KUALA LUMPUR: Generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) is increasingly being viewed as a “collaborator” that is reshaping originality, creativity, and innovation.
However, intellectual property specialist Nor Farah Natasha Tajuddin said a deeper question remains: to what extent can a human creator claim originality and ownership over Gen AI outputs?
“This is a multi-faceted dilemma. It is not just a technical or legal issue, but also a deeply ethical one, as intellectual property laws and frameworks were built on the foundation of human ingenuity,” she wrote in her article, Copyrights in the age of Gen AI.
She said legal systems worldwide are now under pressure to adapt to an industry rapidly transformed by AI and machine learning.
“While specific regulations and guidelines governing copyright registration for Gen AI-assisted works have yet to be established, the World Intellectual Property Organisation and the World Trade Organisation, through the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, currently recognise only human creators as authors.
“This position is consistent across member state jurisdictions, including Malaysia.”
Nor Farah, an ecosystem builder with Taylor’s University’s Research and Enterprise Department, Knowledge Transfer and Commercialisation, cited the US class action lawsuit Bartz v. Anthropic (2024–2025) as a key example.
She said three non-fiction authors, Andrea Bartz, Charles Gaeber and Kirk Johnson, sued Anthropic for training its AI model, Claude, using their books without permission.
“Anthropic initially used pirated copyrighted books from Library Genesis (LibGen) and Pirate Library Mirror (PiLiMi) to train Claude, before later ‘remodelling’ the training using cleaned digital scans of legally acquired books.
“A partial summary judgment ruled that training Claude with legally acquired books constituted transformative fair use, but stressed that Anthropic had no entitlement to retain or use millions of pirated copies in its central AI library.”
She said although Anthropic agreed to destroy all pirated copies previously acquired, the ruling does not shield the company from future claims of input or output infringement arising from Claude’s training.
“In fact, Anthropic is currently facing multiple lawsuits from several major record labels,” said Nor Farah, who is certified by the Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO) and is a registered Technology Commercialisation Associate with the Malaysian Research Accelerator for Technology and Innovation.
“The lesson is clear. Claims of originality and authorship for Gen AI-assisted works under copyright law, and by extension other IP laws, must be taken seriously, given the potentially severe reputational and financial consequences.”
She said Gen AI outputs developed without meaningful and substantial human input fall outside the scope of copyright protection.
“While the law must evolve rapidly to address Gen AI, a clear distinction must first be made between AI-assisted and AI-generated outputs.
“For AI-assisted outputs, AI functions as a tool that supports the human creator’s creative process. This differs from AI-generated outputs, where the system demonstrates creative capacity independent of human direction.”
She said legal regulations and guidelines must be established specifically for AI-assisted outputs, including determining the degree of human intervention required to transform AI-generated material and assessing the level of reliance on AI tools throughout the creative process.
“In other words, the burden of proof rests on the human creator to demonstrate that Gen AI outputs result from a series of tasks involving at least one creative process with substantial human intervention.”
Nor Farah added that creators should maintain clear logs and records of their contributions, including the intent behind prompts, selection and editing decisions, and the creative judgment applied during the process.
“Such records not only support claims of originality but also serve as evidence in the event of legal scrutiny or disputes.
“In this evolving landscape, the way forward lies in conscience and compliance in equal measure. Creators and organisations must be informed, understand what the law permits, and use Gen AI ethically and transparently.
“It is the human touch – our experience, skills, intent, values and judgment – that ultimately defines creative expression,” she said.
