AI Archives - Laworld

The Copyright Act 1987 came into force 39 years ago, when the internet was still in its infancy. Successive amendments have not fully kept pace with technological change. On 14 July 2026, the Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO) published a public consultation paper proposing wide-ranging reforms, with feedback closing on 14 August 2026. The proposals respond to four pressures: generative AI at scale, global regulatory divergence, enforcement gaps and commercialisation blind spots.

1. AI Training and Copyright

Stakeholders have raised concerns over the use of copyright works, including news content, for AI training without permission or compensation. MyIPO poses an open question: should Malaysia adopt a purpose-based model (as in Japan, where the information analysis exception applies only where the use is not for enjoyment of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the right holder), a lawful access model (as in Singapore, where the work must be lawfully accessed, for example purchased, licensed, subscribed to or open access), or a hybrid of the two?

2. Stronger Digital Enforcement

TPM and RMI: a broader definition of technological protection measures, prohibitions on circumvention and on removing or altering rights management information, and liability for tools designed for either, in line with Articles 18.68 and 18.69 of the CPTPP.
Dynamic injunctions: one court order capable of covering mirror, clone or successor sites, without returning to court each time a domain changes.
Service provider accountability: a proposed expedited notice-and-takedown timeframe of 12 hours, with safe harbour contingent on timely and appropriate action.
Domain name seizure: explicit powers to seize and forfeit domain names used for infringement.

3. Commercialisation and Governance

Artist’s Resale Right: a royalty for creators each time an original artwork is resold through an auction house, gallery or dealer, a right adopted in more than 90 countries.
Orphan works: an EU-style regime allowing archives, libraries, universities and digital repositories to digitise and share works for non-commercial purposes after a diligent search.
Other proposals: stronger oversight of collective management organisations, Copyright Tribunal jurisdiction over royalty disputes without mutual consent, a modernised Copyright Voluntary Notification (CVN) process, and a clearer boundary between copyright and industrial design.

Five Steps to Take Now

AI developers and adopters should map the sources of their training data and keep records of licences and access terms. Under a lawful access test, provenance may be decisive.
Platforms and ISPs should stress-test their takedown workflows against a 12-hour window, as safe harbour protection may depend on it.
Rights holders should embed TPM and RMI in their digital works, which the reforms are designed to give real force.
Galleries, auction houses and collectors should anticipate resale royalty obligations in pricing, consignment terms and sale documentation.

Content owners should file CVNs for key works and maintain clear chain-of-title records ahead of enhanced evidentiary recognition

Author:
Muhammad Akif bin Hashim, Associate
akif@ridzalaw.com.my
Mohamed Ridza & Co.
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
https://www.ridzalaw.com.my/

Olshan Intellectual Property and Brand Management & Protection partner Barry Greenbaum published an article in Managing IP (subscription required) entitled “AI’s Growing Role in Trademark Naming and Clearance.” In the article, Barry discusses how generative AI is reshaping trademark practice across naming, clearance workflows, design mark analysis and USPTO examination, and what in-house teams must do to manage associated risks. He explains that while AI can significantly shorten early-stage naming and clearance timelines, it cannot replace human judgment in evaluating likelihood of confusion or broader legal risk. As Barry notes, “Teams that treat AI clearance output on the same level as a human-written legal opinion are taking on substantial, unnecessary risk.” The article also highlights recent USPTO AI-driven upgrades that are expected to contribute to a more rigorous examination environment and anticipates further developments including real-time clearance searching and constrained name generation. Barry concludes, “The questions that remain are whether the workflow is designed to catch what the tools inevitably miss, and whether legal is involved early enough to direct the process rather than just reviewing the results.”

Author:
Barry M. Greenbaum
Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP
bgreenbaum@olshanlaw.com
+1 212 451 2291
www.olshanlaw.com
X: @OlshanLaw

Artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping industries across the globe, and the legal sector is no exception. What began as experimental technology has now evolved into a practical tool embedded within many aspects of legal service delivery. From document review to contract drafting, AI is influencing how legal work is performed and delivered. However, while the impact of AI on legal practice is significant, it is equally important to understand its limits. Far from replacing lawyers, AI is best understood as a tool that enhances legal expertise, rather than substitutes it.

One of the most visible ways AI is influencing legal work is through enhanced efficiency and support in handling large volumes of information. Tasks such as reviewing extensive documents, distilling complex materials and preparing structured first drafts can now be supported by advanced tools, allowing legal teams to manage matters with greater consistency and focus.

