Países / Chipre

Derecho de autor e inteligencia artificial en Chipre

Chipre no tiene ficción general de computer-generated work. El output autónomo falla el estándar de creación intelectual personal; la obra asistida conserva sólo la expresión humana trazable. Intimate.AI es litigio cautelar sobre código y copia, no una concesión ni un holding final de autoría GenAI.

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

Explorar Chipre en el mapa →

Marco y alcance

No hay copyright autoral sobre la expresión que produzca autónomamente el sistema sin elecciones creativas humanas incorporadas en la forma final. Una obra asistida puede proteger sólo sus aportes humanos originales, identificables y probables. Deben separarse los posibles derechos sobre software humano, selección u ordenación de base de datos, inversión sui generis, fonograma, primera fijación de película, radiodifusión y el derecho sui generis anti-deepfake de 2026: ninguno convierte al modelo, proveedor, usuario o productor en autor de expresión autónoma.

Limitaciones documentadas

No final Cyprus merits judgment was located that decides copyright subsistence or authorship in a modern GenAI output. Claim 802/2024 was verified only through the 4 November 2025 interim ruling; no later merits or appellate disposition was located by the cutoff. No national authority was found applying the originality test specifically to prompts, seeds, parameter control, regeneration, inpainting, pose or depth guidance, curation or compositing in a modern GenAI workflow. No Cyprus decision was located applying phonogram, first-film-fixation, broadcast or database rights to synthetic content; those branches remain statutory, fact-dependent possibilities rather than verified individual grants. There is no administrative merits population of copyright-work grants or denials to audit because the competent office confirms automatic protection without a general work registry. Public judicial indexes may omit unpublished, sealed or poorly indexed matters, and Turkish search results are especially noisy because they mix Turkey and northern-administration sources that are not acts of the Republic of Cyprus. This research does not determine training-data lawfulness, TDM reservations, infringement, substantial similarity, third-party moral or personality rights, privacy, data protection, contract, confidentiality, competition, patent, trademark, design or AI Act compliance.

Registro y actos documentados

Estado
no_registry
Resumen
La oficina competente confirma que el copyright surge automáticamente, sin inscripción ni renovación. No existe una población estatal de grants o denials de obras que pueda auditarse; depósito legal, ISBN, repertorios CMO y medidas cautelares se excluyeron.
Actos documentados

    Casos nacionales

    President of the Republic v House of Representatives, Reference No. 5/2024

    Nombre
    President of the Republic v House of Representatives, Reference No. 5/2024
    Cita
    President of the Republic v House of Representatives, Reference No. 5/2024
    Tribunal
    Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus
    Instancia
    última instancia
    Fechas
    reference
    2024
    opinion
    2025-04-09
    Decisión
    2025-04-09
    Estado
    resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
    Resultado
    Entire referred law declared unconstitutional; opinion transmitted to the President and House.
    Resumen
    The first amendment violated article 23 because it collapsed exclusive-right charges and statutory remuneration, displaced the right holder's preventive control, and imposed an unsubstantiated restriction. The second violated article 26 because it forced right holders and CMOs into collection and distribution relationships with a third CMO they had not chosen. The whole referred law was unconstitutional under articles 23, 26 and consequently 179.1.
    Antecedentes
    Parliament amended article 26 of Law 65(I)/2017 on collective management. The first amendment let a disputing user choose what it considered reasonable and lodge only half the balance pending resolution. The second let a user make one annual or agreed lump-sum payment to one CMO for each licensed right, effectively making a user-selected CMO collector and distributor for other CMOs.
    Historia procesal
    The President referred the enacted amending law before promulgation under Constitution article 140. The court compared both provisions with constitutional property, contractual-freedom and supremacy guarantees and with the EU collective-rights framework.
    Cuestión jurídica
    Whether the two amendments unlawfully impaired IP property under Constitution article 23 and freedom of contract under article 26.
    Criterio
    The first amendment violated article 23 because it collapsed exclusive-right charges and statutory remuneration, displaced the right holder's preventive control, and imposed an unsubstantiated restriction. The second violated article 26 because it forced right holders and CMOs into collection and distribution relationships with a third CMO they had not chosen. The whole referred law was unconstitutional under articles 23, 26 and consequently 179.1.
    Fundamento decisivo
    Copyright, remuneration rights and related rights are distinct in content; collective management does not erase the right holder's underlying exclusive or contractual position. Restrictions require a demonstrated necessity and proportionality. A user cannot unilaterally reallocate collection relationships absent a constitutional basis.
    Límites
    No GenAI output, prompt, authorship or originality issue was before the court. Its relevance is the mandatory separation of authorial and neighbouring/economic rights.
    Relevancia
    doctrina-general
    Referencias relacionadas
      Peso del precedente
      binding constitutional opinion of the highest constitutional court Integración/votación: A.R. Liatsos P.; T.Th. Oikonomou, T. Psara-Miltiadou, D. Sokratous, N.G. Santis, St. Hadjigianni, T. Karakanna, I. Georgiou and M. Kalligerou JJ.; opinion delivered by Oikonomou J. unanimous nine-member court
      Fuente
      Referencia
      President of the Republic v House of Representatives, Reference No. 5/2024
      Enlace
      Consultar fuente
      Autoridad
      Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus
      Tipo
      binding national constitutional opinion distinguishing copyright from related rights
      Localizador
      sections headed Η πρώτη τροποποίηση, Η δεύτερη τροποποίηση and Η κατάληξη; source-text lines 258-268, 279-440, 464-497
      Verificación documentada
      Sí

