As Taiwan strengthens its position as a critical hub in the global high-tech and digital economy, the Intellectual Property & Licensing Committee underscores the importance of a legal framework for IP protection that aligns with international best practices. A clear and enforceable framework is essential to sustaining innovation, supporting creative industries, and maintaining Taiwan’s attractiveness as an investment destination.

Rapid advances in digitalization and generative artificial intelligence are redefining how content is created, distributed, and monetized. These developments introduce new regulatory demands that Taiwan’s existing copyright framework does not fully address. Further modernization will be required to ensure that the system remains predictable, enforceable, and responsive to technological change.

This year’s position identifies two priority areas where targeted reforms would strengthen Taiwan’s copyright framework and reinforce alignment with major trading partners.

First, Taiwan’s current copyright protection term of life plus 50 years is shorter than that of the numerous leading economies that apply a life plus 70 years standard. This gap complicates cross-border licensing and reduces the long-term commercial value of Taiwanese creative works in international markets. Extending the protection term to life plus 70 years would establish consistency with key jurisdictions and strengthen the global competitiveness of Taiwan’s cultural and creative sectors.

Second, the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence technologies has introduced unresolved questions regarding copyright ownership, the use of training data, and the protection of individual rights. With the AI Basic Act now in force, Taiwan has an opportunity to define clear rules governing these areas. The Committee recommends establishing a dedicated framework that sets enforceable standards for the use of copyrighted materials in training datasets, requires disclosure of relevant data sources, and protects individuals against unauthorized use of voice and likeness.

Strengthening these areas of the copyright regime would provide greater legal certainty for rights holders, technology developers, and investors. A more consistent and enforceable framework would support continued innovation while ensuring that creators retain control over the use and value of their work in a rapidly evolving digital environment.

Suggestion 1: Amend the Copyright Act to extend the term of protection to life of the author plus 70 years.

Extending the term of copyright protection to life of the author plus 70 years has become the prevailing standard among major economies, including the United States,  European Union, United Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea. In a globalized and digitally mediated cultural economy, the duration of copyright protection directly affects cross-border licensing, market access, and the valuation of intellectual property. Taiwan’s current framework of life plus 50 years diverges from these standards, creating constraints for international cooperation and reducing the competitiveness of Taiwanese works in global markets.

This divergence has practical commercial implications. Differences in protection terms complicate licensing negotiations, limit the ability to fully monetize rights across jurisdictions, and introduce legal uncertainty for investors and rights holders. These factors constrain long-term investment in cultural and creative industries, particularly for projects that rely on international distribution and platform-based revenue models.

At the same time, the economic lifecycle of creative content has expanded. Streaming platforms, digital distribution, and content libraries have increased the long-term revenue potential of films, television productions, and music. A 50-year protection term does not reflect these extended value cycles. Extending protection to life of the author plus 70 years would better align the legal framework with current market conditions and support sustained returns on creative investment.

Adopting that standard would also establish regulatory consistency with key trading partners. Greater alignment would improve legal certainty in cross-border licensing, support capital investment in original content and intellectual property development, and strengthen the international position of Taiwan’s cultural exports.

In addition, extending the term of protection would allow creators’ heirs to benefit from the long-term value generated by creative works. This approach recognizes intellectual property as an asset with enduring economic relevance and supports the continued development of Taiwan’s creative ecosystem.

Amending the Copyright Act to extend the term of protection to life of the author plus 70 years would strengthen Taiwan’s legal framework, enhance investment conditions, and support the long-term development of its cultural and creative industries.

Suggestion 2: Establish a dedicated copyright framework governing the use of artificial intelligence.

Artificial intelligence technologies have rapidly expanded into multimodal applications, including text, music, image, video, and voice generation. These developments are reshaping how cultural content is produced, distributed, and monetized. Existing copyright frameworks do not fully address key issues arising from these technologies, including the use of copyrighted works in training datasets, the legal status of AI-generated outputs, and the protection of individual rights. As a result, gaps in the current framework create uncertainty for creators, developers, and investors.

With the AI Basic Act now in force, relevant authorities are required to review and update regulatory frameworks within a defined timeframe. The implementation of this mandate creates an opportunity to establish a more comprehensive and predictable approach to copyright in the context of artificial intelligence. Developing a dedicated framework, whether through standalone legislation or targeted amendments to the Copyright Act, would strengthen legal clarity and support responsible innovation.

The Committee recommends that such a framework be guided by three core objectives: protecting the rights and economic interests of creators, ensuring transparent and accountable use of copyrighted materials in AI development, and supporting continued technological advancement within a clear legal structure.

From a legislative design perspective, the framework should reflect the following core principles:

1. Require prior authorization for the use of copyrighted works in AI training. The use of copyrighted content for AI model training should require explicit authorization from right holders. Clear authorization requirements would reduce legal ambiguity and support the development of licensing markets for training data, ensuring that creators are appropriately compensated.
2. Ensure transparency and auditability in AI development. AI developers should maintain records of data sources, content types, and training processes, with appropriate mechanisms for regulatory oversight. Improved transparency would strengthen accountability and build trust across the ecosystem.
3. Protect voice, likeness, and digital identity. The framework should include explicit safeguards against unauthorized replication of voice, likeness, and other elements of personal identity. Clear protections would help prevent misuse and provide greater certainty for performers and individuals.
4. Provide clear legal treatment of AI-generated content. The legal status of AI-generated outputs should be clearly defined. Establishing criteria for when copyright protection applies would reduce ambiguity and support consistent enforcement. Where outputs are generated without meaningful human creative input, consideration should be given to whether such content qualifies for protection.

In parallel, the regulatory approach should preserve market-based mechanisms, including voluntary licensing and contractual arrangements. Clear and enforceable rights provide the foundation for fair compensation and sustained investment in creative industries. Overly broad exceptions or unclear limitations on rights may weaken incentives and reduce the long-term value of creative assets.

The framework should also take into account cross-border considerations. Differences in regulatory approaches may create incentives for developers to conduct training activities in jurisdictions with lower standards. Continued engagement with international partners would support greater alignment and reduce regulatory fragmentation.

Establishing a dedicated copyright framework for artificial intelligence would provide greater legal certainty, support the development of licensing markets, and protect the rights of creators while enabling innovation. A clear and enforceable system would strengthen Taiwan’s position as a competitive and responsible participant in the global digital economy.