Países / Brunéi

Derecho de autor e inteligencia artificial en Brunéi

Brunei expressly attributes certain no-human-author computer-generated works to the person undertaking the necessary arrangements, but a concrete GenAI claim remains conditional on originality, category, fixation, qualification and proof of that person.

Investigación abierta. Corte general del Atlas: 31 de agosto de 2026. Cobertura no significa revisión completa ni vigencia certificada.

Explorar Brunéi en el mapa →

Marco y alcance

Autonomous authorial output: identify the exact literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work. Sections 2(1), 11(3) and 14(3) create a real no-human-author route, so Brunei cannot be classified as requiring human expressive contribution in all cases. The CGW route is not automatic. Section 3 still requires originality, section 5 requires fixation for literary/dramatic/musical works, and sections 163-166 require qualification. Each element must be proved for the concrete output. Necessary arrangements must be assigned factually among user, developer, provider, fine-tuner, commissioner, employee/employer and post-editor. A prompt, payment or platform term alone is not an enacted presumption of statutory authorship. Assisted works require a feature-level map of original human expression. Human text, drawing, composition, photography, code, selection/arrangement or editing may qualify without automatically extending to model-determined content. A compilation route under s. 5(1)(b) protects only original selection or arrangement, not every generated component. The model and software are separate from outputs generated by them. Sound recordings and films are separate entrepreneurial/fixation works under ss. 3, 7 and 11(2)(a). Protection of the particular fixation does not prove copyright in underlying AI-generated music, lyrics, images, voice or narrative. Part II performance rights require a live performance by individuals under s. 180; a purely synthetic performance does not become a human performance merely because it is fixed or marketed. Government publication, employment, commission, assignment and platform contracts require separate chain-of-title analysis. They do not substitute for originality or identify the statutory arranger without work-specific evidence. Registration cannot close subsistence because there is no state copyright-work registration procedure. The Creative Industry Database, UTB publicity, legal deposit, copyright notices, CMOs, prizes, trade marks/designs and foreign/private records are excluded from grants and denials. Evidence gate: preserve model/version, prompts, system configuration, parameters, seeds, fine-tuning/RAG inputs, intermediate outputs, source/layer/track files, human drafts and edits, role logs, dates, contracts and third-party source licences. Defenses remain atomic: no originality, wrong category, lack of fixation, a human author defeating the no-human premise, wrong arranger, no territorial qualification, adverse employment/assignment, copied prior work/fixation, and confusion between underlying output and entrepreneurial fixation.

Limitaciones documentadas

No published Brunei judgment or Copyright Tribunal decision resolves GenAI originality or identifies the necessary-arrangements person under section 11(3); this narrower zero remains after correcting the inherited false all-case zero. The Judiciary states that its online judgment collection is still being built, so unreported or manually retrievable decisions cannot be excluded. The historical official URL for Yong Teck Sang v Public Prosecutor returned 404 after the Judiciary's site migration at the cutoff; the complete official text was read from the indexed official response and preserved as a transparent structured extract with original-page pinpoints. No complete judicial reasons, decision date or coram were located for Public Prosecutor v Ecoprime Networks Sdn Bhd, HC 29 of 2009, so it remains an official reported authority rather than a reconstructed precedent. The 2026 UTB publicity does not disclose whether generic copyright-registration references are foreign, private, internal, or unrelated to AI, and no underlying certificate/application was public. No official Brunei AI-specific examination guidance exists because there is no state work-registration procedure; future amendment or reported decision could alter the classification.

Registro y actos documentados

Estado
no_registry
Resumen
No state copyright-work registration procedure exists in Brunei; grants and denials are empty by institutional design, not because copyright cannot arise automatically.
Actos documentados

