Países / Baréin

Derecho de autor e inteligencia artificial en Baréin

Baréin: parcial. La salida autónoma no satisface la definición legal de autor como persona natural creadora; la expresión humana asistida puede protegerse sólo en sus elementos creativos identificados y probados. Nueve fallos nacionales de Casación fijan reglas generales, pero ninguno decide GenAI. Existe depósito voluntario, sin acto individual GenAI público verificado.

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

Explorar Baréin en el mapa →

Marco y alcance

Autonomous output: article 1 expressly requires a natural-person author who created the work. No attribution fiction or national GenAI decision supplies an author when no human determined the final expression. Assisted work: human text, drawing, photograph, performance, code, montage, selection/arrangement or rewriting can be assessed element by element. Protection does not extend wholesale to autonomous components. Prompts and process: prompt text may itself be human expression, but ideas, instructions, methods, iteration, account control, investment and final approval do not alone show that the user created the generated expression. Derived ownership: Al-Marash and Macmillan show that institutional, collective, commissioned and assigned rights presuppose a protected work and require the statutory human contributions or written chain. Ownership is not authorship. Evidence: Narrators, Appeals 26/2006 and 255/2004 require rational evidence, identification of works/authors and proof of damage. A certificate is evidence, not a reasoned GenAI holding without its file and disclosure. Related rights: a phonogram producer may be a natural or juridical person, but that fixation right is analytically separate from copyright in generated music, lyrics or voice and is unadjudicated for AI. Exclusions: patent/DABUS, training/infringement, marks, designs, privacy, ISBN and legal deposit were not counted as authorship or individual copyright grants.

Limitaciones documentadas

No public record-level registry exposes all copyright deposits, certificates, refusals or appeals; a certified Ministry search is required for universal claims. No published Bahrain GenAI merits decision sets a threshold for prompting, iteration, selection, editing or disclosure. No Bahrain authority applies phonogram-producer rights to an AI-generated sound fixation. The public Court of Cassation index does not establish the contents of lower, unpublished, sealed or administrative cases. The WIPO registry questionnaire is historical; current operational details require Ministry confirmation.

Registro y actos documentados

Estado
unverified
Resumen
Bahrain has a real voluntary work-deposit/recordation route. No individual public GenAI grant or denial was verified. Service listings, legal deposit, ISBN, industrial-property records, generic forms and bare copyright notices are not counted as individual copyright determinations.
Actos documentados

    Casos nacionales

    Macmillan Education / Learning Stars distributor v. school

    Nombre
    Macmillan Education / Learning Stars distributor v. school
    Cita
    Court of Cassation, Commercial Appeal 7/00179/2024/27, rule 5
    Tribunal
    Court of Cassation, Commercial Circuit
    Instancia
    court_of_cassation
    Fechas
    Decisión
    2025-01-06
    Estado
    final_cassation_rejected
    Resultado
    Cassation rejected; dismissal remained in place.
    Resumen
    No. Article 8 requires a written instrument identifying each transferred economic right and its scope, purpose, duration and place; a document appointing a distributor did not prove a copyright assignment.
    Antecedentes
    An alleged exclusive distributor for Macmillan Education / Learning Stars asserted that a school used counterfeit textbook copies and sought expert access plus provisional compensation of BHD 1,050 in case 3242/2024. The Small Court dismissed on 2024-05-15; appellate case 1562/2024 affirmed on 2024-08-29.
    Historia procesal
    An alleged exclusive distributor for Macmillan Education / Learning Stars asserted that a school used counterfeit textbook copies and sought expert access plus provisional compensation of BHD 1,050 in case 3242/2024. The Small Court dismissed on 2024-05-15; appellate case 1562/2024 affirmed on 2024-08-29.
    Cuestión jurídica
    Whether a distribution letter transferred copyright rights sufficient to confer standing and damages.
    Criterio
    No. Article 8 requires a written instrument identifying each transferred economic right and its scope, purpose, duration and place; a document appointing a distributor did not prove a copyright assignment.
    Fundamento decisivo
    Commercial distribution status is not the statutory chain of title. Copyright enforcement requires proof of the specific written transfer rather than investment, exclusivity in sales or practical control.
    Límites
    Not an authorship or originality ruling and does not involve AI. It governs derived standing and evidentiary sufficiency.
    Relevancia
    doctrina-general
    Referencias relacionadas
      Peso del precedente
      binding_or_highly_authoritative_national_cassation Integración/votación: Masouma Abdelrasoul Issa; Nader Al-Sayed Ali Abdelmotaleb; Tarek Mohamed Fathy Mohamed Amin; Dr Mohamed Ragaa Ahmed Hamdy; Dr Mostafa Mohamed Mohamed Salman panel disposition; no dissent recorded in official text
      Fuente
      Referencia
      Macmillan Education / Learning Stars distributor v. school
      Enlace
      Consultar fuente
      Autoridad
      Court of Cassation, Commercial Circuit
      Tipo
      doctrina-general
      Tipo de evidencia
      complete_primary_judicial_file
      Localizador
      official text, pp./paras represented by lines 276-428 and 503-709 of preserved extraction
      Verificación documentada
      Sí

