Can AI Own Copyright?
- IP Gennesis
- Nov 7
- 6 min read
You might have heard about the recent buzz around the Oriental Kopi x UNIQLO collaboration — some people claimed that the images printed on the shirts were AI-generated.
Whether that’s true or not isn’t the main issue, and we are not able to verify it. The real question is:
If an artwork is created by AI, who owns the copyright?
Let’s unpack this from a Malaysian legal perspective.
What Qualifies for Copyright Protection?
In simple terms, a work can enjoy copyright protection only if it’s created by a qualified person and falls under a category protected by law (like literary, artistic, musical, or film works).
The Copyright Act 1987 (Section 10(1)) states:
“Copyright shall subsist in every work eligible for copyright of which the author or in the case of a work of joint authorship, any of the authors is, at the time when the work is made, a qualified person.”
Who Counts as a “Qualified Person”?
Under Section 3 of the Copyright Act 1987, a qualified person means:
(a) In relation to an individual, means a person who is a citizen of, or a permanent resident in, Malaysia; and
(b) In relation to a body corporate, means a body corporate established in Malaysia and constituted or vested with legal personality under the laws of Malaysia.
So, to put it simply:
✅ The work must be original and fall within a protected category.
✅ The creator (or author) must be a qualified person under Malaysian law.
Does AI Meet the Legal Conditions for Copyright Ownership?
No. AI doesn’t seem to meet the legal definition of a “qualified person.”
Under Malaysian law, only a human or a company represented by humans can qualify as a copyright owner.
As AI has no citizenship, nationality, or legal personality, which means it simply cannot hold legal rights, including copyright ownership, at least not under the current Malaysian Copyright Act 1987.
So, if you use AI tools (like ChatGPT, Midjourney, or DALL·E) to create content, it’s better to ensure there’s sufficient human input or creativity involved.
If AI Can’t Own Copyright, Do You Automatically Own It?
Not really. No Malaysian court has ruled on this yet, but from how the Copyright Act is written, it seems to be the case.
Just because AI cannot own copyright doesn’t mean you automatically do.
Let’s say you typed a simple prompt like:
“Design a shirt with nasi lemak art.”
If you didn’t add any creative input — such as selecting the style, adjusting the layout, or editing the final image — your design probably won’t qualify for copyright protection.
That’s because under Section 7(3) of the Copyright Act 1987, a literary, musical or artistic work is only protected if:
Sufficient effort has been used to make the work original in character; and
The work has been written down, recorded, or reduced to material form (for example, saved as an image or printed on a shirt).
In summary, AI output alone is not sufficient. It’s your creative contribution that matters. To claim ownership, it is better for you show that you have made creative choices that shaped the final result.
The issue above seems to be consistent with the finding of an American Court.
Case Study 1: Art Created Autonomously by AI Cannot be Copyrighted
An American court ruled that AI-generated artwork cannot be copyrighted unless there’s human creativity involved.
A computer scientist, Dr. Stephen Thaler, tried to register copyright for an artwork titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.”
The artwork was created entirely by his AI system known as The Creativity Machine, without any human creative input.
The U.S. Copyright Office rejected his application, stating that only works created by human authors qualify for protection under U.S. copyright law.
Thaler then took the matter to court, arguing that his AI should be recognized as the artist.
However, both the District Court and later the Court of Appeals dismissed his claim.
The court ruled that:
AI-generated works cannot receive copyright protection unless a human has played a creative role.
Human authorship is essential — meaning someone must create, operate, or guide the AI in a way that involves genuine creative decisions.
An AI machine, no matter how advanced, cannot be considered the “author.”
Thaler argued that his AI acted independently and should be treated as “sentient,” but the court disagreed, stating clearly that only human beings can own and control copyright.
However, the laws on this issues are still developing, China seems to have different finding.
Case Study 2: China Recognizes Copyright for AI-Generated Art
In November 2023, the Beijing Internet Court made a groundbreaking decision about AI-generated art. The case involved a person who used the AI tool Stable Diffusion to create a picture of a young woman. The person entered detailed prompts and kept adjusting them until the image looked right. Later, someone else used the same image online without permission, so the creator sued for copyright infringement.
The court ruled that this AI-generated picture can be protected by copyright because it showed the creator’s own ideas and effort. Even though the image was made using AI, the human’s efforts, such as writing detailed prompts, adjusting them, and deciding the final look, showed intellectual input and originality.
However, the court also made it clear that AI itself cannot own copyright because it is not a human or a legal person. The copyright belongs to the person who used the AI creatively.
This ruling is important because it shows that, in China, AI-assisted works can get copyright protection if there is clear human creativity and control in the process. It also signals that courts may continue to decide such cases based on how much human input was involved in using AI tools.
AI Can Assist — But It Can’t Replace Human Creativity
Based on the above cases, if you’re the one who makes the key and majority design decisions, for example, choosing the concept, adjusting details, or fine-tuning the final output, then your human input becomes the creative element that the law protects.
In that case, you may own the copyright in your version of the work.
Always Check Your AI Tool’s Terms and Conditions
Before you create, read the fine print. Not every AI design platform gives you full ownership of what you make.
Each platform has its own Terms and Conditions that govern who owns the intellectual property (IP) in your AI-generated work. Some allow you to keep the rights. Others may retain partial or full control.
For example, LogoMakr retains certain IP rights over artwork created on its platform — meaning you might not have exclusive ownership or commercial rights to use those designs freely.
Reference: LogoMakr
In contrast, platforms like Adobe Firefly and DALL·E generally allow you to own full rights to your creations, including commercial use.
Reference: OpenAI
Reference: Adobe Firefly
Key Takeaways
AI cannot be the author or owner of copyright — it’s not a human being and has no legal personality.
AI-assisted works may qualify for copyright if there’s clear human creativity or effort involved.
Always check your AI tool’s Terms & Conditions — not all platforms grant full ownership of your creations
What This Means for Entrepreneurs
As AI becomes smarter and more capable, the real question isn’t whether it can replace human creativity — it’s how you use it.
Would you let AI design your next masterpiece, or keep it 100% human-made?
Either way, remember:
No shortcuts. No copy-and-paste.
It is the true creativity, ie. human creativity that deserves protection.
If you’re unsure how to protect your AI-assisted works or creative assets, get in touch with us!
Written by,
IP Consultant
Registered Trademark Agent
Bachelor of Communication
Registered Trademark, Patent and Design Agent
LL.B (HONS), CLP
Advocate & Solicitor
Disclaimer: The above information is merely for general sharing and does not constitute any legal advice. Readers are advised to seek individual advice from the professionals.
Comments