    Casos nacionales

    Yong Teck Sang v Public Prosecutor

    Nombre
    Yong Teck Sang v Public Prosecutor
    Cita
    Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2012
    Tribunal
    Court of Appeal of Brunei Darussalam
    Instancia
    apelación
    Fechas
    trial conviction
    2012-10-09
    trial sentence
    2012-10-13
    Decisión
    2013-05-27
    Estado
    resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
    Resultado
    Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed; total six-week imprisonment affirmed.
    Resumen
    The Court of Appeal held that the warning letters were admissible to prove notice and a duty to inquire, not the truth of their assertions, and that the combined circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly established reason to believe. The Registrar was a magistrate ex officio and could issue the warrant; relevant evidence was not automatically excluded even if illegally obtained. The custodial sentence was proper and deterrent.
    Antecedentes
    The appellant offered or exposed CDs and VCDs for sale at a Gadong shop. Recording-industry warning letters dated 18 November 2008 and 24 September 2009 identified suspected infringements and went unanswered. After a warrant issued on 19 August 2009, police searched on 20 August and seized 46 CDs and 43 VCDs. The copies sold for B$2, used burnt CD-R media and poor packaging, and were unsupported by evidence of legitimate purchase.
    Historia procesal
    After trial, the Intermediate Court convicted the appellant on 9 October 2012 on two charges under former s. 204(1)(e)(ii) and on 13 October imposed consecutive terms of four and two weeks. The appeal challenged knowledge, use of warning letters, validity and scope of the warrant, admissibility, and sentence.
    Cuestión jurídica
    Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had reason to believe the copies infringed copyright; whether the warning letters and seized evidence were usable; whether the warrant was valid; and whether six weeks' imprisonment was excessive.
    Criterio
    The Court of Appeal held that the warning letters were admissible to prove notice and a duty to inquire, not the truth of their assertions, and that the combined circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly established reason to believe. The Registrar was a magistrate ex officio and could issue the warrant; relevant evidence was not automatically excluded even if illegally obtained. The custodial sentence was proper and deterrent.
    Fundamento decisivo
    Knowledge could be inferred from specific prior warnings plus objectively suspicious commercial circumstances, including the implausibly low price, burnt media, poor packaging, absence of provenance or inquiry and the appellant's decision not to testify. In intellectual-property offending, deliberate continuation after warnings justified a short deterrent imprisonment rather than a readily payable fine.
    Límites
    The judgment concerns criminal enforcement, inferred knowledge, search evidence and sentence. It does not decide originality, human or computer-generated authorship, s. 11(3), GenAI, ownership of generated output or any registration act.
    Relevancia
    doctrina-general
    Referencias relacionadas
      Peso del precedente
      binding Court of Appeal authority within Brunei on the issues decided Integración/votación: Mortimer P delivered reasons; Davies JA and Chong J joined and signed; no dissent recorded
      Fuente
      Referencia
      Yong Teck Sang v Public Prosecutor
      Enlace
      Consultar fuente
      Autoridad
      Court of Appeal of Brunei Darussalam
      Tipo
      national_merits_copyright_enforcement
      Tipo de evidencia
      official_complete_national_judgment
      Localizador
      pp. 1-2 (facts and procedure), pp. 2-4 (reason to believe and evidence), p. 4 (warrant), pp. 4-5 (sentence and dismissal)
      Verificación documentada

      Procedimientos conocidos

      Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v AIFA Sdn Bhd

      Nombre
      Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v AIFA Sdn Bhd
      Cita
      Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2014
      Tribunal
      Court of Appeal of Brunei Darussalam
      Instancia
      apelación
      Fechas
      Decisión
      2014-12-03
      Estado
      resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
      Resultado
      Appeal dismissed; judgment interest ran from 22 July 2014 and costs were awarded to AIFA.
      Resumen
      The alleged breach did not defeat damages, the delay was reasonably explained, and the Senior Registrar had applied the correct questions and reached a reasoned quantum that did not warrant interference.
      Antecedentes
      Philips obtained an ex parte Anton Piller order and injunction on 10 June 2004 over alleged copyright infringement involving six blender models. A large quantity of goods was seized on 11 June. AIFA applied to discharge the orders on 27 July 2004; discharge was granted on 15 March 2005 and goods were returned.
      Historia procesal
      AIFA pursued damages under Philips' undertaking after Philips withdrew its stalled appeal on 27 June 2012. On 22 July 2014 the Senior Registrar awarded B$403,441.85 lost profit and B$4,040 promotion/marketing expenses, declined aggravated damages and awarded costs. Philips appealed the undertaking-damages assessment.
      Cuestión jurídica
      Whether AIFA's conduct or delay defeated undertaking damages and whether causation, remoteness and quantum justified appellate interference.
      Criterio
      The alleged breach did not defeat damages, the delay was reasonably explained, and the Senior Registrar had applied the correct questions and reached a reasoned quantum that did not warrant interference.
      Fundamento decisivo
      Undertaking damages turn on loss caused by interlocutory relief and ordinary causation/remoteness; a reasoned first-instance assessment is not reopened merely because another amount might be possible.
      Límites
      No infringement-merits adjudication. The judgment does not establish copyright validity, originality or authorship in the blender designs and has no CGW or GenAI holding.
      Relevancia
      procedimiento-relacionado
      Referencias relacionadas
        Peso del precedente
        binding Court of Appeal authority on undertaking damages and appellate review, not on copyright subsistence Integración/votación: Burrell JA delivered judgment; Mortimer P and Leonard JA joined and signed; no dissent recorded.
        Fuente
        Referencia
        Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v AIFA Sdn Bhd
        Enlace
        Consultar fuente
        Autoridad
        Court of Appeal of Brunei Darussalam
        Tipo
        copyright_related_procedure
        Tipo de evidencia
        official_complete_national_judgment
        Localizador
        pp. 1-6 (orders, discharge and inquiry); pp. 7-12 (damages reasoning and outcome)
        Verificación documentada

