She Says 95% of What You’re Building Has No Legal Guardrails — Yet

“AI is a tool, not the be-all and end-all. Whether it becomes a force for sustainable growth or a catalyst for creative decline — that’s a choice we make.” — Esther Wee

In a world increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence, tokenization, and intangible value, sustainability is no longer a side conversation. For Esther Wee, Partner at RHTLaw Asia and a leading voice in IP law and digital regulation, it is the foundation of long-term digital leadership.

In her keynote, “Sustainability in the Digital Era: Future of Digital Leadership,” Esther brought legal and economic clarity to what many still treat as abstract buzzwords — sustainability, digital assets, IP tokenization, generative AI.

Her talk offered more than a high-level overview. It surfaced the legal, ethical, and commercial complexities leaders must confront now — before innovation outpaces accountability.

The Cracks in the Current IP Framework

Esther began by grounding the session in the original purpose of intellectual property: to reward innovation, protect creators, and promote sustainable knowledge sharing.

Yet, she highlighted how this once-stable framework is straining under modern pressures. In particular, open-source innovation, AI-generated content, and blockchain-enabled digital assets challenge the fundamental assumptions of who owns what — and why.

In the traditional world, a patent or copyright protects a tangible, human-authored work. In the digital economy, things aren’t so clear-cut.

“Most of the current IP laws were written with a human creator in mind. What happens when AI systems do the creating? Who owns it — the programmer, the user, the model itself?”

This tension isn’t theoretical. Esther cited the Thaler v. Iancu case, where the U.S. Patent Office rejected an application listing an AI system — DABUS — as an inventor. Courts upheld the decision, affirming that only natural persons can be inventors under U.S. patent law. Similar positions have emerged in the UK, setting a global precedent with major implications for how we define and attribute creativity in the AI era.

Generative AI: Legal Grey Zones and the Coming Storm

While businesses rush to deploy AI tools for cost savings and increased productivity, few fully grasp the legal exposure and ethical risks associated with them. Esther broke this down into three dimensions: authorship, originality, and enforcement.

For instance, AI-generated content often pulls from large volumes of training data — some of which may be copyrighted. This raises questions of originality and derivative work, especially when the human input is minimal.

“There’s a gap in enforcement too,” she added. “Even if AI-generated work infringes IP rights, attribution is murky. Who do you hold accountable?”

In Singapore, the 2021 Copyright Act introduced a clause allowing for computational data analysis — a potential defense for AI training use. But, Esther noted, this provision has yet to be tested in court, leaving uncertainty for businesses developing or deploying GenAI tools.

Getty Images v Stability AI: Why Leaders Should Pay Attention

Esther pointed to the ongoing Getty Images v Stability AI case as a real-time example of these tensions. Getty accuses Stability AI of scraping millions of its images without permission to train Stable Diffusion, its image-generation model.

The High Court’s refusal to dismiss the case outright — citing a real prospect of success — signals that courts are starting to recognize the unique risks posed by unauthorized data harvesting for AI training. The outcome could reshape the AI development landscape, setting standards for what constitutes infringement and “fair use” in the training context.

What makes this case especially important, Esther noted, is that it mirrors the quiet losses suffered by smaller creators — illustrators, photographers, and musicians whose works are scraped and rehashed by AI systems without their knowledge or consent.

“Getty has the legal firepower to fight. But most creators don’t. This is the imbalance we need to correct.”

Tokenization of IP: The New Asset Class with No Rulebook

Esther then shifted to what she called a “quiet revolution” happening in the financialization of intangible assets: the tokenization of IP.

By breaking down IP into fractionalized, tradable tokens, businesses are opening new doors for alternative investment — from biotech patents and music royalties to gaming IP and fine art.

“In some models, investors don’t own the underlying IP, but a share of the future return,” she explained. “It’s like crowdfunding meets capital markets — but without the regulatory clarity.”

She described how South Korea has begun drafting legislation around “token securities” to rein in such gray zones. Singapore, by contrast, still treats NFTs and tokenized IP assets as largely unregulated — for now.

Esther referenced recent S&P stats, noting that 95% of enterprise value now comes from intangible assets, not physical ones. “This shift isn’t coming. It’s here. But the law hasn’t caught up.”

Regulated vs Unregulated Digital Economies: Parallel Worlds

In a detailed breakdown of the digital asset economy, Esther compared the regulated and unregulated zones of blockchain finance. Regulated players — like banks issuing tokenized deposits — operate under stringent compliance. Unregulated players, including offshore DeFi platforms, pose heightened AML and investor protection risks.

For founders and investors alike, she emphasized one thing: “Know which world you’re playing in.”

Failing to do so could result in legal exposure, asset freezes, or reputational damage — especially as regulators in the APAC region ramp up enforcement.

Leading with Guardrails: The Future of Sustainable Innovation

Esther closed by reminding the audience that sustainability isn’t just environmental — it’s systemic. Sustainable digital transformation requires not just tools and tech, but legal frameworks, ethical boundaries, and responsible leadership.

She pointed to the EU AI Act, coming into effect in August 2024, as a model worth watching. The Act introduces tiered risk responsibilities and applies to any company operating in or serving the EU — regardless of geographic base.

“Change is coming. Regulation is catching up. Leaders who move first — with foresight and integrity — will set the tone for the next decade.”

Editor’s note:

This feature highlights Esther Wee, Partner at RHTLaw Asia, President of IIPCC Singapore, and Board Director at the Singapore Digital Chamber of Commerce, who delivered the keynote “Sustainability in the Digital Era: Future of Digital Leadership” at the Digital Leadership Webinar Summit 2025.

Read the Chinese article here.

Related posts:

Nick GC Tan on Pioneering Virtual Production in Southeast Asia Can Digital Therapeutics in Asia Fix Health Care? Japan Thinks So 40% of Southeast Asia’s Economy Will Be Disrupted by 2030. Are You Ready? Most Airlines are Still Flying Blind, He’s Rewiring How They Decide with AI