Países / Albania

Derecho de autor e inteligencia artificial en Albania

Albania: parcial. La ley exige una persona física que cree una expresión intelectual original y materializada. No contiene ficción de obra generada por computadora. El output autónomo no tiene una vía demostrada; en un resultado asistido sólo puede protegerse la expresión humana original, identificable y probada. El registro es voluntario, examinado y rebatible; no se verificó un acto individual GenAI.

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

Explorar Albania en el mapa →

Marco y alcance

Paso 1 — Definir la expresión exacta reclamada y separar material escrito, dibujado, grabado, seleccionado, ordenado, transformado o editado por una persona del material producido por el sistema. El art. 8(2) de la Ley 35/2016 protege una parte sólo si esa parte es por sí misma una creación intelectual. Paso 2 — Identificar a la persona física que creó esa expresión. Los arts. 3(1) y 13 son un requisito de autoría: el modelo no es persona física y operar, poseer, financiar, programar o encargar el modelo no vuelve humana por sí sola la expresión del output. Paso 3 — Probar una creación intelectual original con características individuales. Esfuerzo, costo, novedad, complejidad del modelo, número de prompts, elección del tema o control de la cuenta no sustituyen expresión humana original. El art. 12 excluye ideas, conceptos y hechos o datos simples. Paso 4 — Limitar la pretensión al aporte humano demostrable. Reescritura, dibujo, arreglo, montaje, adaptación o selección/disposición creativa humanos pueden calificar bajo los arts. 8–10 según los hechos; la presencia de algún input humano no protege todo el output. No se localizó decisión albanesa que fije un umbral de prompt, iteración, curaduría o retoque. Paso 5 — Conservar borradores, archivos y capas fuente, versiones, commits, prompts, outputs intermedios, motivos de selección, parámetros o seeds disponibles, historial de edición, fechas, créditos y contratos. El registro no cura la falta de autoría humana u originalidad; VKM 460/2024 exige examen y hace rebatible cualquier certificado.

Limitaciones documentadas

No Albanian judicial or published administrative decision directly resolving authorship, originality or registrability under authors' rights for a generative-AI output was located in the targeted official indexes. No Albanian authority located sets a minimum degree of prompting, iteration, selection, curation, transformation or editing sufficient for human original expression in a GenAI result. The state RDA database is legally established and has designated public fields, but no complete public search endpoint/list was located; private or non-indexed registration and refusal records could not be excluded. The 2025 authors' rights consultation and 2026 general AI-bill consultation were not enacted current law and did not supply a controlling generative-AI authorship rule; they were excluded from the substantive result. The e-Albania service page cites repealed VKM 34/2017 and was degraded; current procedure is taken from official VKM 460/2024. EU authors' rights instruments and CJEU authorities were not treated as directly applicable member-state law because Albania remained an accession candidate at the cutoff.

Registro y actos documentados

Estado

none_located

Resumen

La ley permite el registro voluntario ante la DDA y exige examen conforme al régimen de derechos de autor. El certificado es rebatible y no constituye autoría ni derechos. No se verificó concesión o negativa individual relacionada con IA en las fuentes públicas examinadas.

Actos documentados

Casos nacionales

Gjykata e Lartë, Kolegji Civil, Vendim Nr. 00-2025-2238(273), file Nr. 11243-02405-00-2016

Nombre

Gjykata e Lartë, Kolegji Civil, Vendim Nr. 00-2025-2238(273), file Nr. 11243-02405-00-2016

Cita

Gjykata e Lartë, Kolegji Civil, Vendim Nr. 00-2025-2238(273), file Nr. 11243-02405-00-2016

Tribunal

Supreme Court of Albania, Civil College

Instancia

última instancia

Fechas

Decisión: 2025-05-21

Estado

resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada

Resultado

The 26 April 2016 appellate judgment was vacated and the matter remanded to the General Jurisdiction Court of Appeal in Tirana before a different panel.