      Al-Marash monument collective-work dispute

      Nombre
      Al-Marash monument collective-work dispute
      Cita
      Court of Cassation, Civil Appeals 891 and 1203/2019, rule 59
      Tribunal
      Court of Cassation, Civil Circuit
      Instancia
      court_of_cassation
      Fechas
      Decisión
      2020-04-06
      Estado
      final_consolidated_cassation
      Resultado
      The claimant's damages, destruction and attribution claims were rejected; the prior attribution order was reversed and the action dismissed in full.
      Resumen
      It was a collective work: the claimant supplied the general design while an engineering office prepared execution drawings under municipal initiative and direction, and the integrated product was published under the entities' responsibility. Article 33 vested the rights in those entities.
      Antecedentes
      An artist entered a 1994 Arab City Day sculpture/mural competition and placed fourth. He alleged municipal bodies replicated his monument design in 2009 and brought case 7621/2014. Trial ordered attribution but denied other relief; appeals 2844/2015 and 2948/2015 affirmed after expert evidence; both sides sought cassation.
      Historia procesal
      An artist entered a 1994 Arab City Day sculpture/mural competition and placed fourth. He alleged municipal bodies replicated his monument design in 2009 and brought case 7621/2014. Trial ordered attribution but denied other relief; appeals 2844/2015 and 2948/2015 affirmed after expert evidence; both sides sought cassation.
      Cuestión jurídica
      Whether the monument was the claimant's individual work or a collective work initiated and directed by the municipal entities, and who held moral and economic rights.
      Criterio
      It was a collective work: the claimant supplied the general design while an engineering office prepared execution drawings under municipal initiative and direction, and the integrated product was published under the entities' responsibility. Article 33 vested the rights in those entities.
      Fundamento decisivo
      Collective-work status requires initiative, direction, publication and inseparable integration of contributions. The decision identified multiple human contributors before allocating rights to juridical persons.
      Límites
      Does not authorize a corporation or AI to be the initial creator of authorless expression. Its institutional ownership holding rests on a statutory collective work with multiple human contributors.
      Relevancia
      doctrina-general
      Referencias relacionadas
        Peso del precedente
        binding_or_highly_authoritative_national_cassation Integración/votación: Abdullah bin Hassan Al-Buainain; Masouma Abdelrasoul Issa; Nader Al-Sayed Ali Abdelmotaleb; Tarek Mohamed Fathy Mohamed Amin consolidated panel disposition; no dissent recorded
        Fuente
        Referencia
        Al-Marash monument collective-work dispute
        Enlace
        Consultar fuente
        Autoridad
        Court of Cassation, Civil Circuit
        Tipo
        doctrina-general
        Tipo de evidencia
        complete_primary_judicial_file
        Localizador
        official text, rule 59; lines 174-260, 383-539 and 582-691 of preserved extraction; duplicate docket copy CASE-1203 has identical SHA-256
        Verificación documentada
        Sí