      Parico Aluminium Designs Ltd v Muskita-Aluminium Co Ltd and another, Civil Appeal No. 11156, (2002) 1 A.A.D. 2015

      Nombre
      Parico Aluminium Designs Ltd v Muskita-Aluminium Co Ltd and another, Civil Appeal No. 11156, (2002) 1 A.A.D. 2015
      Cita
      Parico Aluminium Designs Ltd v Muskita-Aluminium Co Ltd and another, Civil Appeal No. 11156, (2002) 1 A.A.D. 2015
      Tribunal
      Supreme Court of Cyprus exercising civil appellate jurisdiction
      Instancia
      última instancia
      Fechas
      claim and ex parte orders
      2001-02-09
      inter partes order made absolute
      2001-08-06
      appeal judgment
      2002-12-19
      Decisión
      2002-12-19
      Estado
      resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
      Resultado
      Appeal dismissed with costs; interim injunction remained.
      Resumen
      Import through Limassol supplied territorial jurisdiction. At the interim stage the claimant need show a serious arguable case and a visible prospect, not prove substantive rights. The evidence provided serious indications of possible rights; damages and later justice were inadequate, the balance favoured preserving the status quo, and the delay was not fatal. Appeal dismissed with costs.
      Antecedentes
      Muskita companies designed and sold the MU 100 Special aluminium-profile series and alleged that Parico imported, sold and passed off copies produced through Alco Hellas, despite earlier consent injunctions. They invoked copyright, industrial-design, conspiracy and unfair-competition bases.
      Historia procesal
      The Limassol District Court issued ex parte restraints on 9 February 2001 and made them absolute on 6 August 2001. Parico appealed on jurisdiction, disclosure, statutory bases, section 32 thresholds, damages, balance of convenience and delay.
      Cuestión jurídica
      Whether the District Court had territorial jurisdiction and whether the evidence met the limited threshold for continuing interim relief without deciding subsistence or infringement finally.
      Criterio
      Import through Limassol supplied territorial jurisdiction. At the interim stage the claimant need show a serious arguable case and a visible prospect, not prove substantive rights. The evidence provided serious indications of possible rights; damages and later justice were inadequate, the balance favoured preserving the status quo, and the delay was not fatal. Appeal dismissed with costs.
      Fundamento decisivo
      An interlocutory court must not conduct a mini-trial on conflicting evidence or difficult law. It asks only whether a serious issue and real prospect exist and whether later justice would be inadequate; final copyright subsistence and infringement remain for trial.
      Límites
      The panel expressly did not decide final subsistence, originality or infringement. The case predates modern GenAI and cannot be treated as a registration or grant.
      Relevancia
      doctrina-general
      Referencias relacionadas
        Peso del precedente
        binding unanimous Supreme Court appellate judgment on interim-relief standards Integración/votación: Konstantinidis, Kallis and Kramvis JJ.; Kallis J. delivered the judgment unanimous three-judge panel
        Fuente
        Referencia
        Parico Aluminium Designs Ltd v Muskita-Aluminium Co Ltd and another, Civil Appeal No. 11156, (2002) 1 A.A.D. 2015
        Enlace
        Consultar fuente
        Autoridad
        Supreme Court of Cyprus exercising civil appellate jurisdiction
        Tipo
        national Supreme Court appeal concerning interim copyright/design and unfair-competition relief; not final merits
        Localizador
        report pp. 2015 et seq.; source-text lines 14-104, 179-208, 390-465 and 595-674
        Verificación documentada
        Sí