        Yong Teck Sang and others v Pg Hj Abd Rahman

        Nombre
        Yong Teck Sang and others v Pg Hj Abd Rahman
        Cita
        Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2014
        Tribunal
        Court of Appeal of Brunei Darussalam
        Instancia
        apelación
        Fechas
        Decisión
        2014-11-24
        Estado
        resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
        Resultado
        Appeal dismissed with costs.
        Resumen
        The acts were official-capacity acts and the claim could not evade constitutional immunity and the judicial-review bar by its pleading label; the civil court lacked jurisdiction.
        Antecedentes
        The appellants challenged municipal enforcement and confiscation involving allegedly illicit CDs and DVDs, framing the action as abuse and oppression and seeking declarations and more than B$300,000 in damages against the Municipal Board chair.
        Historia procesal
        The writ was filed on 12 March 2013. The Registrar struck it out; the appellants filed one day late, were denied an extension and lost before Findlay J, then appealed.
        Cuestión jurídica
        Whether a tort-labelled damages action against an officer acting only in official capacity could avoid the constitutional jurisdiction and judicial-review bars in arts. 84B(2) and 84C.
        Criterio
        The acts were official-capacity acts and the claim could not evade constitutional immunity and the judicial-review bar by its pleading label; the civil court lacked jurisdiction.
        Fundamento decisivo
        Substance governs characterization: allegations attacking official enforcement decisions remain challenges to official acts even when pleaded in tort.
        Límites
        No copyright subsistence, infringement, originality, authorship or CGW issue was decided.
        Relevancia
        procedimiento-relacionado
        Referencias relacionadas
          Peso del precedente
          binding Court of Appeal authority on constitutional immunity and jurisdiction over official-capacity acts Integración/votación: Leonard JA delivered judgment; Mortimer P and Burrell JA joined and signed; no dissent recorded.
          Fuente
          Referencia
          Yong Teck Sang and others v Pg Hj Abd Rahman
          Enlace
          Consultar fuente
          Autoridad
          Court of Appeal of Brunei Darussalam
          Tipo
          copyright_enforcement_procedure
          Tipo de evidencia
          official_complete_national_judgment
          Localizador
          pp. 1-4
          Verificación documentada

          Autoridades reportadas

          Public Prosecutor v Ecoprime Networks Sdn Bhd

          Nombre
          Public Prosecutor v Ecoprime Networks Sdn Bhd
          Cita
          HC 29 of 2009
          Fechas
          Referencias relacionadas
            Estado
            reporte-no-validado-como-resolucion
            Límites
            No complete judicial body, decision date, coram, issue, holding or ratio was located. It cannot be treated as a reconstructed precedent or authorship authority.
            Fuente
            Enlace
            Consultar fuente
            Localizador
            Ecoprime case-study slides
            Verificación documentada
            No
            Tipo de evidencia
            reported_only

            Referencias extranjeras comparadas

            No hay entradas en esta colección del Atlas. Esto no demuestra que no existan casos.

            Referencias de contexto

            No hay entradas en esta colección del Atlas. Esto no demuestra que no existan casos.

            Doctrina supranacional

            No hay entradas en esta colección del Atlas. Esto no demuestra que no existan casos.

            Fuentes de la ficha

            Alcance de la confianza documental

            high for the express computer-generated-work rule, duration, automatic protection and absence of a state copyright-work register; medium for applying originality and necessary-arrangements attribution to modern GenAI; low for non-public litigation or foreign/private records behind generic 2026 university publicity

            Regla sobre obras generadas por computadora

            cgw
            Disposición
            Emergency (Copyright) Order, 1999, ss. 2(1), 11(3) y 14(3)
            effective
            2000-05-01
            Alcance
            Para una obra literaria, dramática, musical o artística generada por computadora sin autor humano, se considera autor a quien emprendió los arreglos necesarios para crearla; s. 14(3) fija cincuenta años desde el fin del año de realización. La regla sigue sujeta a categoría, originalidad, fijación y prueba del arreglista y no resuelve la distribución usuario-proveedor-desarrollador en GenAI.
            Fuente
            Referencia
            Emergency (Copyright) Order, 1999, S 14/2000
            Enlace
            Consultar fuente
            Autoridad
            Attorney General's Chambers, Brunei Darussalam
            Tipo
            legislación nacional primaria
            Localizador
            s. 2(1), definición de computer-generated; s. 11(3), autor; s. 14(3), plazo
            Verificación documentada
            commencement source
            Referencia
            BruIPO — Legislation inventory
            Enlace
            Consultar fuente
            Autoridad
            Brunei Intellectual Property Office
            Tipo
            inventario oficial de vigencia
            Localizador
            Copyright, S 14/2000: commencement 1 May 2000
            Verificación documentada

            Cronología documentada

            Enlaces a expedientes individuales