Bielorrusia: no hay derecho de autor sobre expresión autónoma de IA; la protección parcial se limita a expresión humana creativa, identificable y probada y, separadamente, a una posible fijación exclusivamente sonora como fonograma del productor. Un certificado NCIP es depósito probatorio sin examen de originalidad, no concesión de protección autoral.
Investigación abierta. Corte general del Atlas: 31 de agosto de 2026. Cobertura no significa revisión completa ni vigencia certificada.
Marco y alcance
Autonomous authorial layer: special-law arts. 4 and 6 require a natural-person author and creative activity; current Civil Code art. 982(4) additionally requires personal creative contribution and excludes merely technical, consultative, organizational or material help. When a model rather than a human determines the final expressive choices, text, still image, composition, audiovisual expression or other content lacks the required human creator. The art. 993 presumption is rebuttable and does not create a fictitious human contribution. No attribution fiction was found. The law does not designate the prompter, account holder, developer, model owner, financier, commissioner, employer or platform as author of machine-determined expression. Article 9(3) affirmatively excludes technical, administrative and financial assistance from coauthorship. Assisted layer: arts. 6(3), 10 and 11 permit protection of separately usable human expression, a human creative adaptation, or creative human selection/arrangement. Protection follows only the identified human features and does not spread to generated contents merely because they are placed in the same file. Prompting threshold: no Belarusian GenAI merits ruling defines when prompts, parameter choices, iteration, inpainting, selection, sequencing or post-editing become creative expression in the final work. A claimant must map each claimed final feature to a natural person's creative decision and prove that connection with drafts, source files/layers, prompts, parameters, intermediate outputs and edit history. National baseline: the 2020 shop-design decision is a direct warning against equating technical execution of a client's vision with creative authorship. The paired 2016 photography decisions show that protectability turns on evidence of individualized expressive choices, not professional status, ownership of equipment, routine camera functions or minimal editing. Those cases are analogies, not GenAI holdings, and their historical novelty/uniqueness vocabulary must be read with the current art. 993 presumption. Title and proof baseline: the 2014 sculpture case rejects automatic transfer of authorial rights from commission, payment or ownership of the physical object. The 2016 cable-music case shows that NCIP/CMO entries function as evidence within a chain of named works, declarations, contracts and acts of exploitation. Neither allows an employer, customer, platform, depositor or certificate holder to bypass the antecedent human-creation requirement. Software distinction: art. 13 protects qualifying human-authored source/object code, not every output emitted when that program is used. A program certificate such as GPType or a program title containing AI is not registration of the content generated with it. Compilation/database distinction: a human may own authorial rights in creative selection or arrangement while individual generated items remain unprotected. Database or compilation status cannot be used to claim each autonomous item. Employment/commissioning distinction: art. 17 and contracts allocate exclusive rights only after a qualifying human-authored work exists. They cannot cure absent human authorship. The audiovisual producer receives transferred rights from enumerated authors under art. 12; no separate film-producer neighboring right for an authorless AI film was found. Narrow neighboring-right exception: because a phonogram includes a first exclusively aural fixation of other sounds and its producer may be a natural or legal person, a concrete fixation of synthetic sounds may carry the producer's art. 28 right. This statutory inference protects the fixation, not authorial rights in composition, lyrics, voice, performance, style or semantic content, and no Belarusian GenAI case has tested it. Broadcasting rights likewise protect a qualifying broadcaster's transmission, not the generated work. They do not convert machine expression into an authorial work. Registry gate: Regulation No. 95 makes the NCIP service evidentiary and nonconstitutive and requires no originality examination. A certificate records submitted metadata and time-stamped files; it cannot establish human authorship or authorial protection on the merits. Certificate 342 cannot be counted as a grant. Its AI-related title is the strongest individualized public hit, but title metadata alone cannot show whether the deposit contains software, documentation, a human compilation, autonomous DSL output or a mixed object, nor whether AI use was disclosed. The content is access-restricted. Defenses/limits: name-on-copy presumptions, the Civil Code creativity presumption, a © notice, NCIP certificate, ISBN, legal deposit, CMO repertoire entry, title, platform terms, investment or possession are rebuttable/evidentiary or irrelevant to the antecedent natural-person creation requirement. They do not establish a machine as author. Third-party rights remain independent. An output without authorial protection or a protected synthetic phonogram may still reproduce a pre-existing work, performance, voice, image, trademark, confidential material or personal data. The classification does not clear training, input or infringement.
Limitaciones documentadas
No Belarusian Supreme Court/IP Collegium judgment or other national adjudication on authorship, originality or authorial protection of a disclosed GenAI output was located in accessible indexed sources. No public NCIP substantive refusal, appeal or written AI-output examination standard was located; Regulation No. 95 makes refusal notices individual rather than a public decision register. The content, application, AI disclosure and accepted scope behind certificate 342 are not publicly accessible; title metadata cannot establish a grant or even the precise deposited object. No domestic authority sets a threshold for prompting, parameters, iteration, selection, curation, inpainting, montage or post-editing. No Belarusian decision applies the phonogram-producer right to a fixation consisting wholly of synthetic sounds, so the narrow autonomous partial route remains a statutory inference. The current consolidated official public sources are temporally fragmented: WIPO/NCIP special-law texts lag some 2024/2026 commencement, while the principal 170-Z authorship/term amendments are future law for 26 July 2027. Negative registry/case results are bounded by title-only indexing, restricted deposit content, private refusals, possible undisclosed AI use, cross-border access instability, sanctions/geoblocking and search-engine coverage. This analysis does not determine training legality, third-party copying, personality/voice/image rights, trademark/design/patent, privacy, contract, unfair competition, censorship/content rules or the separate temporary Belarus regime limiting certain exclusive rights.