Países / Armenia

Derecho de autor e inteligencia artificial en Armenia

Armenia: parcial. La ley excluye expresamente los resultados obtenidos por medios técnicos sin actividad creativa humana y exige que el autor sea una persona física. Por eso el output autónomo no tiene una vía autoral demostrada. En un resultado asistido sólo puede protegerse la expresión humana original, identificable, separable y probada. El derecho nace automáticamente; el depósito voluntario de ARMAUTHOR tiene función probatoria y no es una concesión estatal.

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

Explorar Armenia en el mapa →

Marco y alcance

Step 1 — Define the exact claimed final expression and separate human-written, drawn, recorded, composed, selected, arranged, transformed or edited material from system-produced material. A project-level label such as AI-assisted is not sufficiently granular. Step 2 — Apply the express exclusion first. If the result was obtained by technical means without human creative activity, Law art. 4(1)(f) and Civil Code art. 1114(5) exclude it, regardless of novelty, value, effort or commercial utility. A model is not the natural-person author required by art. 6. Step 3 — Identify human creative activity materialized in the final expression. Prompts describing an idea, style, purpose or method, prompt count, iteration, parameter selection, account control and payment do not prove this by themselves. No Armenian AI decision establishes a per se threshold. Step 4 — Test each human contribution for creative originality and limit the claim accordingly. Rewriting, drawing, montage, composition, transformation or creative selection/arrangement can qualify on the facts, but a trivial, functional or purely technical choice does not protect the entire AI output. Step 5 — Preserve drafts, source files/layers, versions, prompts, intermediate outputs, parameters/seeds when available, selection reasons, edits, commits, dates, credits and contracts. Map person to expressive decision to version to final element. ARMAUTHOR deposit can support date/evidence but cannot create the right or cure the no-human-activity exclusion.

Limitaciones documentadas

No published Armenian judicial or administrative merits decision applying the express no-human-creative-activity exclusion to a concrete generative-AI output was located. No Armenian authority located sets a minimum prompting, iteration, selection, curation, transformation or editing threshold for human authorship in a GenAI workflow. ARMAUTHOR's deposit universe was not publicly searchable at file level; non-indexed, confidential or differently described deposits cannot be excluded. The two Gharibyan files are contextual and non-AI; they cannot resolve the statutory GenAI threshold beyond their narrow evidentiary points concerning authorship, identification and scope. The 2026 audiovisual labeling law and implementing decision regulate disclosure, not authorial subsistence, and the draft reform was excluded as non-enacted material.

Registro y actos documentados

Estado

no_registry

Resumen

El derecho de autor armenio nace automáticamente y las autoridades públicas no operan un registro estatal constitutivo de obras. ARMAUTHOR, organización de gestión colectiva, ofrece depósito probatorio voluntario bajo el artículo 64(1)(e). El documento de depósito no es una concesión estatal, tiene efecto probatorio rebatible y no cura la exclusión legal de resultados obtenidos sin actividad creativa humana. Ningún depósito debe contarse como obra IA concedida sin una adjudicación sustantiva separada.

Actos documentados

Casos nacionales

Varsam Gharibyan v ArmSweet LLC and Shant Plus LLC

Nombre

Varsam Gharibyan v ArmSweet LLC and Shant Plus LLC

Cita

Case ԵՄԴ/1292/02/09

Tribunal

Civil Court of Appeal of the Republic of Armenia

Instancia

Civil Court of Appeal

Fechas

Decisión: 2011-05-12

Estado

resolved-appellate-dismissal

Resultado

Appeals allowed; first-instance judgment partially quashed and modified; Gharibyan's claims dismissed; AMD 10,000 appellate fee awarded to each appellant.

Resumen

The appellate court reversed and dismissed because certificate No. 00172 enumerated ice-cream types and names but did not show the design or appearance of the listed packaging; the record therefore could not establish that SHANT was an essential part or that the asserted exclusive rights belonged to Gharibyan. Unchallenged trademark registration and licence acts remained operative.

Antecedentes

The claimed expression was the design and appearance of packaging and the SHANT sign, not merely an abstract title. The evidentiary record contained certificates listing categories or names, deposit-related papers, packaging samples and trademark-registration materials.

Historia procesal

The Malatia-Sebastia Court of General Jurisdiction granted the action on 11 February 2011, invalidated the trademark licence and enjoined use. On 12 May 2011 the Civil Court of Appeal allowed both appeals, partially quashed and modified the judgment, dismissed all copyright claims, and awarded AMD 10,000 in appellate fees to each appellant. The decision was appealable to cassation within one month; the retrieved file contains no later cassation disposition for this docket.

Cuestión jurídica

Whether the historical certificate and deposit-related evidence identified the exact protected designs and established that the SHANT sign was an essential part owned by Gharibyan notwithstanding the defendants' subsisting trademark acts.