        Narrators musical-story evidence dispute

        Nombre
        Narrators musical-story evidence dispute
        Cita
        Court of Cassation, Civil Appeal 694/2011, rule 96
        Tribunal
        Court of Cassation, Civil Circuit
        Instancia
        court_of_cassation
        Fechas
        Decisión
        2014-05-05
        Estado
        cassation_quashed_and_remanded
        Resultado
        Appellate dismissal quashed and matter remanded.
        Resumen
        No. The court could not require the claimant to produce an original controlled by the defendant, rely on a later-modified comparison disc, or infer from gifting or broadcasting that the author waived intellectual-property rights.
        Antecedentes
        The claimant deposited the musical story Narrators on 2000-09-30 as no. 567/2000. He alleged that a company used excerpts in its 2003-06-17 annual event and produced 500 promotional discs. After a 2004-12-23 demand he filed case 9059/2006. Trial awarded BHD 7,915.204; cross-appeals 716/2009 and 758/2009 resulted in dismissal.
        Historia procesal
        The claimant deposited the musical story Narrators on 2000-09-30 as no. 567/2000. He alleged that a company used excerpts in its 2003-06-17 annual event and produced 500 promotional discs. After a 2004-12-23 demand he filed case 9059/2006. Trial awarded BHD 7,915.204; cross-appeals 716/2009 and 758/2009 resulted in dismissal.
        Cuestión jurídica
        Whether the appellate court could reject copying and waiver based on evidence it evaluated irrationally or placed beyond the claimant's control.
        Criterio
        No. The court could not require the claimant to produce an original controlled by the defendant, rely on a later-modified comparison disc, or infer from gifting or broadcasting that the author waived intellectual-property rights.
        Fundamento decisivo
        Each evidentiary inference must be individually rational and traceable; possession of the best evidence, later modification and conduct alleged as waiver must be evaluated without reversing practical control or implying a waiver not established by law.
        Límites
        Applied the 1993 decree to pre-2006 facts; not a GenAI or creativity-threshold holding.
        Relevancia
        doctrina-general
        Referencias relacionadas
          Peso del precedente
          binding_or_highly_authoritative_national_cassation_on_evidence Integración/votación: Ali Yusuf Mansour; Yahya Fathi Yamama; Mohamed Mohamed Al-Sayyad; Sheikh Salman bin Khalifa Al Khalifa panel disposition; no dissent recorded
          Fuente
          Referencia
          Narrators musical-story evidence dispute
          Enlace
          Consultar fuente
          Autoridad
          Court of Cassation, Civil Circuit
          Tipo
          doctrina-general
          Tipo de evidencia
          complete_primary_judicial_file
          Localizador
          official text, rule 96; lines 24-54, 61-80 and 111-139
          Verificación documentada
          Sí

          Counterfeit and obscene films prosecution

          Nombre
          Counterfeit and obscene films prosecution
          Cita
          Court of Cassation, Criminal Appeal 294/2008, rule 13
          Tribunal
          Court of Cassation, Criminal Circuit
          Instancia
          court_of_cassation
          Fechas
          Decisión
          2009-02-09
          Estado
          final_cassation_rejected
          Resultado
          Cassation rejected; conviction and sanctions stood.
          Resumen
          The offenses required general criminal intent, established by confession that he copied and sold the material; ignorance of law or language did not excuse him and deportation was lawful.
          Antecedentes
          A shop worker was charged in case 07/2007/2130/9 with printing, possessing and offering obscene counterfeit films and infringing copyright. Trial imposed two months' imprisonment, BHD 500 and permanent deportation. Appeal 513/2007 affirmed; earlier cassation 32/J/2007 quashed on 2008-03-17; remand on 2008-11-11 reinstated the result.
          Historia procesal
          A shop worker was charged in case 07/2007/2130/9 with printing, possessing and offering obscene counterfeit films and infringing copyright. Trial imposed two months' imprisonment, BHD 500 and permanent deportation. Appeal 513/2007 affirmed; earlier cassation 32/J/2007 quashed on 2008-03-17; remand on 2008-11-11 reinstated the result.
          Cuestión jurídica
          Whether intent was insufficient because the defendant claimed ignorance of Bahrain law and language.
          Criterio
          The offenses required general criminal intent, established by confession that he copied and sold the material; ignorance of law or language did not excuse him and deportation was lawful.
          Fundamento decisivo
          For these special-law offenses, knowing the physical copying and sale can establish general intent without knowledge of the precise statutory prohibition.
          Límites
          Infringement prosecution only; it does not decide authorship or copyright subsistence in AI output.
          Relevancia
          doctrina-general
          Referencias relacionadas
            Peso del precedente
            binding_or_highly_authoritative_national_cassation_on_criminal_intent Integración/votación: Khalifa bin Rashid bin Abdullah Al Khalifa; Masaad Ramadan Al-Saai; Mohsen Mohamed Fadli; Mohieddin Al-Sayed Hassan panel disposition; no dissent recorded
            Fuente
            Referencia
            Counterfeit and obscene films prosecution
            Enlace
            Consultar fuente
            Autoridad
            Court of Cassation, Criminal Circuit
            Tipo
            doctrina-general
            Tipo de evidencia
            complete_primary_judicial_file
            Localizador
            official text, rule 13; lines 46-59, 68-120
            Verificación documentada
            Sí

