The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines is drafting guidelines that would let AI-assisted creative works qualify for copyright registration, provided a human contributes original, protectable expression to the final product. The Bureau of Copyright and Related Rights presented the draft, which sorts AI involvement into four categories, at an initial public consultation in early September.
Four categories of AI-related works
According to IPOPHL’s official announcement, the draft makes clear that using AI to create a work does not, on its own, block registration. What matters is whether the work contains original expression from a person that meets the minimum degree of creativity required under Philippine law.
The guidelines sort AI involvement into four types:
- AI-assisted work uses AI as a tool during creation, for example, a writer asking AI to suggest wording or to organize a manuscript, then selecting, rewriting, and arranging the final text. Only the writer’s contribution would be protected.
- An AI-enhanced work starts as a human creation that AI later modifies, such as a photographer using AI to restore or clean up an image. Protection would cover the original photo and any human additions.
- A hybrid work combines human and AI elements, such as a songwriter writing lyrics while AI generates the melody. The work may be registered if the human part qualifies, but the AI-generated elements would not be protected.
- AI-generated output with no meaningful human input, such as an image produced from a general prompt and submitted as is, would not qualify.
IPOPHL said it will not apply a single fixed test. Examiners may weigh the extent of human contribution, the role of the AI system, and how AI elements were selected, modified, or arranged. The office may also request additional information from applicants.
AI systems and training data
The draft also addresses AI systems themselves. Registration would cover only the copyrightable expression in a submitted computer program, not training data, AI outputs, or other material outside the program. Registration also would not settle whether the training practices are lawful or constitute fair use.
Director General Teodoro C. Pascua said the proposed guidelines “do not regulate AI generally or make a definitive determination on the copyrightability of AI-related works.” They aim to give applicants greater clarity on how such works will be treated for registration.
BCRR Director Emerson Cuyo said the agency wants a framework that “provides clarity without getting ahead of the technology.” The guidelines will be refined through further consultations with stakeholders from government, the legal and academic communities, the creative and technology industries, and the general public.
How the rules affect BPO clients and providers
For the Philippine BPO industry, these guidelines could change how AI-assisted deliverables are produced, documented, and contracted. Providers using generative AI for marketing copy, customer communications, knowledge base articles, scripts, or software will need to show where human creative input begins and ends if clients expect to own protectable IP.
Clients should revisit master service agreements and statements of work to confirm how ownership of AI-assisted output is defined, because purely AI-generated material may not be protectable at all.
Read more Unity Communications and BPO news on our main page.
Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines. (2026, September 17). IPOPHL’s new draft
guidelines put human creativity at the center of copyright registration for AI-related works. Retrieved from https://www.ipophil.gov.ph/news/ipophls-new-draft-guidelines-put-human-creativity-at-the-center-of-copyright-registration-for-ai-related-works/
