In brief
Malaysia is proposing substantial amendments to the Copyright Act 1987 (Act 332) aimed at modernising the country’s copyright framework to align with digital, technological and international developments. The proposed amendments represent the most comprehensive shift since prior digital-era amendments and signals an intent to align Malaysia with global standards while enhancing local enforcement and commercialisation opportunities.
The proposed changes will have material implications for content use, digital platform operations, licensing models, enforcement exposures and AI deployment strategies. We provide a high-level overview of such proposals in this client alert.
In more detail
The key amendments for consideration are summarised below.
Strengthened digital enforcement framework
The proposed amendments would materially expand the scope of protection for Technological Protection Measures (such as access controls and copy controls) (TPM) and Rights Management Information (such as work, authorship and owner identifications) (RMI) under Sections 36A and 36B of the Copyright Act 1987. In particular, the reforms would strengthen prohibitions against the unauthorised circumvention of TPM and the removal or alteration of RMI, as well as extend liability to devices, services and activities designed to facilitate such conduct.
In addition, the introduction of a dynamic judicial injunction regime would significantly enhance the existing injunctive relief available under Section 37(1)(a). The proposed amendment would empower the Courts to grant orders that not only target identified infringing websites, but also to cover mirror, clone or successor sites without the need for fresh proceedings, thereby improving the speed and effectiveness of enforcement against online infringement.
Service providers seeking to rely on the statutory safe harbour framework under Sections 43C to 43E would be subject to heightened accountability standards. This includes the introduction of expedited notice-and-takedown obligations — potentially within a 12-hour timeframe — under Section 43H, as well as stricter conditions governing continued eligibility for safe harbour protection, particularly where there is actual knowledge of infringing activity.
Finally, the reforms contemplate the introduction of enhanced criminal enforcement tools, including specific provisions for the seizure and forfeiture of domain names used in connection with copyright infringement.
The envisaged 12-hour notice-and-takedown timeline and stricter conditions for safe harbour protection will require online service providers to reassess their content moderation and takedown processes. The introduction of dynamic judicial injunctions and domain name seizure as a criminal remedy, while providing rights holders with added protection, also raises questions on scope, proportionality and due process that have yet to be fully detailed in the consultation paper.
AI and digital economy measures
A central pillar of the proposed reforms is the introduction of a regulatory framework for AI and text and data mining activities, particularly in relation to the use of copyrighted works for training datasets. Citing the regulatory frameworks in Singapore and Japan as examples, the proposed reforms directionally suggest a recognition that the analysis of works (involving among others, identification of patterns, correlations and insights) for purposes of AI training, is different from the use of works that derive value from human consumption and enjoyment (activities traditionally regulated by copyright law).
The reforms also seek to clarify the circumstances in which AI‑assisted or AI‑generated outputs may qualify for copyright protection. In particular, they signal that protection will continue to hinge on sufficient human authorship and creative judgement, consistent with the existing originality threshold under Section 7(3)(a) and the statutory concept of an “author” under Section 3.
Economic and commercialisation reforms
The proposed amendments seek to introduce an Artist’s Resale Right (ARR), under which artists would receive royalties from the secondary sale of their works. This is a new right with no current equivalent under the Act.
The proposed amendments also seek to introduce a framework for orphan works, which would enable the lawful use of works where rights holders cannot be identified or located, subject to appropriate safeguards. This too is a new concept not currently addressed under the Act.
Governance and institutional reforms
The proposed reforms would strengthen the governance framework applicable to Collective Management Organisations (CMOs) declared under Section 27A of the Copyright Act 1987, with a particular focus on enhancing transparency, improving royalty management practices and increasing licensing efficiency. Importantly, the amendments also seek to address the current legislative gap arising where a declaration under Section 27A lapses without renewal, including the legal status of existing licensing arrangements and undistributed royalties.
In parallel, the Copyright Tribunal regime under Section 28 would be materially enhanced. This includes an expansion of its jurisdiction to hear royalty disputes under Section 59C(1), notably through the removal of the existing requirement for mutual consent between the licensing body and its member before a dispute may be referred to the Tribunal. These changes are complemented by broader procedural reforms aimed at improving efficiency, streamlining case management and strengthening legal certainty in the resolution of copyright-related disputes.
Taken together, the removal of the mutual agreement requirement, coupled with more robust governance obligations for CMOs, is likely to increase both the frequency and intensity of disputes relating to tariff-setting, royalty distribution and licensing practices. CMOs should therefore proactively review and strengthen their internal governance frameworks, documentation standards and dispute management processes in anticipation of a more active and accessible Tribunal landscape.
Modernisation of copyright administration
The proposed amendments would streamline the Copyright Voluntary Notification (CVN) regime under Section 26A of the Copyright Act 1987, including through simplified documentation requirements and enhanced digital service delivery, with a view to reducing administrative burden and improving user accessibility.
CVN certificates would also be expressly recognised as admissible evidence under Section 42, alongside affidavits and statutory declarations, thereby strengthening their evidentiary weight in establishing ownership. In addition, the Controller’s powers under Section 26C to amend entries in the Register of Copyright would be expanded to cover a broader range of clerical, administrative and other non-substantive errors, facilitating more efficient and accurate register management without the need for court intervention in routine cases.
Clarification of legal boundaries
The proposed amendments would introduce greater clarity to the boundary between copyright and industrial design protection under Section 13B of the Copyright Act 1987. In particular, they contemplate the use of the Minister’s order-making power under Section 13B(4) to prescribe the circumstances in which an article is to be regarded as made by an “industrial process or means”, as well as to exclude specified categories of works of a predominantly artistic or literary character from the operation of that boundary.
Conclusion: Next steps forward
Given the breadth of the proposed reforms and the areas that remain under active policy development, stakeholders have a meaningful opportunity to engage with regulators and influence the shape of the final legislative framework.
With the consultation period closing on 14 August 2026, organisations have a relatively limited window to assess the potential impact of the proposed amendments on their operations and to make targeted representations to MyIPO ahead of finalisation.
Feedback on the proposed amendments to the Act may be submitted via the designated Google Forms platform link.
Raymond Tan, Partner, and Ashraf Johan Hashim, Chambering Pupil, have contributed to this legal update.