Resumen

Copyright protection arose automatically when the work was materialized; registration was voluntary, non-constitutive and served evidence/publicity. The case was remanded to a differently composed General Jurisdiction Court of Appeal. The court applied former Law 9380/2005 to the historical facts and expressly observed that current Law 35/2016 art. 17 preserves automatic protection.

Antecedentes

Photographer Nuri Çumani alleged that Gazeta Rilindja Demokratike published his photograph of singer Vaçe Zela without authorization or credit. The lower courts denied relief because the registration certificate post-dated publication.

Historia procesal

Tirana District Court dismissed on 11 June 2015 and the Tirana Court of Appeal affirmed on 26 April 2016, treating the 7 March 2014 certificate as the start of enforceable protection. Çumani filed cassation; the Civil College reviewed in chambers under the transitional procedural rules.

Cuestión jurídica

Whether a copyright claimant lacked standing for an allegedly infringing publication merely because the voluntary registration certificate issued after that publication, and whether the merits could be resolved without full fact-finding.

Criterio

Fundamento decisivo

The author-work relationship arises from creation/materialisation, not registration or contract. Registration facilitates publicity and proof and may support a presumption, but does not create the right. Because the lower courts stopped at the certificate date, they had not decided authorship, authorization, prior publication or damages on the merits; the Supreme Court could not make those factual findings for the first time.

Límites

The judgment does not establish that Çumani ultimately owned the photograph, that infringement or damages were proved, or that any AI-generated output is protected. It applies former Law 9380/2005 to historical facts while citing current art. 17 only for continuity of automatic protection.

Relevancia

administrativo

Referencias relacionadas

Peso del precedente

Highest national court and direct authority on automatic protection and non-constitutive registration, but not identified as a unifying decision and not an AI-authorship precedent. Integración/votación: Panel: Margarita Buhali (presiding), Vojsava Kola and Valbon Çekrezi. The published decision does not disclose a separate vote tally or dissent; no unanimity is asserted.

Fuente

Referencia: Gjykata e Lartë, Kolegji Civil, Vendim Nr. 00-2025-2238(273), file Nr. 11243-02405-00-2016
Enlace: Consultar fuente
Autoridad: Supreme Court of Albania, Civil College
Tipo: ordinary Civil College judgment on copyright; reversal/remand, not identified as a unifying decision
Tipo de evidencia: complete_primary_judgment_official_court
Localizador: paras. 16–21, 24–29 and operative part
Verificación documentada: Sí

Gjykata e Rrethit Gjyqësor Tiranë, Vendim Nr. 3792, act Nr. 1506

Nombre

Gjykata e Rrethit Gjyqësor Tiranë, Vendim Nr. 3792, act Nr. 1506

Cita

Gjykata e Rrethit Gjyqësor Tiranë, Vendim Nr. 3792, act Nr. 1506

Tribunal

Tirana District Court

Instancia

tribunal nacional

Fechas

Decisión: 2021-06-02

Estado

resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada

Resultado

The principal claim was dismissed; the counterclaim was allowed for the redacted unpaid euro amount plus statutory late interest from 1 May 2018 until execution, with costs charged to the commissioner. Appeal was available within 15 days; no later outcome was located in this review.

Resumen

The writer retained authorship while economic rights were allocated under the parties' contract; the court rejected the claim and granted the counterclaim for unpaid price and interest.

Antecedentes

A person commissioned a writer to create a biographical novel from his life story and later disputed completion, pseudonym and payment.

Historia procesal

The commissioner sued to terminate the agreement and recover the advance; the writer counterclaimed for the unpaid contract price and damages. The District Court heard the documentary evidence and party submissions in public session.

Cuestión jurídica

Who was the author of the commissioned novel, what economic rights the contract allocated, whether the writer performed on time, and which party breached the payment agreement.

