Advances in technology are reshaping media and telecoms, with regulators in the Philippines, Taiwan and India under pressure to adapt
India’s legal framework for developing AI
India stands at a critical juncture in the artificial intelligence (AI) revolution, where rapid proliferation of technology intersects with an evolving regulatory landscape. AI is increasingly ubiquitous across industrial and consumer applications, India’s AI regulation remains nascent, balancing innovation with risk mitigation.
Aarthi Sivanandh
Senior Partner
AZB & Partners
Chennai
Tel: +91 44 2434 0145
Email: Aarthi.Sivanandh@azbpartners.com
The Indian government has allocated about USD11.7 billion for AI leadership, with the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MeitY) the executive agency leading policy development through specialised committees.
The India AI Mission serves as the central catalyst, driving innovation through strategic programmes and public-private partnerships to democratise computing (along with India Semiconductor Mission), enhance data quality, build indigenous capabilities, attract talent, and foster industry collaboration.
India’s regulators, in their strive to achieve “AI sovereignty” to build indigenous capabilities and to address unique domestic challenges, seek to do so without over-reliance or adoption of foreign frameworks.
This article examines key positions under Indian law on certain facets of AI development, training and deployment.
Intellectual property
The Copyright Act, 1957 is key to AI training and output ownership, as training datasets will likely include protected works, and outputs could be considered “derivative” works.
Anind Thomas
Partner
AZB & Partners
Bangalore
Tel: +91 80 4240 0500
Email: anind.thomas@azbpartners.com
There is no judicial protection for reproducing copyrighted work in its entirety, or in full. Reproduction is an exclusive right of the copyright holder, and unauthorised reproduction for commercial use would constitute infringement.
When assessing reproduction, courts apply three tests on a case-by-case basis:
-
- quantum and value of matter reproduced;
- purpose of reproduction; and
- likelihood of competition between the original and the reproduction.
Fair dealing is a key defence to copyright infringement. Under section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, fair dealing of any work is not infringement for:
-
- private or personal use, including research;
- criticism or review of that/any other work; and
- reporting of current events/current affairs.
However, what constitutes “fair dealing” depends on each case. Judicial precedents in RG Anand v Delux Films & Ors and The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford v Rameshwari Photocopy Services hold that transformative use is key to the idea-expression dichotomy, with a certain degree of reproduction permitted if the purpose constitutes “fair dealing” or otherwise benefits from limited, specific exemptions under section 52.
The use of copyrighted materials to train AI would have to be demonstrated as “transformative” to constitute fair dealing. However, unlike “fair use” is dealt with in the US, “fair dealing” in the Indian context is limited in scope and Indian courts are yet to explicitly extend this to AI training.
AI training based on the collection-tokenisation-training process – along with the sheer volume of training data, and rapid advances in technology on how AI models are trained and deployed – does not fit within the traditional framework of how copyright violations are assessed.
Delhi High Court is currently considering these issues in the ANI v Open AI dispute: namely, whether:
-
- storing copyrighted data constitutes infringement;
- output generated using training data will be derivative work and constitute infringement;
- OpenAI can claim the “fair dealing” exemption; and
- India has jurisdiction when OpenAI’s servers are overseas.
The court’s ruling is eagerly awaited and will likely set the tone for the future of AI training and copyright claims.
Until courts take a definitive stance, a balance currently seems aspirational between the legitimate interests of the author and the owners of AI models, with the result plausibly being a commercial monetary settlement. India is not alone in this journey of seeking a balanced solution to this problem.
IT legislation
Gautam Rego
Partner
AZB & Partners
Bangalore
Tel: +91 80 4240 0500
Email: Gautam.Rego@azbpartners.com
AI is typically trained on non-personal data. However, data scraping may result in the collection and processing of personal data. Further, once AI tools are deployed, new data (personal or otherwise) from the user is collected and processed to provide tailored outputs.
Personal data collection and use are governed by the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act); the IT (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 (SPDI Rules); and the recent but not currently enforced Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA).