            Encrypted satellite rebroadcast prosecution

            Nombre
            Encrypted satellite rebroadcast prosecution
            Cita
            Court of Cassation, Criminal Appeal 26/2006, rule 69
            Tribunal
            Court of Cassation, Criminal Circuit
            Instancia
            court_of_cassation
            Fechas
            Decisión
            2006-12-11
            Estado
            cassation_quashed_and_remanded
            Resultado
            Conviction quashed and matter remanded.
            Resumen
            No. The judgment did not identify any protected work or author under the 1993 decree, preventing legal review of whether the charged conduct fell within copyright protection.
            Antecedentes
            Defendants were prosecuted in case 07/2005/7816/8 for receiving and rebroadcasting encrypted satellite channels without right-holder consent. Trial imposed imprisonment, confiscation and deportation; appeals 2111/2005 and 2112/2005 resulted on 2006-01-29 in a three-month sentence for the appellant and removal of the co-defendant's deportation.
            Historia procesal
            Defendants were prosecuted in case 07/2005/7816/8 for receiving and rebroadcasting encrypted satellite channels without right-holder consent. Trial imposed imprisonment, confiscation and deportation; appeals 2111/2005 and 2112/2005 resulted on 2006-01-29 in a three-month sentence for the appellant and removal of the co-defendant's deportation.
            Cuestión jurídica
            Whether a copyright conviction could stand without identifying the protected works and authors allegedly infringed.
            Criterio
            No. The judgment did not identify any protected work or author under the 1993 decree, preventing legal review of whether the charged conduct fell within copyright protection.
            Fundamento decisivo
            A court must identify the protected subject matter and right-holder connection; a generic reference to channels or programming is insufficient for review.
            Límites
            Applied the 1993 decree; concerns pleading/proof in infringement, not GenAI authorship.
            Relevancia
            autoria-output
            Referencias relacionadas
              Peso del precedente
              binding_or_highly_authoritative_national_cassation_on_identification_gate Integración/votación: Khalifa bin Rashid bin Abdullah Al Khalifa; Masaad Ramadan Al-Saai; Mohsen Mohamed Fadli; Mohieddin Al-Sayed Hassan panel disposition; no dissent recorded
              Fuente
              Referencia
              Encrypted satellite rebroadcast prosecution
              Enlace
              Consultar fuente
              Autoridad
              Court of Cassation, Criminal Circuit
              Tipo
              doctrina-general
              Tipo de evidencia
              complete_primary_judicial_file
              Localizador
              official text, rule 69; lines 14-38, 45-95
              Verificación documentada
              Sí