Criterio

The writer retained authorship while economic rights were allocated under the parties' contract; the court rejected the claim and granted the counterclaim for unpaid price and interest.

Fundamento decisivo

The written agreement assigned the writing task to the defendant and expressly preserved her authorship. The parties' imprecise use of the phrase author rights was construed as allocation of economic exploitation rights. The manuscript was delivered by the contractual deadline and initially praised; later demands did not undo performance or the payment obligation.

Límites

First-instance, anonymized and non-AI. It does not decide whether a prompt, source facts, revision request or AI-assisted selection creates authorship, and the public body redacts party names and monetary amounts.

Relevancia

autoria-output

Referencias relacionadas

Peso del precedente

Limited first-instance persuasive orientation on commissioned human authorship and contractual economic rights; no binding or appellate status is claimed. Integración/votación: Single judge Altin Shkurti; no panel vote or dissent.

Fuente

Referencia: Gjykata e Rrethit Gjyqësor Tiranë, Vendim Nr. 3792, act Nr. 1506
Enlace: Consultar fuente
Autoridad: Tirana District Court
Tipo: ordinary civil first-instance contract/copyright judgment
Tipo de evidencia: complete_primary_judgment_authoritative_intergovernmental_reproduction
Localizador: act 1506; factual findings, court assessment of authorship/economic rights, and disposition
Verificación documentada: Sí

Gjykata e Rrethit Gjyqësor Tiranë, Vendim Nr. 7535

Nombre

Gjykata e Rrethit Gjyqësor Tiranë, Vendim Nr. 7535

Cita

Gjykata e Rrethit Gjyqësor Tiranë, Vendim Nr. 7535

Tribunal

Tirana District Court

Instancia

tribunal nacional

Fechas

Decisión: 2017-09-18

Estado

resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada

Resultado

The claim was allowed only to recognize infringement; monetary damages were dismissed for want of proof. The defendant bore the costs attributable to the accepted portion. Appeal was available within 15 days; no appellate outcome was located in this review.

Resumen

The court treated computer software as human intellectual creation protected as a literary work and found unauthorized use, but held that the claimed damages amount was not proved.

Antecedentes

A software rights holder alleged commercial use of unlicensed computer programs following an administrative inspection.

Historia procesal

After a 6 October 2014 copyright-office inspection and administrative fine, the software rights holder brought a civil action seeking recognition of infringement and damages calculated from an asserted number of computers and product price. The defendant disputed both unlicensed use and the damages proof.

Cuestión jurídica

Whether the inspection evidence proved unauthorized commercial use of protected computer programs and whether the claimant proved the quantity and value necessary for the requested damages.

Criterio

The court treated computer software as human intellectual creation protected as a literary work and found unauthorized use, but held that the claimed damages amount was not proved.

Fundamento decisivo

The unchallenged inspection and absence of licences supported infringement. The damages calculation failed because the inspection did not identify the number of unlicensed computers, employee counts came from a different period, the one-half estimate had no legal basis, and a 2016 price did not prove the 2014 product value.

Límites

First-instance, anonymized, based on historical Law 9380/2005 and non-AI. Protection of a human-created software program does not imply that outputs produced by software are authored or protected.

Relevancia

autoria-output

Referencias relacionadas

Peso del precedente

Limited first-instance persuasive orientation on software infringement and proof; no binding, appellate or GenAI weight is claimed. Integración/votación: Single judge Enkela Baj; no panel vote or dissent.

Fuente

Referencia: Gjykata e Rrethit Gjyqësor Tiranë, Vendim Nr. 7535
Enlace: Consultar fuente
Autoridad: Tirana District Court
Tipo: ordinary civil first-instance copyright judgment applying historical Law 9380/2005
Tipo de evidencia: complete_primary_judgment_authoritative_intergovernmental_reproduction
Localizador: 15-page body; findings on unlicensed use, evidentiary analysis of the claimed quantity/value, and disposition
Verificación documentada: Sí