        Beresnev s.r.o. v Saygames Ltd et al., Claim (Part 7) 468/2024

        Nombre
        Beresnev s.r.o. v Saygames Ltd et al., Claim (Part 7) 468/2024
        Cita
        Beresnev s.r.o. v Saygames Ltd et al., Claim (Part 7) 468/2024
        Tribunal
        Paphos District Court
        Instancia
        tribunal nacional
        Fechas
        claim and application
        2024-10-17
        ex parte orders
        2024-10-21
        statement of claim
        2025-01-07
        interim decision
        2025-04-30
        Decisión
        2025-04-30
        Estado
        resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
        Resultado
        Interim orders continued through trial; further order granted; objection dismissed; costs to claimant.
        Resumen
        All three statutory conditions were met on a prima facie record. Existing orders were made absolute and an additional order issued; some requests overlapping final relief were deferred. Objection dismissed and EUR 6,718.20 plus VAT costs awarded, reduced for counsel's noncompliance.
        Antecedentes
        Beresnev claimed ownership and exploitation rights in the Race Master 3D-Car Racing mobile game and alleged that publisher Saygames and collaborators prepared the NRG Real Speed clone, planned to copy the first 50 levels and monetize the existing user base after removing the original. The alleged loss exceeded EUR 2 million.
        Historia procesal
        Claim and ex parte application filed 17 October 2024; orders issued 21 October; defendants filed 37 grounds of opposition on 25 November; statement of claim filed 7 January 2025; inter partes decision 30 April 2025.
        Cuestión jurídica
        Whether section 32's serious issue, visible chance and inadequacy-of-later-justice requirements justified preserving restraints over exploitation, cloning, transfer and the user database.
        Criterio
        All three statutory conditions were met on a prima facie record. Existing orders were made absolute and an additional order issued; some requests overlapping final relief were deferred. Objection dismissed and EUR 6,718.20 plus VAT costs awarded, reduced for counsel's noncompliance.
        Fundamento decisivo
        Visible similarity, communications about copying levels and data, continued promotional spending after termination, and refusal to answer clone allegations supplied a visible prospect, while damages were inadequate to protect ongoing IP and market control. The analysis remained expressly preliminary.
        Límites
        No GenAI was alleged. No final holding on originality, ownership, cloning or database right; no registration effect.
        Relevancia
        doctrina-general
        Referencias relacionadas
          Peso del precedente
          first-instance interlocutory ruling Integración/votación: G.K. Vlamis, Senior District Judge single judge
          Fuente
          Referencia
          Beresnev s.r.o. v Saygames Ltd et al., Claim (Part 7) 468/2024
          Enlace
          Consultar fuente
          Autoridad
          Paphos District Court
          Tipo
          national first-instance interim software, database and game-clone decision; not AI and not final merits
          Localizador
          source-text lines 101-220, 1727-1879 and 1932-2048
          Verificación documentada
          Sí

