Saudi Arabia Copyright Law 2026: Key Changes And What Businesses Need To Know

As we move further into 2026, the legal landscape in Saudi Arabia for intellectual property protection has taken a significant step forward. Following the Council of Ministers' approval on 27 January 2026, the official text of Saudi Arabia's new Copyright Law was published in the Official Gazette (Umm Al-Qura) on 13 February 2026.

In this article, we provide a detailed analysis of the new law, including its purpose, key provisions, notable changes from the previous regime, and areas that remain unaddressed or deferred to the implementing regulations of the new law. We anticipate that the Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property (SAIP) will soon issue those implementing regulations which will add further clarity to those areas. We will publish a further article on this topic that covers those implementing regulations in due course.

The rationale behind the 2026 reforms

The new Copyright Law replaces the previous Copyright Protection Law issued by Royal Decree No. M/41 dated 2/7/1424H as amended. The former law, in effect for over two decades, was enacted before the emergence of the digital economy, streaming services, and artificial intelligence technologies. It was later amended by Decision of the Council of Ministers No. 536 of 19 Shawwal 1439H (July 3, 2018) to introduce institutional reforms and address some of the digital transformations, which the Kingdom was witnessing at the time.

The new law reflects the Kingdom's commitment to modernising its intellectual property framework to align with international best practices and conventions. It introduces protection mechanisms tailored to rapid digital transformation, while maintaining a balanced approach among stakeholders. Additionally, the law aims to enhance the value and protection of intangible assets and support the growth of the digital and creative industries, consistent with the Kingdom's Vision 2030 objectives.

To achieve these objectives, the new law establishes a clear institutional framework for copyright administration and enforcement. While the SAIP remains the primary regulatory authority for IP, the law now delegates specific copyright matters to different authorities and thereby adopts more of a decentralised approach in those cases. For instance, the law entrusts the Saudi Ministry of Culture with the task of overseeing copyright that concerns Saudi Arabia's cultural heritage. The law also defers to the Zakat, Tax and Customs Authority on completing the regulatory procedures set out under the GCC Customs Law, in coordination with the SAIP, concerning copyright infringement.

Key changes from the previous law

The new Copyright Law introduces several fundamental changes compared to its predecessor. The previous amendments to the old law introduced institutional changes and reforms which the new law has maintained. These included the transfer of the regulatory authority from the Ministry of Culture and Information to the SAIP, and the transfer of prosecution authority from the Board of Grievances to the Public Prosecution.

However, the most forward-looking additions address matters not contemplated in the previous law. Major additions include the AI exception, ISP safe harbours, and the settlement mechanism. Neighbouring rights are now explicitly defined and regulated, and the concept of collective rights management societies has been introduced. New provisions address orphan works and accessibility for persons with disabilities, areas previously unaddressed.

Neighbouring rights

The new law provides clearer regulation of neighbouring rights, explicitly defining them as rights enjoyed by performers, producers of sound recordings, and broadcasting organisations. These rights are granted the same protection as authors' rights, consistent with their nature. The implementing regulations of the new law, yet to be issued, will specify provisions applicable to performers, including their moral rights.

Presumption of authorship

Under the new law, the person whose name appears on a work is presumed to be its author and enjoys the rights granted, unless valid evidence proves otherwise.

This presumption streamlines enforcement proceedings and reduces the evidentiary burden before the competent judicial authorities in cases of infringement.

Artificial intelligence exception

The law introduces a forward-looking exception permitting the copying of lawfully published works for developing artificial intelligence products and algorithms. This exception requires that: (i) the copied work has been lawfully published; (ii) the lawful acquisition of that original copy; and (iii) the copying is limited to what is necessary for the intended purpose. These safeguards align with the proportionality requirements of the three-step test under the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement, whilst also reflecting the 'lawful access' conditions increasingly adopted in jurisdictions such as the European Union and Singapore.