The IT ACT and SPDI Rules require that express consent is obtained to collect, process, disclose or transfer sensitive personal data and information. The DPDPA mandates that personal data (no longer limited to “sensitive” information) be collected and processed only with the data principal’s free, specific and informed consent.
Data principals must be notified of their personal data being collected, the purpose, and their rights to access, correct, update and erase the data, or withdraw consent to use it.
Section 17(2)(b) of the DPDPA does exempt processing of personal data for “research, archiving or statistical pur-poses” provided it is not used “to take any decision specific to a data principal”, and such processing is carried out in accordance with standards as may be prescribed.
While AI training could theoretically qualify as “research” or “statistical purposes”, the final determination will depend on how the government prescribes the standards, and whether AI training meets the specific conditions, particularly the requirement that no decision is made specific to individual data principals.
The IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, impose due diligence obligations on intermediaries (including AI companies), to prevent hosting of infringing, obscene or impersonating content.
While AI companies may seek protection under the safe harbour provisions of the IT Act, blanket protection is unlikely, given the dangerous ability of AI systems to generate deepfakes and spread misinformation.
The MeitY 2024 advisory imposed requirements for bias restriction and labelling of AI-generated output’s fallibility, but implementation remains unclear following the advisory’s withdrawal and absence of a clear standard.
Consumer protection
AI tools will likely fall within the definition of “services” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The product liability regime could be used to hold AI product/service providers liable for harm to consumers, including due to faulty/biased algorithms, inadequate safety protocols, or unsafe software that divulges sensitive personal information. Liability is likely to be stringent in direct, high-risk use cases.
Sectoral regulations
As central AI legislation develops in India, sectoral regulators have issued targeted circulars and guidelines mandating disclosures specific to their respective markets and concerns.
-
- Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
-
-
- Intermediaries (circular 4 January 2019): reporting requirements for offering or using AI applications and systems.
- All entities in the mutual fund ecosystem (circular 9 May 2019): reporting requirements for offering/using AI applications and systems.
- Mutual Funds (circular 27 June 2024): all mutual funds using AI systems to report usage on a quarterly basis, to ensure full disclosure.
- Investment Advisers (regulations 16 December 2024; guidelines 8 January 2025): must disclose use of AI in operations, irrespective of scale and extent.
- Research Analysts (guidelines 8 January 2025; regulations 16 December 2024): must disclose use of AI tools, irrespective of scale and scenario, and be solely responsible for security, confidentiality, integrity of client data.
- Intermediaries (regulations 10 February 2025): anyone using AI tools, irrespective of scale and scenario, will be solely responsible for the privacy, security and integrity of stakeholders’ data, the output arising from them, and compliance with applicable laws.
-
-
- Reserve Bank of India
- An August 2025 report on developing a Framework for Responsible and Ethical Enablement of AI in the financial sector (FREE-AI) urges lawmakers to legislate
in a manner that balances innovation and risk. It prescribes seven guiding “sutras” for AI adoption: trust is the foundation; people first; innovation over restraint; fairness and equity; accountability; understandable by design; and safety, resilience and sustainability. - The report makes 26 recommendations under six strategic pillars: infrastructure, capacity, policy, governance, protection and assurance. It further recommends establishment of shared infrastructure by regulated entities to democratise access to data and computing, along with creation of an Al Innovation Sandbox.
- An August 2025 report on developing a Framework for Responsible and Ethical Enablement of AI in the financial sector (FREE-AI) urges lawmakers to legislate
- Department of Telecoms (DoT)
- Reserve Bank of India
Based on extensive stakeholder consultations and expert input, the regulator unveiled a New Standard for Fairness Assessment and Rating of Artificial Intelligence Systems in 2023, outlining procedures for assessing and rating AI systems for fairness.
Takeaway
While AI transcends national boundaries, India’s pursuit of AI sovereignty—tailored to serve its distinctive socio-economic landscape—demands a regulatory framework that is robust in oversight and aligned with evolving global standards.
