Key Points

· AI developers relying on the training exception must comply with detailed conditions governing data use, recordkeeping and commercial exploitation.

· The Regulations introduce a compulsory licensing regime for Arabic translations, which may increase the availability of lawfully translated content.

· Important questions remain about how certain provisions will apply in practice, including to AI models and generated outputs.

Implementing Regulations of the Copyright Law

Saudi Arabia published the Implementing Regulations of the Copyright Law in its official gazette, Umm Al-Qura, on July 31, 2026. Issued pursuant to Royal Decree No. M/169, the Regulations supplement the revised Copyright Law, which entered into force on August 12, 2026. Notably, the Regulations establish a detailed framework for using copyright-protected works in AI development within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Regulations took effect on the date of publication.

Exception for AI Research and Development

Article 26(4) of the Copyright Law permits the use of copyright-protected works for developing AI products and algorithms without the author’s permission or payment of remuneration. The exception applies where the work has been lawfully published, the original has been lawfully obtained, and any reproduction is limited to what is necessary for that purpose.

Building on this exception, Article 30 of the Implementing Regulations sets out additional conditions for reproducing and analyzing copyright-protected works in connection with the development of AI algorithms and products, including:

· Any reproduction must be limited to what is required for AI research and development. The original work must not be republished, disseminated or directly exploited commercially.

· The use of copyright-protected works in purely commercial contexts is not permitted unless either of the following conditions is satisfied: (a) the use is insubstantial in relation to the original work; or (b) the use does not prejudice the normal exploitation of the work. Satisfying either condition is sufficient. The scope of this restriction remains unclear and may require further guidance from the Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property (SAIP). One interpretation is that the provision addresses situations in which AI-generated outputs substantially reproduce copyright-protected material and those reproductions are used commercially. A broader interpretation, however, could prevent commercial AI developers from relying on the AI training exception, even though this would appear inconsistent with the legislative purpose of the Law.

· Developers must retain records of the works used, including the type of work, source, purpose of use and date of use, and submit those records upon request by the competent authority. However, the Regulations do not specify the required level of detail—for example, whether records must be kept for individual works or may be maintained at the dataset or aggregate level. Nor do the Regulations address retention periods, format requirements or the level of detail required, leaving these matters for further clarification by SAIP.

· The use must not unreasonably prejudice the author’s legitimate interests or affect the author’s opportunities to exploit the work and obtain economic benefits.

· The Regulations prohibit unnecessarily adapting, republishing or making copyright-protected works available to the public, or incorporating them into the final product, unless permission has been obtained from the rights holder or the work is in the public domain. The Regulations suggest that copyright-protected material should not be incorporated into AI-generated outputs, but do not explain how this restriction applies to models. For example, whether training data that is no longer retained in an identifiable form within a deployed model constitutes “incorporation” remains unresolved and requires further interpretation by SAIP.

Several aspects of this provision require guidance from SAIP to help AI product developers navigate the exception under Article 30, including the scope of the restriction on “unreasonable prejudice to legitimate interests,” the boundaries of the restriction on “purely commercial use,” the required granularity of recordkeeping, the meaning of “incorporation into the final product,” and the criteria for determining necessity.

Compulsory Licensing and Arabic Large Language Models

The Regulations also establish a compulsory licensing regime under Articles 31 to 43. Under this regime, Saudi nationals or entities may apply for a license to translate a work into Arabic if the rights holder has not done so within the prescribed period. The statutory period for translation is generally three years. Applicants must demonstrate that they have made reasonable efforts to obtain a contractual license, pay reasonable remuneration, and limit distribution of the translated work to Saudi Arabia.

Although this regime was not established specifically for AI research and development, it may increase the availability of lawful Arabic translations. This is particularly relevant to AI companies developing models with Arabic-language capabilities.

Copyright Ownership of AI-Generated Works

Saudi Arabia’s earlier draft Intellectual Property Law included specific rules for AI-generated intellectual property. Notably, its chapter on “Intellectual Property Related to Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technologies” provided that intellectual property created using AI technology would be protected if a natural person had made a substantial contribution to its creation. Conversely, works involving negligible human contribution or generated independently by AI would fall within the public domain.

However, neither the new Copyright Law nor its Implementing Regulations addresses copyright ownership of AI-generated works. This issue therefore remains subject to future guidance from SAIP. Notably, SAIP’s guidelines on AI-related patent applications already expressly state that inventions created with human contribution, using AI as an assistive tool, may qualify for patent protection.

Practical Implications

The AI training exception under Article 30, combined with the compulsory licensing framework for Arabic translations, may enhance Saudi Arabia’s attractiveness as a jurisdiction for AI development. However, numerous questions remain about the scope and implementation of these rules, requiring further guidance from SAIP. We will continue to monitor developments from SAIP and the Saudi Data and Artificial Intelligence Authority (SDAIA). In the meantime, relevant organizations should consider:

· Whether AI training infrastructure can be established or expanded within Saudi Arabia to benefit from the exception under Article 30.

· How recordkeeping and purpose limitation requirements align with their existing data governance frameworks.

· The boundaries of the “insubstantial use” and “normal exploitation” standards under Article 30, which are likely to give rise to interpretive disputes as the framework is applied in practice.

· Using compulsory licensing as a means of expanding lawful access to Arabic-language content for LLM training.