A training pack is not a single file. It usually includes a participant guide, slides, exercises, case studies and tests, and sometimes video recordings and an e-learning module. Each of these may be a protected work.

UAE law protects oral and written lectures, speeches and similar works, as well as software, applications and databases identified by ministerial resolution. ^[1] Saudi Arabia’s new Copyright Law protects works delivered orally, such as lectures and speeches. ^[2] In other words, the lecture itself is protected, not just the written slides.

The practical question is not whether the material is protected but who owns the rights: the organisation that paid, the employee who wrote it, or the trainer who delivered it.

Which law applies in each country?

In the UAE, the applicable law is Federal Decree-Law No. 38 of 2021 on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, in force since 2 January 2022. ^[1] In Saudi Arabia, the Copyright Law was issued by Royal Decree No. M/169 dated 14/8/1447H, published in Umm Al-Qura on 13 February 2026, and takes effect 180 days after publication, ^[2] that is, from 12 August 2026, ^{[5, 6]} replacing the copyright law issued in 1424H (2003). ^{[2, 6]} The board of the Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property approved its Implementing Regulations to apply from the law’s effective date. ^[3]

Each of the other GCC states has its own law, so do not carry one country’s rule into a contract governed by another country’s law.

Material written by employees: who owns it?

The rule is similar in both countries. In the UAE, if an employee creates a work during employment that relates to the employer’s business and was directly or indirectly assigned by the employer, or that draws on the employer’s expertise, information, tools, machinery or materials, the economic rights go to the employer, taking the employee’s intellectual effort into account, unless otherwise agreed in writing. The rights stay with the employee only if the work is unrelated to the employer’s business and made without the employer’s resources. ^[1]

In Saudi Arabia, if an employee creates a work during employment that relates to the employer’s activities or business, the author’s rights go to the employer unless otherwise agreed, and the employee keeps the economic rights in a work unrelated to the employer’s activities. ^[2] Notably, the text makes the first rule an exception to the paragraph that bars disposal of moral rights, ^[2] whereas one legal analysis of the Implementing Regulations reads them as leaving moral rights with the author in this case. ^[5] The prudent course is to credit the authors of internal materials.

A common grey area: an HR employee spends weekends writing a training pack on a topic close to their job, then sells it to a training provider. In the UAE, using the employer’s information or tools may be enough for the economic rights to pass to the employer, and the text does not deal expressly with work done outside hours. ^[1] A contract or internal IP policy should settle such cases in advance. WIPO notes that disputes often arise when staff work from home or outside normal hours, and recommends a signed agreement before work begins. ^[4] A good policy usually covers:

• What counts as material “related to the business”, such as internal packs, procedure guides and learning platform content.
• The status of material an employee prepares outside working hours or on personal devices.
• Prior disclosure before an employee delivers external training on a topic close to their job.
• How authors of internal materials are credited, respecting their moral rights.

External trainers and commissioned content

This is where the two countries differ most. UAE law provides that if an author creates a work for another person, the copyright is attributed to that person unless otherwise agreed in writing. ^[1] Saudi law provides that the economic rights in a work created for another person go to the author unless otherwise agreed. ^[2]

The result is that a Saudi organisation paying an independent trainer to develop a pack, without an express transfer clause, may own little more than the right to use it for the purpose it was commissioned for. WIPO explains that in most countries the creator owns a commissioned work, the commissioning party receives a licence for that purpose only, and reusing the work in a new way generally needs the creator’s permission. ^[4]

An important caveat for Saudi Arabia: a legal analysis published after the Implementing Regulations were issued reads them as giving the economic rights in a commissioned work to the commissioning party unless the contract says otherwise, ^[5] which departs from the plain text of Article 18. ^{[2, 6]} Given this tension, do not rely on either default; state ownership expressly in the contract.

Moral rights: what cannot be bought

Even when all economic rights transfer, the author keeps moral rights. In the UAE these are not subject to prescription or assignment, and include the right to be named as author and to object to distortion of the work. ^[1] In Saudi Arabia they include attribution and objecting to any modification that distorts the work or harms the author’s reputation; they cannot be waived and are not lost by granting exploitation rights, subject to the exception for employee works. ^[2]

WIPO advises obtaining a waiver of moral rights where needed, ^[4] but that does not work for an external trainer in either country. The practical solution is a clause naming the author in the material in an agreed form, and a clause stating that periodic updates and adaptation for different audiences are intended and agreed, with the author consulted on substantial changes.

What should the contract include?

In the UAE, a disposal of economic rights takes effect only if it is in writing and specifies the right concerned, the purpose, and the duration and place of use; disposing of an author’s entire future intellectual output is void. ^[1] In Saudi Arabia, an author’s assignment of their entire future output is also void. ^[2] WIPO recommends including assignment or licence terms before work starts, then confirming the assignment after delivery in a document that names the work by title. ^[4]

Watch for three common mistakes:

• “All rights belong to the organisation” with no detail: this will be interpreted in a dispute, and may not cover translation or conversion to e-learning.
• No source files: the organisation owns the rights in theory but has no editable files.
• Third-party material inside the pack: images, tables and models taken from books or websites, whose rights the trainer cannot transfer.

Are the education exceptions enough for quoting?

UAE law allows copying short parts of a work for educational, cultural, religious or vocational training purposes, on conditions that include staying within reasonable limits and the purpose, naming the author and title where possible, not aiming at direct or indirect profit, and the licence being unobtainable. ^[1] Saudi law allows use of a published work for non-profit educational or research purposes within the intended scope, citing the source and author, provided it does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work or cause unjustified harm to rights holders. ^[2]

A commercial training provider therefore usually cannot rely on these exceptions. The safer options are original content, licensed sources, or openly licensed material used in line with its terms.

Hypothetical example: a pack written by a contracted trainer

A Saudi organisation contracted an independent trainer to develop a customer service programme and deliver it three times. The contract covered only fees and session dates. A year later, the organisation wanted to turn the material into an e-learning course delivered by its own trainers.

Under the text of Article 18 of the Saudi law, the economic rights stay with the trainer unless otherwise agreed, ^[2] and the contrary reading of the Implementing Regulations leaves the point open to dispute, ^[5] so the safer course is a new agreement. Had the same contract been made in the UAE, the default would favour the commissioning organisation, ^[1] but the lack of a stated purpose, duration and place would still invite dispute. The lesson: write the ownership clause before development, not when the need arises.

Conclusion

Contracts settle ownership of training content before the law does. Write an internal policy for materials prepared by employees, make every contract with a trainer or content developer name what transfers, what is licensed and on what terms, and respect the author’s moral rights, because they cannot be bought.