The new exception balances innovation with protection of rights holders and engages with international debates, including those with WIPO, on adapting copyright regimes for AI development, which respect established intellectual property norms. In practice, the Kingdom has positioned itself within a growing international trend, following the European Union's Digital Single Market Directive and Japan's Copyright Act, which have similarly sought to carve out space for text and data mining activities.

This exception may permit AI developers to feed copyrighted texts, images, and other content into machine learning models during the training phase, provided the three statutory conditions are satisfied. This could facilitate the development of large language models, image generators, and other AI systems without requiring individual licences from every rights holder whose work is included in training datasets. However, the scope of "what is necessary for the intended purpose" awaits clarification through the implementing regulations and will likely be tested through future enforcement actions. The international ongoing debate is likely to continue, and the attention will focus on Saudi regulators’ interpretations of the requirements, given the divergent global approaches and lack of harmonised standards.

Enhanced enforcement mechanisms

The new law establishes robust enforcement mechanisms. SAIP employees, designated by its chief executive officer (CEO), are authorised to conduct inspections, regulatory visits, receive complaints, and search establishments related to violations. The CEO may, order the closure of premises where the violations have occurred, for up to seven working days pending completion of enforcement procedures. The law also permits outsourcing certain enforcement functions to the private sector. Stakeholders will look to the implementing regulations for further guidance on how these enforcement mechanisms will operate in practice.

The Public Prosecution is responsible for investigating violations and prosecuting offenders in court. Rights holders may file civil claims directly before the competent court (not through the Public Prosecution) seeking seizure, cessation of infringement, damages (including disgorgement of profits), and disclosure of information regarding contributors to the infringement. Civil claims for compensation are independent of criminal proceedings and do not need to be attached to a criminal case. Rights holders may pursue civil remedies before the courts regardless of whether criminal prosecution is initiated. The competent court is responsible for ordering confiscation and destruction at the expense of the convicted party.

Significantly increased penalties

Penalties for copyright infringement have increased substantially. The maximum fine is now SAR 1,000,000, quadrupled from SAR 250,000, and the maximum term of imprisonment has doubled from six months to one year. Repeat offenses, within three years of completing a sentence, may incur doubled penalties. The law mandates confiscation and destruction of infringing works and equipment.

Internet service provider (ISP) safe harbours

The law introduces modern safe harbour provisions for internet content providers including entities hosting content such as video-sharing platforms, social media networks, and e-commerce platforms which host user-generated content. Under the law, ISP providers are not complicit in infringement if: (i) the transmission, routing, storage, and display of data is technically automatic; (ii) content is not modified except as technically necessary; (iii) the provider has no actual or constructive knowledge of the infringement; (iv) the infringing content is removed within a reasonable time after discovery or notification; and (v) the provider has established mechanisms for rights holders to report infringements.

Settlement mechanism

The law establishes a formal settlement process. Before a matter is referred to the Public Prosecution, the SAIP may accept a settlement request from the violator for amounts up to SAR 2,000,000 depending on the severity of the infringement, the extent of harm caused, its commercial scale, and whether the infringement is repeated. This monetary threshold demonstrates the legislator’s intent to provide flexibility in resolving significant violations without immediate recourse to criminal prosecution. A settlement decision is binding, final, and has the force of an executive instrument, extinguishing criminal proceedings while preserving third-party claims for damages.

Works created during employment

The law clarifies ownership of works created during employment: where an employee creates a work related to the employer's activities, the copyright belongs to the employer; if the work is unrelated to the employer's activities, the financial rights remain with the employee.

Notably, both the previous law and the new law contain a provision declaring void any assignment by an author of their entire future intellectual output (Article 12 of the old law; Article 14 of the new law). The new employment provision operates alongside this rule: while an employer automatically acquires rights in work-related creations made during employment, this does not constitute an assignment of "future works" in the prohibited sense-the employment relationship creates an original vesting of rights in the employer rather than a transfer. For works unrelated to the employer's activities, the employee retains the financial rights, and any purported blanket assignment of such future works would remain void under Article 14.