              Islamic-chant cassette distribution dispute

              Nombre
              Islamic-chant cassette distribution dispute
              Cita
              Court of Cassation, Civil Appeal 255/2004, rule 88
              Tribunal
              Court of Cassation, Civil Circuit
              Instancia
              court_of_cassation
              Fechas
              Decisión
              2005-04-18
              Estado
              final_cassation_rejected
              Resultado
              Cassation rejected; dismissal stood.
              Resumen
              Although an assignee may protect the written exclusive economic right, the claimant failed to prove the damaging conduct and resulting loss on the record.
              Antecedentes
              A distributor said a singer granted distribution rights from 2002-03-05 to 2004-01-31 and that he recorded the mark/work on 2002-03-17. He sued a retailer in case 5460/2002 for BHD 3,000 over alleged copying and sale. Trial dismissed after witness evidence; appeal 1678/2003 affirmed.
              Historia procesal
              A distributor said a singer granted distribution rights from 2002-03-05 to 2004-01-31 and that he recorded the mark/work on 2002-03-17. He sued a retailer in case 5460/2002 for BHD 3,000 over alleged copying and sale. Trial dismissed after witness evidence; appeal 1678/2003 affirmed.
              Cuestión jurídica
              Whether an exclusive distribution right alone proved compensable infringement and damage.
              Criterio
              Although an assignee may protect the written exclusive economic right, the claimant failed to prove the damaging conduct and resulting loss on the record.
              Fundamento decisivo
              Title and infringement/damage are separate gates. A valid right does not establish the factual act or compensable injury.
              Límites
              Not an authorship case; useful for proof and remedy discipline.
              Relevancia
              doctrina-general
              Referencias relacionadas
                Peso del precedente
                binding_or_highly_authoritative_national_cassation_on_proof Integración/votación: Khalifa bin Rashid bin Abdullah Al Khalifa; Ali Yusuf Mansour; Masaad Ramadan Al-Saai; Dr Taha Abdel Mawla Taha; Mohsen Mohamed Fadli panel disposition; no dissent recorded
                Fuente
                Referencia
                Islamic-chant cassette distribution dispute
                Enlace
                Consultar fuente
                Autoridad
                Court of Cassation, Civil Circuit
                Tipo
                doctrina-general
                Tipo de evidencia
                complete_primary_judicial_file
                Localizador
                official text, rule 88; lines 12-38, 49-98
                Verificación documentada
                Sí

                Registered theatre play copied to video

                Nombre
                Registered theatre play copied to video
                Cita
                Court of Cassation, Civil Appeal 268/2001, rule 146
                Tribunal
                Court of Cassation, Civil Circuit
                Instancia
                court_of_cassation
                Fechas
                Decisión
                2002-06-03
                Estado
                final_cassation_merits_adjustment
                Resultado
                Moral-damage denial corrected; BHD 500 awarded in addition to the material component reflected in the appeal.
                Resumen
                Yes. Even exploitation without false attribution can deprive the author of opportunity and cause personal distress; the court awarded BHD 500 moral damages.
                Antecedentes
                A theatre producer/author registered a play and alleged the defendant copied it to video and sold it. In case 2/1999/2804/2 he sought BHD 20,000. Trial awarded BHD 3,000 material and moral damages; appeal 1145/2001 reduced material damages to BHD 6 and denied moral damages.
                Historia procesal
                A theatre producer/author registered a play and alleged the defendant copied it to video and sold it. In case 2/1999/2804/2 he sought BHD 20,000. Trial awarded BHD 3,000 material and moral damages; appeal 1145/2001 reduced material damages to BHD 6 and denied moral damages.
                Cuestión jurídica
                Whether unauthorized financial exploitation can itself cause moral injury to the author and justify separate compensation.
                Criterio
                Yes. Even exploitation without false attribution can deprive the author of opportunity and cause personal distress; the court awarded BHD 500 moral damages.
                Fundamento decisivo
                The author's personal moral interest and economic exploitation can be injured by the same unauthorized act, subject to separate proof and valuation.
                Límites
                Personal-author remedy; it does not support machine moral rights. Must be read with Appeal 30/1995 denying moral damages to an economic assignee.
                Relevancia
                autoria-output
                Referencias relacionadas
                  Peso del precedente
                  binding_or_highly_authoritative_national_cassation_on_moral_damage Integración/votación: Abdulrahman bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Khalifa; Ali Yusuf Mansour; Masaad Ramadan Al-Saai; Taha Abdel Mawla Taha panel disposition; no dissent recorded
                  Fuente
                  Referencia
                  Registered theatre play copied to video
                  Enlace
                  Consultar fuente
                  Autoridad
                  Court of Cassation, Civil Circuit
                  Tipo
                  doctrina-general
                  Tipo de evidencia
                  complete_primary_judicial_file
                  Localizador
                  official text, rule 146; lines 18-35, 44-60, 84-104
                  Verificación documentada
                  Sí

