MANILA, Philippines — The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) is moving toward clearer rules for copyright registration of works created with artificial intelligence (AI), but its proposed framework puts one requirement at the center: there must be sufficient original human creativity behind the work.
The proposed Guidelines on the Registrability of AI Systems and AI-Related Works were presented during an initial public consultation held by IPOPHL’s Bureau of Copyright and Related Rights (BCRR) in September 2026.
Under the draft, using AI would not automatically prevent a work from being registered for copyright. However, protection would extend only to the portions containing original expression attributable to a human creator and meeting the originality requirements under Philippine copyright law.
AI-assisted work could still receive copyright protection
IPOPHL’s proposed framework distinguishes between several ways AI can be involved in creating a work.
An AI-assisted work could qualify when AI is used as a creative tool but the human remains responsible for original expression. For example, a writer could use AI to suggest wording or organize a manuscript, then select, rewrite and creatively arrange the material.
In that situation, the copyrightable portion would be the writer’s original contribution—not simply the AI-generated suggestions.
An AI-enhanced work begins with something created by a human and is subsequently modified or improved with AI. IPOPHL gives the example of a photographer using AI to remove unwanted objects, restore damaged areas or enhance an existing photograph.
A hybrid work, meanwhile, combines human-created and AI-generated elements. A songwriter, for example, could write lyrics while using AI to generate a melody. If the human contribution satisfies copyright requirements, the work could be registered, but that registration would not automatically give copyright protection to AI-generated elements that are themselves not copyrightable.
A simple AI prompt may not be enough
The draft draws a much clearer line for works generated primarily by AI.
If a person provides a general prompt and simply submits the resulting image, text or other output without making sufficient creative contributions to its expressive elements, IPOPHL says the output would not qualify for copyright registration to the extent that it lacks original human expression.
In other words, using AI does not necessarily disqualify a work—but merely telling an AI system what to create may not establish enough human authorship.
IPOPHL says it would consider the circumstances of each application rather than apply one fixed test. Among the factors that could be examined are the nature and extent of the human creative contribution, the role played by the AI system, how AI-generated elements were selected or modified, and how those elements were arranged or incorporated into the finished work.
AI training data remains a separate legal question
The proposed guidelines also address AI systems themselves.
Where an AI system contains a copyrightable computer program, registration would cover the copyrightable expression in that program. It would not extend to the system’s training data, materials used as training data, AI outputs or other material that is not part of the copyrightable computer program.
Importantly, IPOPHL also says that registering an AI system would not determine whether the training data or practices used to develop that system are lawful or constitute fair use.
That distinction matters because the question of whether copyrighted material can legally be used to train AI systems remains separate from whether a particular AI-assisted output contains enough human creativity to qualify for copyright.
The proposal builds on existing Philippine copyright principles
The proposed framework is consistent with the broader principle that copyright protects original works and that copyright protection in the Philippines generally arises from creation itself; registration is available but is not what creates the underlying copyright.
Earlier in 2026, IPOPHL also issued revised rules governing copyright registration and related services. Legal analysis of those rules noted that lack of human authorship, originality or creative expression can be grounds for refusal of registration, although the 2026 rules did not specifically establish the detailed AI framework now being proposed.
The issue has been developing for several years. In 2024, IPOPHL said it was working toward clearer guidance on AI-generated creative works and was consulting artists and other stakeholders about how much human contribution should be required for copyright protection.
These are not final AI regulations yet
IPOPHL Director General Teodoro C. Pascua emphasized that the proposal does not constitute general AI regulation or a final determination on the copyrightability of all AI-related works. Instead, it is intended to provide greater clarity on how AI-related works may be treated during copyright registration.
The agency is continuing consultations with government, legal and academic communities, creative industries, technology stakeholders and the general public before the guidelines are finalized.
For Filipino writers, artists, photographers, musicians, filmmakers and other creators increasingly using generative AI, the emerging message is becoming clearer: AI can be part of the creative process, but the copyright claim still depends on identifiable human creative expression.
And as AI becomes increasingly capable of producing finished-looking works from a single prompt, the question facing creators may no longer be simply whether AI was used—but how much of the final work can be traced to human creativity.
