AI Training Data and Copyright in the Philippines: What the IP Code Says

The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 8293) protects original works and grants copyright owners exclusive rights over their creations. When AI developers copy books, articles, images, or code to train machine learning models, that copying can implicate those rights. Philippine law does not yet have a provision that specifically addresses text and data mining or AI training. The question therefore turns on the general rules: whether the material is protected, whether training involves reproduction, and whether any exception applies. This article explains those rules plainly and flags where the law remains unsettled.

What the Intellectual Property Code protects

Section 4.1 of the Intellectual Property Code lists copyright and related rights as one of the categories of intellectual property rights. Copyright attaches to original works — literary, artistic, and similar creations — from the moment of creation, without need of registration.

Section 2 of the Code states the State policy: it shall protect and secure the exclusive rights of scientists, inventors, artists, and other gifted citizens to their intellectual property and creations. The same section also declares that the use of intellectual property bears a social function, and that the State shall promote the diffusion of knowledge and information for national development and progress. These two policies — protection and diffusion — often pull in opposite directions, and AI training sits squarely at that tension.

Does copying data to train an AI count as reproduction?

Training a model typically requires making copies of the source material — downloading, storing, and processing it. Under the Code, the copyright owner holds exclusive rights over the reproduction and communication of the work. Copying protected content without authorization therefore engages the owner's rights.

Two points matter in practice:

• The work must still be protected. Works whose copyright term has expired, or which are excluded from protection, can generally be used freely.
• Not everything is copyrightable. Facts, data, and ideas themselves are not protected; what is protected is the particular expression. A dataset of raw facts may raise fewer issues than a dataset of novels or photographs.

Is there an AI training exception in Philippine law?

No. The Intellectual Property Code does not contain a text and data mining exception, nor a provision that expressly authorizes copying for machine learning. Any argument that training is permissible must be built from the general exceptions and limitations already in the Code, such as fair use, rather than from a dedicated AI rule.

This is why the Philippine position is best described as unsettled. The Code's policy statement in Section 2 — promoting the diffusion of knowledge and information — supports the view that some socially beneficial uses should be allowed, but it does not by itself create an exception.

How fair use may apply

Philippine law recognizes fair use of copyrighted material, and the determination is fact-specific. There is no fixed formula that automatically clears AI training. Relevant considerations include the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the work, the amount copied, and the effect on the potential market for the work.

For AI training, the analysis is difficult because:

• Training may involve copying entire works, not excerpts.
• The resulting model may compete with the original works in the same market.
• The use is commercial in many cases.

Conversely, a court or the Intellectual Property Office could weigh the transformative character of the use and the State policy favoring diffusion of knowledge. No Philippine decision has yet settled how these factors apply to AI training.

What developers and rights holders should do

For developers building or fine-tuning models in the Philippines:

• Identify the provenance of training data. Know whether the material is public domain, openly licensed, or protected.
• Prefer licensed, public domain, or permissioned datasets where feasible.
• Keep records of data sources, licenses, and the basis for relying on any exception.
• Do not assume fair use. The absence of an AI-specific exception means reliance on fair use carries risk.

For rights holders:

• Monitor use of your works in datasets and model outputs.
• Consider licensing as a practical middle path that supports both protection and diffusion.
• Preserve evidence of copying and of market harm if enforcement becomes necessary.

Frequently asked questions

Is it legal to train AI on copyrighted content in the Philippines? There is no clear yes or no. The Intellectual Property Code has no AI-specific exception, so the answer depends on whether the copying falls within an existing limitation such as fair use, which is decided case by case.

Does Philippine copyright law have a text and data mining exception? No. The Intellectual Property Code does not provide a dedicated exception for text and data mining or AI training.

Can I use public domain works to train an AI? Yes. Works whose copyright has expired, and material not protected by copyright, can generally be used without authorization, though other laws and contracts may still apply.

Practical takeaways

• The Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act No. 8293) protects copyright owners' exclusive rights, and copying data to train AI can engage those rights.
• Philippine law has no text and data mining or AI training exception; any defense must rest on general limitations such as fair use.
• Fair use is fact-specific and no Philippine ruling has yet resolved its application to AI training.
• Section 2's policy of promoting the diffusion of knowledge and information supports balanced use, but does not create an exception by itself.
• Developers should document data provenance and licenses; rights holders should consider licensing and preserve evidence of harm.

Primary sources

The rules discussed above are drawn from the following primary sources, as published in the Official Gazette and the national statute book.

• REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8293 - AN ACT PRESCRIBING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE AND ESTABLISHING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE, PROVIDING FOR ITS POWERS AND FUNCTIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.