As the world’s fifth-largest economy, India is intensely conscious that risks posed by AI advancements may exacerbate inequalities and widen the digital divide without effective regulation.
AZB & PARTNERS
Villa B8, Withy Pool Villa Complex,
Boat Club Road, R A Puram,
Chennai 600028, India.
Tel: +91 44 2434 0145
Email: chennai@azbpartners.com
www.azbpartners.com
Philippine digital: Key updates in connectivity, fintech
With two out of three Filipinos aged 10 years and above using the internet, 98.8% via mobile, the Philippines is well positioned to increase demand and growth for digital services.
Herminio Ozaeta Jr
Senior Partner
Romulo
Makati
Tel: +632 8555 9609
Email: Herminio.Ozaeta@Romulo.com
Yet despite a young and tech-savvy population, the country lags behind its Southeast Asian peers in digital infrastructure. In the meantime, recent regulatory updates are helping align laws with the nation’s evolving digital needs and aspirations.
The newly enacted Konektadong Pinoy Act modernises data transmission and connectivity policies by: updating decades-old laws that no longer reflect the current technological landscape; aiming to promote an open and competitive market; encourage new communication technologies and digital infrastructure investments; and improve the quality and reach of data transmission services.
Concurrently, developments from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and central bank, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), are fostering fintech innovation in recognition of the country’s high adoption of digital financial solutions. Together, these regulatory updates lay the groundwork for greater digital inclusion and innovation.
Konektadong Pinoy Act
The new act requires all entities engaged in the provision of data transmission services as an economic activity – including public telcos, value-added service providers and satellite systems providers of operators – to register with the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) as a data transmission industry participant (DTIP).
While the NTC has yet to issue the eligibility criteria for DTIPs, the act opens data transmission in the Philippines to foreign players.
DTIPs serving the domestic market must comply with a minimum capitalisation requirement of at least USD200,000 under the Foreign Investments Act, as amended, if foreign equity exceeds 40%.
Currently, data transmission services are not on the Foreign Investment Negative List, and not classified as public utilities under the Public Service Act, as amended. However, they may be considered critical infrastructure, since telecommunications, which encompasses data transmission services, is classified as such.
Accordingly, 100% foreign equity may be allowed if reciprocal rights exist for Filipino nationals in the applicant’s home country; otherwise, it is capped at 50%.
Operations and access
Jesse Eleazer Tantoco
Senior Associate
Romulo
Makati
Tel: +632 8555 9669
Email: Jesse.Tantoco@Romulo.com
DTIP registration confers significant new privileges, removing a longstanding entry barrier. DTIPs may now establish and operate their own networks or facilities without a legislative franchise, certificate of public convenience and necessity, or partnering with a franchised entity. Likewise, they may access spectrum resources and operate international gateway facilities, core networks or backbone networks with NTC approval.
These changes amend the Radio Control Act of 1931, as amended, a law that predated the rise of wireless communications and for long restricted radio station operations in the Philippines to Filipino-controlled franchised entities.
The act also introduced an open access policy requiring entities owning, leasing or operating digital infrastructure and services included in the government’s Access List to allow another entity access when necessary, offering data transmission services competitively.
This measure aims to promote competition, facilitate market entry and expansion, and encourage the efficient use of digital infrastructure.
Satellite technology
Aligned with the Department of Information and Communications Technology’s (DICT) policy to encourage innovation and competition, registered DTIPs may deploy satellite technology and use associated spectrum without leasing capacity from public telcos, provided they secure NTC authorisation.
Direct access to satellite systems no longer requires prior authorisation from the DICT for broadband networks – or NTC approval for broadcast or non-broadband networks – provided the terms of access to any international fixed or mobile satellite system are submitted to the relevant agency.
The act mandates a Spectrum Management Policy Framework, a timely update given the growing demand for spectrum, a non-exhaustible but shared resource prone to interference.
