Public Consultation on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Singapore’s Intellectual Property Regime

Introduction

Artificial intelligence (“AI“) is increasingly being used across the creativity and innovation process, including content creation, research and development, and decision-making. The role of AI has raised novel issues, particularly relating to its interaction with the intellectual property (“IP“) framework. The issues are further complicated by the fact that most existing IP laws predate the AI boom, particularly the rise of generative AI, and may not be directly applicable.

The Ministry of Law (“MinLaw“) and the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (“IPOS“) have sought to identify the relevant issues by engaging with rights owners, technology companies, representatives from the creative industries, legal practitioners, academics and other stakeholders. MinLaw and IPOS are now conducting a public consultation to seek broader views and perspectives from interested parties.

The consultation covers Singapore’s copyright and patent regimes, proposing legal refinements, practical information resources and technical measures to enhance certainty, accountability and confidence in Singapore’s IP regime.

The consultation closes on 22 October 2026. Rajah & Tann is closely involved in the feedback process, with Lionel Tan (Partner, Technology, Media & Telecommunications) serving as part of the Singapore Academy of Law closed-door roundtable discussion on the topic for the crafting of a formal response to the public consultation.

This Update provides an overview of the key elements of the consultation paper, including the proposals therein and the questions to be considered.

Overview

For copyright, the consultation focuses on the following issues: 

1. How to foster greater certainty and accountability in AI training, including:

• • whether the scope and applications of the computational data analysis exception are sufficiently clear;
  • how lawful access and rights-owner safeguards should operate in practice; and
  • how the Government can support non-legally binding technical measures.

2. Copyright risk management in AI deployment and use, including:

• • how existing legal principles should apply when AI-generated output infringes copyright;
  • how responsibility should be assessed among AI developers, deployers and end users; and
  • what technical measures may help minimise output infringement risks.

3. The nature of human creativity in AI-assisted works, focusing on how human contribution should be understood, recognised and evidenced where generative AI is used.

For patents, the consultation focuses on the following issues:

1. How existing inventorship principles should apply across the spectrum of human-AI interactions in the inventive process, including problem formulation, selection from AI-generated outputs, and human modification of AI-generated technical solutions.
2. How the large-scale publication of AI-generated technical disclosures may affect the prior art landscape, including patent searches, examination, patentability assessments, and incentives for innovation.

Copyright 

The rapid acceleration of AI capabilities has led to systems capable of generating text, images, audio, video, code and technical solutions. With regard to copyright protection, this has raised questions such as:

1. whether copyright works could be used to train AI models;
2. how the law should balance AI development with the legitimate interests of rights owners; and
3. how to identify when human choices are sufficiently reflected in the final work to justify copyright protection.

Computational Data Analysis (“CDA”) Exception

The CDA exception under Singapore’s Copyright Act 2021 allows individuals and organisations to use copyrighted material for data analysis and machine learning without the copyright owner’s permission, subject to certain conditions.

The consultation paper takes the position that the CDA exception may be used to develop generative AI models, and there is no express limitation on the purpose for which CDA is undertaken (including for commercial purposes). Nonetheless, the following questions have been raised for feedback:

1. What existing and emerging applications of AI training would benefit from the CDA exception?
2. Are the scope and applications of the exception sufficiently clear and, if not, what statements or illustrations should be added to the legislation for greater clarity?

Safeguarding Interests

Legal obligations that safeguard rights owners’ interests are key to maintaining the balance struck by the CDA exception, including legal measures (such as contractual obligations) and technical measures. However, there is a perceived lack of certainty arising from the fact-specific nature of the issue, such as what constitutes lawful access and whether certain contract terms are enforceable.

The consultation paper seeks to improve clarity in certain key scenarios through the following questions:

1. What technical or legal measures do rights owners employ to control access to or use of their copyright works for AI training?
2. Is it clear from the exception when the exception applies despite rights owners’ use of any such measures? If not, how should the issue be addressed?

Non-legally Binding Technical Measures

The consultation paper proposes to encourage greater respect in the use of copyright works for AI training through non-binding technical measures when developing and deploying AI tools, taking the position that technical safeguards for AI should remain non-legally binding because practices evolve faster than legislation can sensibly prescribe them.

The consultation paper seeks views on how non-legally binding technical measures can be developed and adopted in ways that are practical, trusted and responsive to industry needs, including:

1. How can the Government support rights owners in deploying non-legally binding technical measures to control access to and use of their copyright works for AI training, and encourage AI developers/deployers and other users to build in or respect such measures?
2. What non-legally binding technical measures should the Government support?

Copyright Infringement Liability

An AI developer, AI deployer or end user may be liable for copyright infringement for: (i) unauthorised reproduction; (ii) unauthorised communication to the public; or (iii) authorising infringement.

The consultation paper seeks views on how existing legal principles should apply when AI-generated output infringes copyright.

1. When an AI output infringes the copyright in an existing work, when and to what extent should AI developers, AI deployers or end users be liable under Singapore’s copyright law?
2. How would your views differ in cases where the infringing output arises from the use of agentic AI?

Minimising Infringement Risks

Technical measures play a significant role in influencing liability for copyright infringement in court cases globally, including voluntary risk-management tools and mandatory technical measures.