                  Children's television plays — assignee and moral rights

                  Nombre
                  Children's television plays — assignee and moral rights
                  Cita
                  Court of Cassation, Civil Appeal 30/1995, rule 75
                  Tribunal
                  Court of Cassation, Civil Circuit
                  Instancia
                  court_of_cassation
                  Fechas
                  Decisión
                  1995-05-14
                  Estado
                  final_cassation_merits_adjustment
                  Resultado
                  Award reduced to BHD 9, representing the court's economic-damage calculation after excluding moral damages.
                  Resumen
                  No. The purchaser held economic exploitation rights only; moral rights remained personal and nontransferable with the author. The award was reduced to proven economic damage.
                  Antecedentes
                  A producer/assignee bought economic exploitation rights in two children's television plays and sued over pirated videotapes in case 2/1992/2138/9. Trial awarded BHD 10,000; appeal affirmed on 1994-03-22; Appeal 64/1994 quashed; the remand judgment of 1994-12-31 reduced the amount to BHD 5,009.
                  Historia procesal
                  A producer/assignee bought economic exploitation rights in two children's television plays and sued over pirated videotapes in case 2/1992/2138/9. Trial awarded BHD 10,000; appeal affirmed on 1994-03-22; Appeal 64/1994 quashed; the remand judgment of 1994-12-31 reduced the amount to BHD 5,009.
                  Cuestión jurídica
                  Whether an assignee of economic rights could recover moral damages belonging personally to the author.
                  Criterio
                  No. The purchaser held economic exploitation rights only; moral rights remained personal and nontransferable with the author. The award was reduced to proven economic damage.
                  Fundamento decisivo
                  Derivative title cannot convey a right that the statute or legal nature makes personal to the natural author.
                  Límites
                  Arises from pre-1993 conduct and the same dispute as Appeal 64/1994; still a direct national statement separating natural-author personality rights from economic title.
                  Relevancia
                  autoria-output
                  Referencias relacionadas
                    Peso del precedente
                    binding_or_highly_authoritative_national_cassation_on_nontransferability Integración/votación: Khalifa bin Mohammed Al Khalifa; Ali Yusuf Mansour; Masaad Ramadan Al-Saai; Mohammed Salah Al-Din Khater panel disposition; no dissent recorded
                    Fuente
                    Referencia
                    Children's television plays — assignee and moral rights
                    Enlace
                    Consultar fuente
                    Autoridad
                    Court of Cassation, Civil Circuit
                    Tipo
                    doctrina-general
                    Tipo de evidencia
                    complete_primary_judicial_file
                    Localizador
                    official text, rule 75; lines 11-24, 37-66
                    Verificación documentada
                    Sí

                    Children's television plays — pre-statute protection and damages

                    Nombre
                    Children's television plays — pre-statute protection and damages
                    Cita
                    Court of Cassation, Civil Appeal 64/1994, rule 103
                    Tribunal
                    Court of Cassation, Civil Circuit
                    Instancia
                    court_of_cassation
                    Fechas
                    Decisión
                    1994-10-02
                    Estado
                    cassation_quashed_and_remanded
                    Resultado
                    Judgment quashed and remanded; the remand led to Appeal 30/1995.
                    Resumen
                    General principles of justice and natural law protected the author's or assignee's economic exploitation even before the 1993 decree, but the lower court failed to itemize damage elements.
                    Antecedentes
                    In the same underlying case 2/1992/2138/9, a producer/assignee alleged unauthorized videotape copying and sale of two plays before Copyright Decree 10/1993 became effective. Trial awarded BHD 10,000 and appeal 211/1993 affirmed on 1994-03-22.
                    Historia procesal
                    In the same underlying case 2/1992/2138/9, a producer/assignee alleged unauthorized videotape copying and sale of two plays before Copyright Decree 10/1993 became effective. Trial awarded BHD 10,000 and appeal 211/1993 affirmed on 1994-03-22.
                    Cuestión jurídica
                    Whether protection and damages existed for pre-statute copying, and whether the damages judgment adequately identified loss.
                    Criterio
                    General principles of justice and natural law protected the author's or assignee's economic exploitation even before the 1993 decree, but the lower court failed to itemize damage elements.
                    Fundamento decisivo
                    Absence of the later statute did not legalize unauthorized exploitation, yet compensation remains a legal determination requiring articulated elements and evidence.
                    Límites
                    Historically important but predates the current statute; not authority for expanding the current express natural-person definition to AI.
                    Relevancia
                    doctrina-general
                    Referencias relacionadas
                      Peso del precedente
                      binding_or_highly_authoritative_historical_national_cassation Integración/votación: Official extraction identifies the Court of Cassation panel in the source; no separate dissent appears panel disposition; no dissent recorded
                      Fuente
                      Referencia
                      Children's television plays — pre-statute protection and damages
                      Enlace
                      Consultar fuente
                      Autoridad
                      Court of Cassation, Civil Circuit
                      Tipo
                      doctrina-general
                      Tipo de evidencia
                      complete_primary_judicial_file
                      Localizador
                      official text, rule 103; lines 7-48, 57-105
                      Verificación documentada
                      Sí