Criterio

Fundamento decisivo

A certificate or deposit record that lists categories or titles without identifying the concrete expression litigated does not prove ownership or infringement of that expression; extant trademark acts could not be displaced without a proper challenge.

Límites

The case is not AI-specific, does not apply article 4(1)(f), and does not hold that deposit is never evidence. It decides the insufficiency and relevance of the particular evidence and the interaction with unchallenged trademark acts. No later cassation disposition was located in the file.

Relevancia

doctrina-general

Referencias relacionadas

Peso del precedente

Contextual published appellate authority, persuasive for evidentiary scope but not identified as a cassation or unifying precedent. Integración/votación: N. Barseghyan, N. Hovsepyan and A. Mkrtchyan; appellate panel Panel listed as N. Barseghyan, N. Hovsepyan and A. Mkrtchyan. The retrieved publication does not state an individual vote tally or dissent; unanimity is not independently asserted.

Fuente

Referencia: Varsam Gharibyan v ArmSweet LLC and Shant Plus LLC
Enlace: Consultar fuente
Autoridad: Civil Court of Appeal of the Republic of Armenia
Tipo: complete_primary_judicial_file
Tipo de evidencia: complete_primary_judicial_file
Localizador: complete official file, pp. 1-31; first-instance judgment pp. 4-17; appellate decision pp. 19-31; disposition p. 31
Verificación documentada: Sí

Varsam Gharibyan v ArmSweet LLC

Nombre

Varsam Gharibyan v ArmSweet LLC

Cita

Case ԵՄԴ/0636/02/09

Tribunal

Malatia-Sebastia Court of General Jurisdiction; Civil Court of Appeal; Civil and Administrative Chamber of the Court of Cassation

Instancia

Court of Cassation — admissibility/return decision following appellate dismissal

Fechas

Decisión: 2010-04-14

Estado

resolved-cassation-complaint-returned

Resultado

Trial judgment reversed and claim dismissed on 27 January 2010; cassation complaint returned by final nonappealable decision on 14 April 2010.

Resumen

The operative appellate dismissal remained in force. The certificate copies did not describe the litigated packaging design, several claimed items were absent or outside the dispute, and the record did not sufficiently connect the deposited materials, their institutional provenance or their concrete expression to the alleged infringement. Cassation returned the complaint and endorsed the appellate evidentiary reasoning as justified.

Antecedentes

The certificates identified categories, names or other works, while several litigated packaging designs were absent, not visually described or supported by papers whose dates, seals and succession between the former state agency and ARMAUTHOR were contested.

Historia procesal

The trial court granted the action on 24 September 2009. The Civil Court of Appeal on 27 January 2010 reversed and dismissed, finding the evidentiary chain insufficient and some materials unrelated. Gharibyan sought cassation. On 14 April 2010 the Civil and Administrative Chamber returned the complaint, held that the alleged judicial error was refuted by the appellate reasons and that the appellate court had properly allowed the appeal; the return decision was immediately final and not appealable.

Cuestión jurídica

Whether certificates and deposit-related papers proved that Gharibyan authored and owned the specific packaging designs in dispute and that ArmSweet infringed them.

Criterio

Fundamento decisivo

Automatic subsistence does not relieve a claimant from identifying the concrete protected expression and proving its human creator, evidentiary chain and correspondence with the defendant's use; the cassation chamber found no qualifying judicial error in the appellate treatment of that proof.

Límites

The Court of Cassation returned the complaint at the admissibility stage and did not announce an AI-authorship test. The file concerns conventional packaging designs and historic records; it is used only for proof, identification and scope.

Relevancia

doctrina-general

Referencias relacionadas

Peso del precedente

Contextual national authority with a final cassation-return decision expressly approving the appellate evidentiary analysis; not treated as a general AI precedent or a substantive copyright registration ruling. Integración/votación: Cassation: S. Sargsyan (presiding), Y. Khundkaryan, V. Abelyan, S. Antonyan, V. Avanesyan, A. Barseghyan, M. Drmeyan, E. Hayriyan, T. Petrosyan and Y. Soghomonyan. Appellate composition appears in the complete file. The retrieved file lists the participating judges but publishes no individual vote tally or dissent; unanimity is not independently asserted.

Fuente

Referencia: Varsam Gharibyan v ArmSweet LLC
Enlace: Consultar fuente
Autoridad: Malatia-Sebastia Court of General Jurisdiction; Civil Court of Appeal; Civil and Administrative Chamber of the Court of Cassation
Tipo: complete_primary_judicial_file
Tipo de evidencia: complete_primary_judicial_file
Localizador: complete official file, pp. 1-26; first instance 24 September 2009; appeal 27 January 2010; cassation return 14 April 2010
Verificación documentada: Sí