For clients, this translates into tangible benefits. Legal teams are able to respond with greater clarity, maintain momentum on complex matters and deliver advice in a more structured and timely manner. AI is helping to align legal services more closely with business expectations, delivering outcomes that are not only robust, but also responsive and transparent.

Despite these advancements, the role of the lawyer remains central. AI does not possess judgment, experience, or an understanding of the broader commercial and strategic context in which legal advice is given. It cannot assess a client’s objectives, risk appetite, or long-term priorities, nor can it anticipate the broader implications of legal decisions.

Legal advice involves interpreting nuance, balancing competing risks, negotiating outcomes and navigating complex commercial relationships. These are areas where human expertise is indispensable. While AI can assist by organising information or presenting options, it cannot replicate the insight and judgment that experienced lawyers bring to each matter.

Equally important is the issue of accountability. Legal professionals are bound by strict duties of care, confidentiality and professional responsibility. Any work product remains subject to rigorous review and oversight. The ultimate responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of legal advice rests firmly with the lawyer.

For this reason, the integration of AI into legal practice is being approached with careful governance. Law firms are implementing structured frameworks to ensure that AI is used responsibly, particularly in relation to data security, confidentiality and quality control. This includes the use of secure systems, clearly defined protocols and continuous oversight.

From a client perspective, AI is not replacing lawyers. Rather, it is enabling them to deliver greater value. By supporting more efficient processes, it allows legal professionals to focus more deeply on strategic advice, risk management and achieving optimal outcomes.

Looking ahead, AI will continue to develop and become more deeply integrated into legal

workflows. Its role will expand, but its function will remain as merely a supporting tool within a lawyerled process. The lawyer remains at the centre of that process, providing the insight, accountability and strategic direction that technology cannot replicate.

Author:
Muhammad Akhlil Ridza
Senior Associate
Mohamed Ridza & Co., Kuala Lumpur
akhlil@ridzalaw.com.my

Andrew Lustigman, Chair of Olshan’s Advertising, Marketing & Promotions Group and Co-Chair of the firm’s Brand Management & Protection Group, will deliver a presentation for an International Intellectual Property Society (IIPS) CLE webinar entitled “Your AI Made a Great Ad. Your Lawyer has Questions!” on May 20 from 10:00 A.M. – 11:00 A.M. EST. In the presentation, Andy will provide a concise framework for navigating the key issues surrounding the ways in which AI is transforming creative content production, particularly for advertising, including: how to properly disclose AI-generated content such as reviews, endorsements, or testimonials that the FTC may consider deceptive; navigating new state laws governing the use of AI-generated models and actors and appropriate disclosures; navigating Thaler v. Perlmutter requirement for human authorship as a bedrock requirement for copyright protection; practical risks AI-generated content poses for trademark, trade dress, and right-of-publicity claims; the USPTO’s revised November 2025 guidance treating AI as merely a tool for inventorship purposes and requiring human inventorship; and IP vulnerabilities and compliance strategies for clients using AI in advertising and creative workflows, spanning patent prosecution, copyright registration, and brand enforcement.

You can watch the CLE webinar here.

Author:
Andrew Lustigman
alustigman@olshanlaw.com
+1 212 451 2258

Olshan Intellectual Property and Brand Management & Protection partner Barry Greenbaum published an article in Bloomberg Law entitled “AI Is Rewriting the Rules for Creating and Protecting Trademarks.” In the article, Barry discusses how AI is reshaping trademark strategy across the lifecycle, from name and logo generation to clearance, prosecution, monitoring and enforcement, with practical implications for legal teams and brand owners. As Barry notes, “The speed of AI-assisted clearance tools presents another major issue: a false sense of confidence.” He emphasizes that, “Documenting meaningful human creative decisions is essential, including what the team contributed and how they directed the output, not just whether AI was used.” And because trademark law depends on consumer perception, he cautions that “For GCs and outside counsel, AI can identify potential issues, but its output should never be the final determination. Human judgment should still be the deciding factor in close calls.” Barry also explains how AI is changing the enforcement landscape and marketplace dynamics. He writes, “Tracking individual listings no longer is effective. Brand owners are pivoting to strategies that track patterns across platforms.” He adds that, “They are moving faster to keep up with infringing products using real-time detection tools that monitor live marketplaces.” Despite these tools, he underscores the importance of review and judgment: “Even with these tools, human oversight is critical. Someone must verify the findings, assess the risk, and decide which action makes sense.”

Author:
Barry M. Greenbaum
bgreenbaum@olshanlaw.com
+1 212 451 2291