                      Procedimientos conocidos

                      Criminal Appeal 442/2010 — inadmissible cassation from in-absentia judgment

                      Nombre
                      Criminal Appeal 442/2010 — inadmissible cassation from in-absentia judgment
                      Cita
                      Court of Cassation, Criminal Appeal 442/2010, rule 10
                      Tribunal
                      Court of Cassation of the Kingdom of Bahrain, Criminal Circuit
                      Instancia
                      court of cassation — procedural disposition
                      Fechas
                      Decisión
                      2011-02-28
                      Estado
                      resolved-procedural-inadmissibility
                      Resultado
                      Procedural inadmissibility; copyright merits not reached.
                      Resumen
                      Cassation was inadmissible because the appealed judgment was in absentia and ordinary opposition remained open; the court did not reach copyright merits.
                      Antecedentes
                      Charges included unauthorized publications, circumvention, decoded satellite signals and intentional copyright infringement in case 07/6001/2009; trial convictions issued 2009-10-25 and appellate proceedings followed.
                      Historia procesal
                      The criminal court convicted in absentia on 2009-10-25. Because opposition to that judgment remained available, the later cassation petition did not challenge a final appealable judgment. The Court of Cassation disposed of admissibility without examining the charged copyright conduct.
                      Cuestión jurídica
                      Whether cassation was admissible while ordinary opposition remained available against an in-absentia criminal judgment.
                      Criterio
                      Cassation was inadmissible because the appealed judgment was in absentia and ordinary opposition remained open; the court did not reach copyright merits.
                      Fundamento decisivo
                      A cassation petition is inadmissible when the challenged in-absentia judgment remains subject to ordinary opposition; no copyright proposition follows from the unresolved charges.
                      Límites
                      Procedural only, non-GenAI, and not authority on authorship, originality, subsistence, registration or infringement elements.
                      Relevancia
                      procedimiento-relacionado
                      Referencias relacionadas
                        Peso del precedente
                        Court of Cassation procedural authority within the narrow admissibility issue. Integración/votación: Panel identified in the complete official text; no dissent recorded. Panel disposition; no dissent recorded in the official text.
                        Fuente
                        Referencia
                        Criminal Appeal 442/2010 — inadmissible cassation from in-absentia judgment
                        Enlace
                        Consultar fuente
                        Autoridad
                        Court of Cassation of the Kingdom of Bahrain, Criminal Circuit
                        Tipo
                        complete_primary_judicial_file
                        Tipo de evidencia
                        complete_primary_judicial_file
                        Localizador
                        lines 16-66
                        Verificación documentada
                        Sí

                        Autoridades reportadas

                        No hay entradas en esta colección del Atlas. Esto no demuestra que no existan casos.

                        Referencias extranjeras comparadas

                        No hay entradas en esta colección del Atlas. Esto no demuestra que no existan casos.

                        Referencias de contexto

                        No hay entradas en esta colección del Atlas. Esto no demuestra que no existan casos.

                        Doctrina supranacional

                        No hay entradas en esta colección del Atlas. Esto no demuestra que no existan casos.

                        Fuentes de la ficha

                        Alcance de la confianza documental

                        high on the express natural-person author gate, automatic protection, ordinary ownership rules, and existence/content of the recovered cassation line; medium on assisted-GenAI boundaries and AI phonograms because no national AI merits decision sets a threshold; low on individual registry outcomes because the record-level system is not publicly exhaustive

                        Enlaces a expedientes individuales