Sonny Zulhuda
Artificial intelligence is changing how we create and protect intellectual property, and Malaysia is working to keep up. The recent forum on “IP Law in the Age of AI” organized by MyIPO Malaysia on August 18, 2025, brought together experts to discuss how our country’s intellectual property laws should adapt to new technology while still protecting creators and innovators.
The discussion was timely and important. As a developing nation that wants to be a leader in both technology and creative industries, Malaysia needs to get this balance right.
Why Do We Protect Intellectual Property?
Bahari opened the forum by reminding everyone about the basic reasons why we protect intellectual property in the first place. These include rewarding people for their hard work (labor theory), encouraging innovation by giving creators exclusive rights (economic theory), and managing limited creative resources (scarcity theory).
But here’s the problem: all these reasons assume that humans are the ones creating things. When AI can write songs, design logos, or invent new products on its own, do these old reasons still make sense? This is not just an academic question – it affects real businesses and creators in Malaysia every day.
Take our local creative industries, for example. Malaysian filmmakers, musicians, and artists are already using AI tools to help with their work. But if an AI creates something entirely on its own, who owns it? And should it be protected at all?
What Industry Players Are Saying
Jean from Google offered a reassuring view that “AI is not a substitute to technology” and said Google is committed to protecting creativity. This reflects what many tech companies are saying – that AI is just another tool, like how digital cameras didn’t kill photography but changed it.
However, this might be downplaying how different AI really is. Unlike a camera or computer, AI can create things without much human input. For Malaysian businesses already using AI – and the numbers are growing fast – this creates real uncertainty about what they own and what they can protect.
Indran Shanmuganathan shared some eye-opening statistics: there were 471 trademark applications involving AI in Malaysia just by August 2025. This shows that businesses aren’t waiting for the law to catch up – they’re moving ahead with AI regardless.
Malaysia’s Approach: Fix What We Have, Don’t Start Over
One of the most interesting points from the forum was the agreement among legal experts that Malaysia doesn’t need a completely new AI law. Both Nazura from UKM and Prof Ida Madieha from IIUM argued that our existing laws – like the Cybersecurity Act and various online safety rules – are flexible enough to handle AI issues.
This makes sense for Malaysia. Creating entirely new laws takes years, and by the time they’re passed, the technology has already moved on. Instead, we can update our current laws bit by bit as new problems come up. This approach has worked well for Malaysia before – we’ve successfully adapted to the internet, e-commerce, and social media without completely rewriting our legal system each time.
The approach also fits Malaysia’s broader strategy of being pragmatic rather than revolutionary in policy-making. We prefer to test things out and make gradual improvements rather than making big, risky changes.
Trademarks: Mostly Business as Usual
The good news is that trademark law seems to work fine with AI. As Prof Ida Madieha explained, it doesn’t matter how a trademark is created – what matters is whether it can distinguish one business from another. So an AI-generated logo can get trademark protection just like a human-designed one.
But there’s a catch. If creating a trademark becomes too easy – like just typing one simple request into an AI – the result might not be distinctive enough to deserve protection. Prof Ida Madieha suggested using multiple prompts and adding personal touches to make AI-generated trademarks more unique.
This is actually good advice for Malaysian small businesses using AI. Don’t just accept the first thing the AI gives you. Work with it, refine it, make it yours. This not only helps with legal protection but also makes your brand more distinctive in the marketplace.
She also reminded everyone to read the fine print when using AI platforms. Some AI companies claim ownership of what you create using their tools, which could be a nasty surprise for Malaysian businesses.
Copyright: The Big Problem
Copyright law is where things get complicated. Malaysia’s Copyright Act 1987 only protects work created by humans. As Rohazar Wati pointed out, this creates a fundamental problem because “AI lives forever” while copyright terms are based on human lifespans.
This human-only approach made sense in 1987, but it’s causing real problems now. If a Malaysian advertising agency uses AI to create a campaign, and the AI generates something truly original, that work gets no copyright protection at all. Anyone can copy it freely.
The fair dealing question is also tricky. Our current copyright exceptions might cover some AI uses, but probably not the massive data collection that AI companies do when training their systems. This affects Malaysian content creators whose work might be used to train AI without their permission or compensation.
Should We Require AI Disclosure?
Prof Ida Madieha raised an interesting question: should creators have to tell people when they’ve used AI? This could help in several ways. Consumers would know what they’re buying, trademark offices could better judge whether something is distinctive enough, and it would help maintain trust in creative industries.