The framework will establish comprehensive guidelines for spectrum management, including pricing, allocation and assignment. Entities seeking spectrum assignment or joint use must now notify the Philippine Competition Commission (PCC) and obtain a no-objection notice.
Fintech updates
Fintech is another driver of the Philippines’ digital transformation, fuelled by strong customer adoption and regulatory support. In 2024, digital payments accounted for 57.4% of total monthly retail payment volume and 59% of transaction value.
Digital transactions represented 72% of payments made by persons and 97.2% of payments made by the government, with merchant payments emerging as the leading use at 66.4% of total digital payment volume.
These trends signal a decisive shift towards digital financial systems, with key regulators remaining proactive to ensure the sector keeps pace with developing demands.
Virtual assets
Victoria Rose Velasco
Associate
Romulo
Makati
Tel: +632 8555 9612
Email: Victoria.Velasco@Romulo.com
In response to the growing adoption of cryptocurrencies, the Securities and Exchange Commission recently issued Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 2025 (Rules on Crypto Asset Service Providers), recognising that crypto assets may be constituted as investment products when offered to the public.
Entities dealing with crypto assets offered as securities – such as public offerings, operating a trading venue, or intermediation activities – must register as a crypto asset service provider (CASP) and comply with applicable requirements and operational guidelines outlined in Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 2025 (Guidelines on the Operations of Crypto Asset Service Providers).
Requirements include minimum capitalisation of PHP100 million (USD1.75 million) in cash or property (excluding crypto assets) and maintenance of a physical office in the Philippines appropriately staffed during regular business hours.
The SEC Rules on Crypto Asset Service Providers specifically exclude from their coverage crypto assets offered for purposes other than as financial products, as well as those issued or offered under the regulatory purview of other Philippine agencies, such as the central bank (BSP), which oversees virtual asset service provider (VASP) activities.
VASPs facilitate the transfer or exchange of virtual assets for fiat currencies or other virtual assets, excluding those solely for payment of goods or services provided by the issuer.
Unlike CASPs, which are overseen by the SEC for offering crypto assets, a specific type of virtual asset, as investment products, VASPs are supervised by the BSP for facilitating virtual asset transfers or exchanges for payment or financial purposes.
The BSP’s three-year moratorium on new VASP licences expired on 1 September 2025. Until then, new VASP licences were granted only to existing BSP-supervised financial institutions seeking to expand into offering VASP services, provided they demonstrated strong risk management systems. This approach aimed to promote innovation while maintaining sound risk oversight.
Digital banking
While the BSP has lifted the moratorium on new digital bank licences, effective since 1 January 2025, only six banks have been licensed to date, despite a cap of 10. Digital banks operate fully online, offering financial products and services processed end-to-end through digital platforms or channels, without physical branches or units.
The limited number of licensed digital banks may be attributed to stringent requirements: applicants must meet a high capitalisation requirement of PHP1 billion, as well as demonstrate unique value proposition or innovative business models not offered by existing players; significant potential to reach a broader clientele; and readiness to deploy and sustainably grow their digital solutions in the Philippines.
Meanwhile, electronic money issuers (EMIs) – comprising banks, non-bank financial institutions (EMI-NBFIs) or other BSP-registered entities authorised to issue, transfer and redeem electronic money – have seen notable developments since the moratorium for EMI-NBFIs was lifted on 16 December 2024.
Major EMI-NBFIs are expanding to lending, investing and virtual asset services through partnerships with licensed entities or by obtaining additional licences, while new EMI-NBFIs are offerings services not typically provided by major EMIs, such as lower-cost cross-border money services.
Outlook
While Philippine regulatory frameworks for digital services are still maturing, there are opportunities and challenges that require prudent management by industry participants seeking to fully benefit from them.
Recent regulations are updating the frameworks to meet the country’s current and evolving digital needs, supported by policies promoting open markets and competition, such as liberalisation of foreign equity restrictions. Coupled with the country’s high digital adoption, these factors position the Philippines as a natural growth market for digital services.