The consultation paper asks the following questions on how technical measures to minimise output infringement risks can continue to develop and be adopted in ways that support effective, proportionate and commercially viable practices based on a principled allocation of infringement liability:

1. What technical measures should AI developers, deployers and users adopt to minimise the risk of infringement arising from AI output?
2. To what extent should any such measures be calibrated to the scale and capacity of AI developers, deployers and users, and how should the relevant thresholds be defined?

Human Authorship of AI-assisted Works

Generative and agentic AI have revolutionised the creative process, with works now being produced through complex interactions between humans and AI systems. Singapore’s approach has been to place primacy on human authorship for copyright protection, while allowing creators to use generative AI as a tool. However, challenges arise in identifying the human creative contribution in AI-assisted works, which involves consideration of factors such as: (i) pre-generation acts and decisions by the prompter; (ii) post-generation selection and arrangement of AI output; and (iii) post-generation editing.

The consultation paper considers how to achieve greater clarity and predictability in differentiating between protectable AI-assisted works and unprotectable AI-generated content, and seeks views on:

1. What existing and emerging use cases of generative AI augment human creativity in the process of creating authorial works?
2. What acts or decisions by creators demonstrate human creativity when generative AI is involved in creating an authorial work?
3. Should principles or factors be developed to assess the sufficiency of human creativity in such cases?
4. How would the above differ in cases where the AI output is executed using an agentic AI system?

Patents

Assessing Human Contribution in AI-assisted Inventions

Singapore’s patent framework still requires a human inventor as a criterion for patentability. To qualify as an inventor, a person must have formulated or contributed to the formulation of the inventive concept.

However, advances in AI are giving rise to diverse forms of human-AI interactions in the inventive process. AI is now involved in generating, evaluating or refining the technical solution, making it difficult to distinguish between human contributions that shaped the inventive concept and AI-generated outputs that merely informed, enabled or accelerated the inventive process.

The consultation paper thus seeks to conduct a closer examination of how existing inventorship principles apply to AI-assisted inventions, while ensuring that Singapore’s patent system remains adaptable to technological developments and supports a favourable environment for investment in new technologies.

1. How is AI currently being used in the innovation and research processes in your field or organisation?
2. Singapore’s current framework requires a human inventor. Is this adequate to determine inventorship given the human-AI interactions in innovation and research processes today? If not, what aspects do you consider most in need of clarification?
3. In relation to AI-assisted inventions, what level or type of human contribution should be required for a person to qualify as an inventor?
4. Where AI was used in the inventive process, what information should applicants be required to disclose about the AI model?
5. If clarification of the inventorship framework for AI-assisted inventions is needed, what form should this take?

AI-Generated Prior Art

In Singapore, a claimed invention will not be patentable if it is not new, or if it lacks an inventive step (i.e. it would be obvious to a person skilled in the art), in light of the prior art, which may include anything made available to the public before the priority date.

However, with the growing prevalence of AI-generated disclosures, how should such content be treated within the prior art framework, and are existing approaches for assessing prior art adequate to uphold the effective operation of the patent system? This is especially significant given the practical considerations such as the quality and reliability of AI-generated content, lack of detail, accuracy or technical coherence in AI-generated disclosures, and the increasing search burden arising from the volume of searchable technical information.

The consultation paper thus asks the following questions:

1. Are you encountering AI-generated content when searching for existing technical information? How is this affecting research and development or patenting activities in your field?
2. Should AI-generated content be treated as prior art during the patent examination process?

• • What are the factors or considerations for AI-generated content to be considered prior art?
  • Should AI-generated content be treated under the same standards as human-generated content?

3. How can a prior art disclosure be identified as AI-generated?

• • Are there particular tools, processes, or disclosure requirements that would be helpful?
  • How should the publication date, public accessibility, source and integrity of AI-generated content be established?
  • Would particular metadata, record-keeping practices, tools or disclosure requirements be helpful?

4. Are you aware of instances where AI-generated content has been published strategically to prevent others from obtaining patents? Do you consider this a significant concern, and if so, how should the patent system respond?

Others

The consultation paper concludes with the following broader questions:

1. Patent protection is typically sought in multiple jurisdictions. Are there specific areas relating to the issues in this paper where you see divergence in the approaches between jurisdictions, and what is the impact on your organisation?
2. Are there any other aspects of the relationship between AI and the patent system that you consider should be examined?

Concluding Words

The advancement of AI technologies is a true game changer in the creative and inventive process. While enabling greater innovation, it introduces new challenges in how the existing IP frameworks can continue to effectively protect the interests that underpin human creativity and ingenuity. Across the globe, countries are starting to dedicate increasing focus on these issues and what legislative reform is necessary.

Singapore is at the forefront of the conversation regarding AI and IP, and this consultation paper demonstrates that it is in step with the continuous evolution of AI. The consultation paper raises key questions that will shape the future of IP law in Singapore, and stakeholders should provide their feedback to ensure that all perspectives are considered in any upcoming reform.

Parties wishing to respond to the consultation paper may wish to contact our team set out on this page for further queries.

For regional IP law matters or regional technology law matters, please see Rajah & Tann Asia’s Regional Intellectual Property Practice or Regional Data & Digital Economy Practice for more information.

For more information, please see the following:

• Press release on “Consultation on Singapore’s Intellectual Property Regime’s Response to Artificial Intelligence“
• Public Consultation on Artificial Intelligence and Singapore’s Intellectual Property Regime