Term of protection

Copyright protection extends for the life of the author and for 50 years following the author's death. Specific terms apply to certain categories of works: works by legal persons or anonymous/pseudonymous works are protected for 50 years from first publication; audio-visual works for 50 years from first showing or completion; applied arts works for 25 years from first publication; and neighbouring rights holders (broadcasting organisations, sound recording producers, and performers) enjoy protection periods ranging from 20 to 50 years depending on the category.

Collective rights management

The law now explicitly permits rights holders to delegate the management of all or part of their financial rights to associations, companies, or other entities. This supports the development of collective management organisations in the Kingdom, subject to the law and other relevant regulations (including, for example, the Companies Law, Non-Profit Organisations Law, and any sector-specific regulations that may apply to the formation and operation of such entities). The implementing regulations for such collective management organisations are to be prepared by the SAIP in coordination with the Ministry of Culture.

Orphan works

The law addresses orphan works, defined as works, performances, sound recordings, or broadcasts protected under the law whose author or rights holder (or their heirs) is unknown or cannot be located. Rights in such works devolve to the competent authority, the General Authority for Guardianship over Minors' Property.

Accessibility for persons with disabilities

The law includes specific provisions enabling persons with disabilities to create accessible format copies. Approved entities providing educational, training, or information access services to beneficiaries with disabilities on a non-profit basis may prepare and distribute accessible format copies without authorisation.

Areas awaiting clarification

Despite its modernisation, certain aspects of the law require further clarification which we anticipate may be addressed in the implementing regulations to issue soon:

• Detailed AI-Generated Works Treatment: AI-Generated Works: The law does not explicitly address copyright status for works generated by AI systems. Given the definition of "author" and requirements for originality, purely AI-autogenerated content without meaningful human input would likely not qualify for copyright protection and would fall into the public domain. This is consistent with international trends and a recent decision from the SAIP rejecting a patent application that named an AI system (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience (DABUS)) as the inventor.
• Online Platform Liability Beyond Safe Harbours: The safe harbour provisions address when platforms are not liable, but the law does not establish detailed notice-and-takedown procedures or specific timeframes for responding to infringement claims.
• Resale Rights (Droit de Suite): The law does not include provisions for artists' resale rights, which would entitle creators of visual works to royalties on subsequent sales of their works.
• Moral Rights for Performers: While the law states that performers enjoy moral rights as specified in the regulations, the detailed scope and application of these rights await the implementing regulations.
• Detailed Collective Management Framework: While rights holders may delegate management of their rights to collective organisations, the detailed regulatory framework, including licensing, oversight, and governance requirements for such organisations, is deferred to the implementing regulations.
• Specific Streaming and Digital Distribution Rules: While the law covers transmission to the public, detailed rules specific to streaming services and digital distribution platforms are not elaborated.
• Copyright in Architectural Designs: The new law continues to safeguard antiquities and items of national significance in the Kingdom; however, it does not explicitly confirm that copyright in architectural drawings for prominent structures automatically vests with property owners. Given the increasing prevalence of such iconic landmarks within the Kingdom, a definitive provision would be advantageous under the new copyright law. In the interim, property owners should ensure that their agreements with architects or architectural firms specifically assign copyright in the architectural works to them.
• Cross-Border Enforcement Mechanisms: While the law provides for customs procedures in coordination with the Zakat, Tax and Customs Authority, detailed international enforcement cooperation mechanisms are not specified.
• Implications and Next Steps
• The new law affects all participants in the intellectual property ecosystem. Now is an opportune time for businesses and rights holders to review existing copyright strategies, licensing structures, AI-related activities, and employment contracts in anticipation of the new regime, which takes effect 180 days after publication (approximately mid-August 2026).

Read the original article on GowlingWLG.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.