          Astarto Group Ltd v Mikael/Mikhael Benjaminovich et al., Claim 802/2024

          Nombre
          Astarto Group Ltd v Mikael/Mikhael Benjaminovich et al., Claim 802/2024
          Cita
          Astarto Group Ltd v Mikael/Mikhael Benjaminovich et al., Claim 802/2024
          Tribunal
          Limassol District Court
          Instancia
          tribunal nacional
          Fechas
          claim and ex parte application
          2024-09-02
          ex parte orders
          2024-09-11
          amendment order
          2024-11-26
          main interim decision
          2025-11-04
          jurisdiction relief decision
          2025-12-22
          Decisión
          2025-11-04
          Estado
          resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
          Resultado
          Substantial interim relief continued; two information requests denied; action remained pending. Later procedural application on jurisdiction dismissed with EUR 4,062 plus VAT and EUR 6 costs.
          Resumen
          A serious issue, visible chance of success and risk of inadequate later justice existed. For this interim stage the expert comparison, claimed code uniqueness, communications and relationship evidence were sufficient to support possible copyright ownership, copying and confidence claims. Orders B, E (EUR 3 million), F, G, H and a further order I against defendants 1-9, 12-14 were made absolute; requests C and D for further infringement information were denied because necessity was not explained and the Anton Piller process had already produced extensive evidence. Costs EUR 8,628 plus VAT and EUR 345, reduced 15 percent.
          Antecedentes
          Astarto alleged ownership of Intimate.AI, Spark AI Messenger and Spark AI, including source code, algorithms/model combinations for on-demand text, image and voice, AI-generated characters, UI/mobile/web design, conversation database, engineering material and confidential business information. It alleged that former contractors left between January and March 2024, formed MindGameAI Solutions on 2 March, and marketed Violex, SoftPear, Not-Alone and HAAN.AI through copied code and know-how. Defendants denied ownership and copying and invoked open-source models/code and independent development.
          Historia procesal
          Claim and ex parte application filed 2 September 2024; orders issued 11 September; pleading amended 26 November; Anton Piller execution yielded communications; multiple oppositions and supplemental affidavits followed in February-March 2025. On 4 November the court decided the inter partes interim application. On 22 December it separately refused defendant 8 relief from sanctions to raise a late jurisdiction challenge after an appearance on 19 November 2024 and application on 30 December 2024.
          Cuestión jurídica
          Whether article 32 of Courts Law 14/60 and Copyright Law articles 13A-13B justified continuing prohibitory, freezing, asset-disclosure and infringement-information relief on the disputed record.
          Criterio
          A serious issue, visible chance of success and risk of inadequate later justice existed. For this interim stage the expert comparison, claimed code uniqueness, communications and relationship evidence were sufficient to support possible copyright ownership, copying and confidence claims. Orders B, E (EUR 3 million), F, G, H and a further order I against defendants 1-9, 12-14 were made absolute; requests C and D for further infringement information were denied because necessity was not explained and the Anton Piller process had already produced extensive evidence. Costs EUR 8,628 plus VAT and EUR 345, reduced 15 percent.
          Fundamento decisivo
          The low interim threshold forbids final resolution of contested technical originality, open-source provenance, ownership or copying. Evidence of authored source code and unique program elements plus a detailed similarity report can preserve the status quo, but duplicative disclosure is not automatic.
          Límites
          It did not decide whether AI-generated characters, conversations, images, voice or other outputs are original works, who authored them, or whether open-source model use defeats protection. It is not a grant, registration or final infringement judgment.
          Relevancia
          doctrina-general
          Referencias relacionadas
            Peso del precedente
            first-instance interlocutory ruling with a later procedural update Integración/votación: Chr. Christodoulou, Senior District Judge single judge
            Fuente
            Referencia
            Astarto Group Ltd v Mikael/Mikhael Benjaminovich et al., Claim 802/2024
            Enlace
            Consultar fuente
            Autoridad
            Limassol District Court
            Tipo
            national first-instance interim GenAI-product, software, database, confidence and asset-freezing ruling; not final merits
            Localizador
            source-text lines 401-555, 1124-1211, 1901-2207, 2360-2493 and 2566-2628; related 22 December decision lines 437-568
            Verificación documentada
            Sí

            Procedimientos conocidos

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

            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

            CJEU, Painer, C-145/10

            Nombre
            CJEU, Painer, C-145/10
            Cita
            CJEU, Painer, C-145/10
            Tribunal
            Court of Justice of the European Union
            Instancia
            tribunal supranacional
            Fechas
            Decisión
            2011-12-01
            Estado
            resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
            Resultado
            Preliminary ruling stated the harmonized EU originality standard for photographs.
            Resumen
            Originality exists where the author expresses creative abilities through free and creative choices and stamps the work with a personal touch.
            Antecedentes
            A portrait photographer challenged unauthorized press uses of her photograph in litigation that required the Court to explain the originality of portrait photography.
            Historia procesal
            The Austrian referring court asked the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on copyright protection and limitations under EU directives.
            Cuestión jurídica
            When a photograph is the author's own intellectual creation and what creative choices can support originality.
            Criterio
            Originality exists where the author expresses creative abilities through free and creative choices and stamps the work with a personal touch.
            Fundamento decisivo
            Choices may occur in preparation, background and pose, lighting, framing, angle, atmosphere and later development; the protected expression reflects those choices.
            Límites
            No GenAI system or autonomous output was before the Court; the ruling supplies the human-choice standard but does not predetermine prompts or model control.
            Relevancia
            doctrina-general
            Referencias relacionadas
              Peso del precedente
              binding CJEU preliminary ruling on harmonized EU copyright law Integración/votación: Grand Chamber judgment; no separate votes published in the official judgment.
              Fuente
              Referencia
              CJEU, Painer, C-145/10
              Enlace
              Consultar fuente
              Autoridad
              Court of Justice of the European Union
              Tipo
              binding EU originality authority; supranational, not a national Cyprus precedent
              Localizador
              paras. 87-94
              Verificación documentada
              Sí