But implementing this would be tricky. How much AI use would trigger the disclosure requirement? What about using AI just for research or minor editing? And how would we enforce such rules?
For Malaysian creative industries, this question is particularly important. Our local film, music, and advertising sectors are built on creativity and authenticity. If AI becomes common but hidden, it could affect how audiences view Malaysian creative content.
Urgent Issues Malaysia Needs to Address
Even though our existing laws can handle most AI issues, some problems need immediate attention. Prof Ida Madieha highlighted deepfakes, identity theft, and automated decision-making as areas where current laws might not be enough.
Deepfakes are particularly worrying for Malaysia, a multicultural society where fake videos could easily inflame racial or religious tensions. We’ve already seen how fake news can spread quickly on social media platforms popular in Malaysia like WhatsApp and TikTok. AI-generated deepfakes could make this problem much worse.
Identity theft through AI is another concern. With AI able to mimic voices and faces, Malaysian consumers need better protection. This goes beyond intellectual property into cybersecurity and consumer protection.
Balancing Innovation and Protection
Malaysia faces a unique challenge. We want to encourage AI innovation to boost our economy and compete globally, but we also need to protect our creators and businesses. Getting this balance wrong could either stifle beneficial AI development or leave our creative industries vulnerable.
This balance is especially important given Malaysia’s position in the global economy. We’re both users and increasingly producers of AI technology. Malaysian companies like Genting and Public Bank are investing in AI, while our universities are training the next generation of AI researchers. At the same time, our creative industries – from gaming companies to animation studios – are significant contributors to the economy.
The government’s approach needs to support both sides of this equation. We need policies that encourage Malaysian AI startups while protecting Malaysian content creators.
Learning from Others, Staying Malaysian
Other countries are grappling with similar issues, and Malaysia can learn from their experiences. Singapore has taken a light-touch regulatory approach, while the EU is implementing comprehensive AI regulations. The US is still debating different approaches.
Malaysia’s approach should reflect our own values and circumstances. We’re not Singapore (smaller, more centralized) or the EU (larger, more complex). We need solutions that work for our diverse, developing economy with its mix of traditional industries and modern tech sectors.
The National AI Framework launched in recent years provides a good foundation, but it needs to address intellectual property issues more specifically.
A Practical Way Forward
Based on the forum discussions, Malaysia seems to be heading toward a practical, step-by-step approach. Rather than trying to solve everything with new laws, we’ll likely see:
- Targeted changes to existing laws where needed
- Clear guidance from MyIPO on how current rules apply to AI
- Court decisions that gradually clarify uncertain areas
- Regular reviews to see what’s working and what isn’t
This approach makes sense for Malaysia. It’s faster than creating new laws, more flexible than rigid regulations, and allows us to learn from experience.
What This Means for Malaysians
For Malaysian businesses, the message is clear: don’t wait for perfect legal clarity before using AI. The basic legal framework is there, but be smart about it. Read AI platform terms carefully, keep records of your creative process, and consider getting legal advice for important projects.
For creators and artists, the situation is more complex. Current copyright law doesn’t protect purely AI-generated work, but if you use AI as a tool while adding your own creativity, you’re probably fine. The key is being able to show your own contribution to the final work.
For consumers, stay informed about AI use in products and services you buy. As AI becomes more common, transparency about its use will become increasingly important.
Conclusion
The intersection of AI and intellectual property law isn’t just a legal academic exercise – it affects real Malaysian businesses, creators, and consumers every day. The forum’s conclusion that change is “imminent” while emphasizing “fairness, honour and social justice” provides good guidance for the way forward.
Malaysia doesn’t need to revolutionize its entire legal system, but it does need to adapt thoughtfully and quickly. The country’s pragmatic approach – building on existing frameworks while addressing specific problems – offers a realistic path that balances innovation with protection.
Success won’t be measured by how elegant our laws look on paper, but by how well they work in practice. Can Malaysian AI companies innovate freely? Are Malaysian creators protected fairly? Do Malaysian consumers trust AI-enhanced products and services? These are the real tests of whether we get the balance right.
As AI continues to develop, Malaysia’s intellectual property framework must evolve too. But with the right approach – one that combines legal flexibility, practical guidance, and regular review – the country can create an environment where both human creativity and AI innovation can thrive together.
The goal isn’t to stop AI or to let it run wild, but to harness its benefits while protecting what matters most to Malaysian society. That’s a challenge worthy of our best legal and policy minds, and one that will shape Malaysia’s creative and economic future for decades to come.
TRIBUTE 