In this guide · 8 sections
- 01The short version: two questions, not one
- 02What IPOS and the Copyright Act say about AI output
- 03The 2026 consultation: rules may change
- 04What the AI vendors' terms say about output
- 05Contract clauses to ask your developer or agency for
- 06Practical risks and how to reduce them
- 07Do it yourself or get help?
- 08Frequently asked questions
Short answer
Copyright in Singapore needs a human author. Work where a person made the key creative choices can be protected; output from a bare prompt may not be. If it is protected, the author owns it unless a signed written agreement says otherwise, so your developer contract must assign rights to you.
The short version: two questions, not one
People often ask 'who owns it?' when the first question is 'is there anything to own?'. Copyright protects authorial works (literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, which include software code and designs) only if they meet the law's requirements. Ownership only matters once that is settled.
| Question | What decides it | Practical meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Is the AI-assisted work protected? | Copyright Act 2021 and court cases on human authorship | More human creative control means better prospects of protection |
| Who owns it if protected? | Section 133 (author by default), section 134 (employer for employees), and written agreements | Employees' work belongs to the employer; contractors keep it unless they assign it |
| What does the AI vendor claim? | The vendor's terms of use | Major vendors assign output rights to the user, as far as the law allows |
What IPOS and the Copyright Act say about AI output
IPOS's explainer How does Singapore law treat AI-generated content? (2025) says authorial works are protected only if they have a human author and originality, which the courts read as 'sufficient engagement of the human intellect'. The work must show intellectual effort, creativity, skill or judgement, assessed case by case.
Likely protected (IPOS)
- The user exercises significant creative or editorial control
- Human choices are clearly reflected in the final work
- Example: a hand-drawn illustration made photo-realistic by AI, with the original input substantially kept
Likely not protected (IPOS)
- Minimal or no human intellectual effort, creativity, skill or judgement
- The AI's algorithm decides the key expressive elements
- Example: a single prompt generating an image
On ownership, IPOS says the default owner is the human creator unless an agreement says otherwise, that AI platform terms may override this, and that 'there can be no copyright owner if the AI output is not eligible for protection in the first place'. In the Act itself, section 133 makes the author the first owner, subject to a written agreement, and section 134 makes the employer the first owner of work an employee creates in the course of employment.
The 2026 consultation: rules may change
The Ministry of Law and IPOS ran a public consultation on AI and Singapore's IP regime from 26 August to 22 October 2026. The paper restates that Singapore's law requires human authorship and asks how human contribution should be recognised and evidenced when generative AI is used as a tool, including with agentic AI.
The consultation lists the kinds of human input that may count: detailed and iterative prompting, choice of model and settings, selecting and arranging outputs, and editing the output afterwards. It notes that major jurisdictions have been more willing to protect work that a person has substantially edited after generation. The Government said it was not yet expressing a view, so check for updates before relying on any position.
What the AI vendors' terms say about output
Vendor terms decide the contract position between you and the AI company. They cannot make an unprotectable output protectable, but they do confirm the vendor is not claiming it.
- OpenAI (Terms of Use, effective 1 January 2026): as between you and OpenAI, you own the output and OpenAI assigns to you any rights it has. It also warns that output may not be unique and other users may receive similar output.
- Anthropic (Commercial Terms): the customer owns its outputs, Anthropic assigns any rights it has, and it may not train models on customer content from the services. The terms include an indemnity for certain third-party claims about paid use, with exclusions such as modified outputs.
- GitHub Copilot (Generative AI Services Terms, for business customers): GitHub does not own inputs or outputs, and outputs include code 'suggestions'.
Because similar output can be produced for others, AI-generated logos and slogans are weak brand assets on their own. A distinctive mark that a person has worked on, and a trademark registration, give you more to defend. Our guide to open-source and open-weight model licences covers the separate question of model licence terms.
Contract clauses to ask your developer or agency for
If you pay a contractor or agency to build software or designs, they are the author by default. Without a signed written assignment, you may end up with only an implied licence. Section 138 of the Act says an assignment is valid only if it is in writing and signed by or on behalf of the assignor.
AI and IP clauses for a development contract
Our website design contract checklist covers the rest of the contract, and the guide to website images and stock photo copyright covers images you license rather than create.
Practical risks and how to reduce them
The bigger risk for most small businesses is not losing ownership but using output that copies someone else's work, or being unable to stop a competitor using a near-identical AI-generated asset. A few habits reduce both.
- Have a person meaningfully edit and finalise anything you want to protect, such as a logo or flagship copy.
- Run code through licence and similarity checks where your tools offer them, and review any large chunk of code the assistant produced.
- Do not ask an image model to imitate a named living artist or a competitor's brand.
- Keep the prompts, drafts and edits in your project files.
Do it yourself or get help?
You can add the clauses above to any supplier contract today, and ask current suppliers which AI tools they use. For anything high-value, such as a brand identity or a product you plan to sell, have a lawyer review the agreement.
When we build a Custom Tool or Dashboard (from S$1,990), the source code is yours and it is deployed in your accounts, with the scope and price fixed in writing first. IT Sorted is a Singapore-based team of developers with over 10 years of experience; you pay upfront, send the brief in writing and follow progress on your order page. We are not lawyers and this guide is not legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
Only if there is a human author whose intellectual effort, creativity, skill or judgement is reflected in the work. IPOS says output where the AI decides the key expressive elements and the user has little control, such as an image from a single prompt, is unlikely to be protected. Work a person substantially shapes or edits has better prospects.
If the code is protected, the author owns it by default, which is the developer or their company, not you. Employees' work belongs to the employer. For contractors and agencies you need a written assignment signed by them, because section 138 of the Copyright Act requires assignments to be in writing and signed.
No. OpenAI's terms say you own the output and assign any rights OpenAI has to you, and Anthropic's commercial terms say the customer owns its outputs. These terms settle the position with the vendor, but they cannot create copyright where the law gives none.
Possibly. If the logo came mostly from a prompt with little human creative input, copyright may not protect it, and vendors warn similar output can be produced for others. Have a designer develop and refine the mark, keep the drafts, and consider registering it as a trademark.
MinLaw and IPOS consulted the public on AI and intellectual property from 26 August to 22 October 2026, covering AI training, infringing output and human authorship of AI-assisted works. No changes had been announced when this guide was written, so check the MinLaw and IPOS sites for the outcome.