              CJEU, Cofemel, C-683/17

              Nombre
              CJEU, Cofemel, C-683/17
              Cita
              CJEU, Cofemel, C-683/17
              Tribunal
              Court of Justice of the European Union
              Instancia
              tribunal supranacional
              Fechas
              Decisión
              2019-09-12
              Estado
              resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
              Resultado
              Preliminary ruling rejected an additional aesthetic-effect threshold and stated the two cumulative work requirements.
              Resumen
              A work requires an original subject matter that is the author's own intellectual creation and an identifiable object expressed with sufficient precision and objectivity; aesthetic effect is not an additional criterion.
              Antecedentes
              A clothing company alleged that jeans and sweatshirt designs were protected works and challenged a competitor's use, raising whether aesthetic effect was enough for copyright.
              Historia procesal
              The Portuguese Supreme Court referred questions on the autonomous EU concept of a work and the relationship between originality and aesthetic effect.
              Cuestión jurídica
              What conditions define a copyright work under EU law and whether aesthetic effect can be an additional criterion.
              Criterio
              A work requires an original subject matter that is the author's own intellectual creation and an identifiable object expressed with sufficient precision and objectivity; aesthetic effect is not an additional criterion.
              Fundamento decisivo
              The author must reflect personality through free and creative choices, while the claimed subject matter must be objectively identifiable; subjective aesthetic response cannot define the scope of exclusive rights.
              Límites
              No AI facts were before the Court; it does not decide whether any particular prompt, selection or generated output embodies human creative choices.
              Relevancia
              doctrina-general
              Referencias relacionadas
                Peso del precedente
                binding CJEU preliminary ruling on the autonomous EU concept of a work Integración/votación: Third Chamber judgment; no separate votes published in the official judgment.
                Fuente
                Referencia
                CJEU, Cofemel, C-683/17
                Enlace
                Consultar fuente
                Autoridad
                Court of Justice of the European Union
                Tipo
                binding EU work and originality authority; supranational, not a national Cyprus precedent
                Localizador
                paras. 29-35 and 48-55; operative part
                Verificación documentada
                Sí

                CJEU, Football Dataco, C-604/10

                Nombre
                CJEU, Football Dataco, C-604/10
                Cita
                CJEU, Football Dataco, C-604/10
                Tribunal
                Court of Justice of the European Union
                Instancia
                tribunal supranacional
                Fechas
                Decisión
                2012-03-01
                Estado
                resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
                Resultado
                Preliminary ruling defined the database originality test and rejected effort-only substitutes.
                Resumen
                Database copyright protects original selection or arrangement reflecting free and creative choices; labour and skill alone do not satisfy originality.
                Antecedentes
                Football fixture-list producers claimed database copyright, relying on substantial labour and skill used to create and arrange fixture data.
                Historia procesal
                The Court of Appeal of England and Wales referred questions on database originality under Directive 96/9/EC.
                Cuestión jurídica
                Whether labour, skill or effort in creating data or arranging a database substitutes for free and creative selection or arrangement.
                Criterio
                Database copyright protects original selection or arrangement reflecting free and creative choices; labour and skill alone do not satisfy originality.
                Fundamento decisivo
                Effort devoted to creating data is irrelevant to database copyright, and constraints that leave no room for creative freedom prevent the selection or arrangement from qualifying as the author's own intellectual creation.
                Límites
                No modern GenAI output was involved; the rule concerns selection or arrangement of database contents, not ownership of autonomous generated material.
                Relevancia
                doctrina-general
                Referencias relacionadas
                  Peso del precedente
                  binding CJEU preliminary ruling on database originality Integración/votación: Third Chamber judgment; no separate votes published in the official judgment.
                  Fuente
                  Referencia
                  CJEU, Football Dataco, C-604/10
                  Enlace
                  Consultar fuente
                  Autoridad
                  Court of Justice of the European Union
                  Tipo
                  binding EU database originality authority; supranational, not a national Cyprus precedent
                  Localizador
                  paras. 37-46; operative part
                  Verificación documentada
                  Sí

                  Fuentes de la ficha

                  Alcance de la confianza documental

                  Alta sobre ley vigente, automaticidad, inexistencia de registro estatal general de obras, estándar de creación intelectual personal, ausencia de ficción CGW y separación de derechos conexos/fijación/base de datos/deepfake; media-alta sobre output autónomo por la convergencia de art. 3(2) y doctrina TJUE; media sobre prompts, parámetros, iteración, inpainting y curaduría porque no se localizó sentencia chipriota final que aplique esos factores a GenAI.

                  Enlaces a expedientes individuales