New entrants and established players must also navigate changing requirements from multiple agencies, underscoring the importance of active engagement with regulators to ensure compliance and help shape the policy landscape.
The Philippines’ digital sector presents significant growth potential but requires careful navigation of a regulatory environment that is still evolving. Businesses that adopt proactive compliance and maintain open engagement with regulators will be best positioned to capture investment opportunities in this expanding market.
ROMULO MABANTA BUENAVENTURA SAYOC & DE LOS ANGELES LAW
21st Floor, AIA Tower 8767 Paseo de Roxas
Makati City 1226, Philippines
Tel: +632 8555 9555/8848 0114
www.Romulo.com
Guidelines for protecting AI-generated content in Taiwan
Newsrooms, OTT marketers and social media teams are embracing the use of generative tools to create headlines, summaries and marketing slogans in mass quantity. Taiwan’s existing copyright rules currently define functional limits to protection, aiming to protect human expression without covering text generated purely by AI.
Accordingly, media companies seeking to understand how much of their text is protected must determine which portion has been generated by human effort, and whether and how such input can be proven.
Defining protectable content
TsungYuan Shen
Associate Partner
Lee and Li
Hsinchu
Tel: +886 2 2763 8000 (ext.2539)
Email: tsungyuanshen@leeandli.com
Taiwan’s Copyright Act only protects expression, not ideas, methods, concepts or style. Edited collections formed by creative selection and arrangement qualify as compilation works. Default authorship and ownership rules still focus on work made by human creators, including works made in the course of employment or under commission.
Considered together, these provisions protect human contributions of media, even where AI provided the basic outline or structure of the text.
The Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) has held that output produced entirely by AI without human creative input (for example, an image generated by a tool prompted to match the “style” of a sample image) is not protected under the Copyright Act.
In contrast, when AI is used as a tool – with humans contributing creative prompting, post-generation editing or creative selection and arrangement – protection may apply to human-authored portions of the finished product.
When AI-generated text includes previously existing work – such as quotes, background passages or internal archives – the four-factor test under article 65 of the Copyright Act should be applied to determine whether exploiting it complies with reasonable use:
-
- Purposes and nature of exploitation, including whether it is of a commercial nature or for non-profit educational purposes;
- Nature of the work;
- Amount and substantiality of the portion exploited in relation to the work as a whole; and
- Effect of the exploitation on the work’s current and potential market value.
Many studies examining article 65 and fair-use boundaries have been conducted. Media company legal teams may refer to such studies to formulate workable checklists.
Protectable v unprotectable
Protected Copy. In a typical copy workflow, text produced by the fol-
lowing steps may be protected because they reflect human expression or
creative arrangement:
-
- Rewriting AI drafts into publishable copy: tightening leads, recasting verbs, changing tone, and creating original headline-deck pairs;
- Restructuring paragraphs and narrative arc: selecting which facts to foreground, how to pace the piece, and where to insert context boxes; and
- Curating multiple generations into a final package: picking and sequencing slogans, assembling a “best of” synopsis, or building a side-by-side comparison. These are common selection/arrangement steps that fit the definition of compilation work.
Unprotected copy. The following scenarios typically do not create copyrightable content:
-
- Text generated via a “one-and-done” prompt with only superficial edits;
- Text generated by a prompt to follow a particular “style” (e.g. “make ABC text sound like X”) without distinct human input of wording or structure; and
- Fully automated translation, summarising or paraphrasing that lacks discernible human expression.
The above-mentioned scenarios generally fall outside the category of protected content because local practice protects concrete, human-authored expression, rather than abstract “style”.
In other words, style imitation or near-automatic outputs do not by themselves create protectable content. As the TIPO has stated, protection applies only when the final work bears a clear human imprint in wording, structure or editorial choices.
Grey areas. Short, functional phrases rarely qualify as protectable expressions, regardless of authorship. Likewise, AI-expanded lists of facts or programme synopses may be too thin to meet originality thresholds, unless the editor’s word choice and arrangement show individual expression.
