AI developers in the United States and Europe involving training data scraped from news publishers, authors, and visual artists without licensing arrangements.
Senator Wan Martina Wan Yusoff’s supplementary question — probing the government’s assessment of AI’s impact on local creative sector employment — drew the acknowledgement that no formal study has been completed. Fuziah stated: “No impact assessment has been conducted yet as we are continuing consultations and studying models adopted by other countries to understand the implications better. AI is evolving very quickly, which is why the engagement process must continue.”
The International Labour Organisation estimated in 2024 that generative AI tools could automate or significantly alter approximately 40% of tasks in creative and knowledge-work occupations within a decade — a figure that underscores the urgency of the policy gap Fuziah implicitly acknowledged.
Key Questions on Malaysia’s AI Copyright Rules: What Creators and Developers Need to Know
Does Malaysian law currently require AI developers to obtain permission before using copyrighted works to train AI models? Yes. Under Malaysia’s Copyright Act 1987, permission from the copyright owner is required before any copyrighted work is used for any purpose, including AI model training, regardless of the technology involved.
How can AI developers legally obtain rights to use copyrighted Malaysian content for training data? AI developers may obtain rights through three channels: direct licensing agreements with individual copyright holders, formal rights assignments, or by engaging Collective Management Organisations (CMOs) that manage rights on behalf of multiple creators.
Who determines the royalty rates for AI training data use under Malaysian law? Section 27 of the Copyright Act 1987 specifies that payment arrangements are subject to agreement between the relevant parties — meaning royalty rates are negotiated between the AI developer and the copyright owner or their authorised CMO representative.
Does a work created entirely by an AI system receive copyright protection in Malaysia? No. Malaysia’s Copyright Act 1987 protects only works that demonstrate originality through human effort, skill, and intellectual contribution. Fully AI-generated works without significant human creativity do not qualify for copyright protection.
Has Malaysia recorded any court cases involving AI-related copyright infringement? As of August 2026, Malaysia has not recorded any court cases involving copyright violations arising from AI technology use, according to the Deputy Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister.
Is the Malaysian government planning new AI-specific copyright legislation? No new AI-specific copyright legislation has been tabled as of August 2026. The government is conducting ongoing stakeholder consultations and studying policy approaches adopted by other countries before considering new frameworks.
What government body oversees copyright enforcement in Malaysia? Copyright matters in Malaysia fall under the purview of the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Cost of Living, with the Copyright Act 1987 serving as the primary legislative instrument governing intellectual property protection for creative works.
The policy position articulated by Deputy Minister Fuziah Salleh on August 4, 2026 establishes a clear near-term regulatory baseline: Malaysia’s existing copyright law governs AI training data use without exception, creators retain full approval rights over how their works are used, and AI-generated content produced without meaningful human input remains unprotected. As global AI copyright litigation intensifies and domestic consultations continue, Malaysia’s creative industry stakeholders and technology developers alike operate within a framework that prioritises existing rights holder protections while the government monitors international developments before legislating further.
About the Author