Establishing human contribution
Rachel Chen
Senior Attorney
Lee and Li
Hsinchu
Tel: +886 3579 9911 (ext. 3206)
Email: rachelchen@leeandli.com
These suggested steps may increase the likelihood of protection of copy.
-
- Version trail and edit logs. The human contribution to copy text should be made visible and explainable. A record of prompts used, intermediate output generated, tracked edits and short notes capturing key editorial decisions should be retained. The goal is to create a record of the path of human input, including who rewrote which sentences, who changed what structure, and when such inputs were made. This supports authorship claims in the protectable portions of the copy and aligns with the TIPO’s philosophy of protecting human-generated content.
- Role separation and contract language. In documents intended to provide internal guidance, AI-drafted material should be distinguished from human-authored text, and rights should be asserted only in the latter.
Contracts signed with vendors and other service providers should include the following:
-
-
-
- Source and rights warranties for any material used to condition or inform outputs;
- Process transparency, with delivery of prompts and a brief description of human edits; and
- A book of clearly defined steps to be taken in case of dispute, including notification, removal of online publication, revision, and cost allocation.
-
-
-
- Distinguishing expression from style. Prior to publication, several questions should be considered: Does the piece show the team’s distinct wording and structure? Can specific human rewrites and restructuring be identified? If the “style veneer” is removed, are portions of text with human expression still clearly identifiable?
If answers to most of these questions are negative, the text should undergo substantive rewriting and narrative work. These tests should be integrated into the workflow to reduce post-publication disputes.
-
- Fair use worksheet for inputs. A short attribution is recommended when AI prompts include lengthy third-party text, or when comparison passages are published. A one-page form should be created for common work scenarios for editors including, for example, purpose and nature of the use, nature of the original work, amount and substantiality of the portion used, and effect on the potential market.
The goal is not to slow publication, but rather to document editorial purpose and restraint in use, leaving a paper trail that explains judgement calls.
-
- Labelling and archive discipline. Where practical, the phrase “AI-assisted draft; human-edited” should be noted in internal records. An index of final human-edited text and non-protectable AI raw outputs should be maintained. Such separation is not merely cosmetic; rather, it reflects the scope of rights the organisation can assert and license. Such separation also accelerates responses to takedown requests or client audits. In addition, retention periods should be set and access rules established. Details on major campaigns should be retained for three to five years. Periodic spot checks should be performed to confirm that labels, attachments and logs are complete.
- Training and escalation. Categories of issues that frequently escalate should be identified and highlighted, such as thin expression cases that may not be protectable, fair use close calls for substantial third-party excerpts, and sources whose contracts or terms of service restrict reuse. All escalations should go through a ticket or dedicated channel with timestamps, link to drafts and attachments (including prompts, excerpts and screenshots) to enable reviewers to decide quickly.
In addition, regular scenario drills should use sample drafts to practise worksheet, publish/hold decisions and revert cycles.
Looking ahead
The general objectives of Taiwan’s regulators are likely to remain focused on protection of human expression, without protection for style or fully automated output. What will evolve is the operational layer around that core.
More practical guidance can be expected from the authorities, as well as increasing practitioner literature on newsroom and platform workflows, and more internal guidance across the TMT sector on documentation of human authorial control.
Courts and regulations may clarify policy in grey areas, but the recommended approach will likely remain unchanged. Workflows should therefore be designed to ensure that human input is both substantive and visible.
Teams that build well-formulated proof-of-authorship habits will move faster through review, face fewer take-down fights, and approach licensing with a clearer defensible scope of rights.
LEE AND LI, ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW (HSINCHU OFFICE)
Address: 5F, Science Park Life Hub, No.1,
Industry E. 2nd Rd., Hsinchu Science Park,
Hsinchu 30075, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Tel: +886 3579 9911
Email: attorneys@leeandli.com
www.leeandli.com
