Países / Croacia

Derecho de autor e inteligencia artificial en Croacia

Parcial. Croacia exige autor persona física y creación original individual. El output autónomo carece de autor humano; sólo la expresión humana identificable de una obra asistida puede protegerse. No existe registro estatal de obras.

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

Explorar Croacia en el mapa →

Marco y alcance

human author arts. 4(1) and 19(1) Fails when no physical person created the claimed expression; AI, user, developer, model owner, employer or commissioner does not become author merely by initiating or funding generation. not satisfied human original individual creation art. 14(1), DZIV guidance and Cofemel Fails for expression determined autonomously by the model rather than by free and creative human choices reflected in the final output. not satisfied

Limitaciones documentadas

No published Croatian merits judgment expressly deciding authorship or originality of a generative-AI output was located in the bounded searches. No CJEU judgment expressly deciding an AI-created work was located; the EU cases are general doctrine only. No quantitative human-contribution, prompt-count or percentage threshold exists in the verified sources. The official court host intermittently failed DNS resolution during the second-review fetch; exact official URLs were retained and full texts were cross-checked through archived/authenticated reproductions, with source grades disclosed. P-602/2023-22 is non-final; its appeal outcome was not located at cutoff. Pž-6267/2016-3 applied predecessor commissioned-work rules and is not promoted as the current Article 96 default. Revr-1033/2014, Pž-2273/2002 and U-III-5626/2020 were only recoverable as citations in Revd-74/2025-3 para. 6; without their full primary texts they remain unpromoted citation-only leads. No Croatian GenAI-specific application of phonogram, videogram or database-producer rights was located. Training inputs/TDM, contract, trade marks, designs, unfair competition, personality, privacy and liability are outside this output-authorship classification.

Registro y actos documentados

Estado
no_registry
Resumen
No existe un registro estatal de obras protegidas por derecho de autor ni un procedimiento de concesión o negativa de mérito; la protección nace con la creación.
Actos documentados

    Casos nacionales

    Hotel Briig — fotografías, decisiones creativas e instrucción general

    Nombre
    Hotel Briig — fotografías, decisiones creativas e instrucción general
    Cita
    High Commercial Court of the Republic of Croatia, Pž-287/2023-2, ECLI:HR:VTS:2024:52, 4 April 2024
    record kind
    judicial_decision
    Tribunal
    High Commercial Court of the Republic of Croatia
    Instancia
    national commercial appellate court
    Fechas
    Decisión
    2024-04-04
    first instance
    2022-11-14
    Estado
    final appellate judgment; defendant appeal dismissed and merits affirmed, costs partly varied
    Resultado
    Infringement and the orders to stop use, remove/destroy copies and publish the judgment were affirmed; HRK 4,000 moral damages and HRK 1,874 economic statutory payment were affirmed; costs were increased by EUR 91.25.
    Resumen
    The photographs were original because the photographer made free and creative choices in framing, angle, lighting and composition. Artistic quality, education, talent and an underlying general idea were not decisive. A person who supplies only an idea or general instructions is not thereby creator or coauthor.
    Antecedentes
    Photographer Marko Mihaljević made fifteen interior and exterior photographs of Hotel Briig under a commercial arrangement. Super Produkcija held exploitation rights. Studio180 obtained the photographs from the hotel owner, placed all fifteen on its website without authorization or author credit, and altered one by adding a parasol.
    Historia procesal
    The Zagreb Commercial Court, P-651/2020-31, 14 November 2022, found moral and economic infringement and granted injunctive, removal, publication and monetary relief. Defendant and both claimants appealed. The High Commercial Court dismissed the merits appeals, affirmed points I-X, and varied only EUR 91.25 of costs.
    Cuestión jurídica
    Were the photographs original works; did the architect/client's general idea or instructions make it author or coauthor; and did the unauthorized website use and alteration infringe?
    Criterio
    The photographs were original because the photographer made free and creative choices in framing, angle, lighting and composition. Artistic quality, education, talent and an underlying general idea were not decisive. A person who supplies only an idea or general instructions is not thereby creator or coauthor.
    Fundamento decisivo
    Originality lies in the author's expressed free and creative choices. The court applied harmonized EU standards and distinguished an unprotected idea/instruction from authorship of the resulting expression. Unauthorized reproduction, adaptation, communication and omission of attribution infringed the proven rights.
    Límites
    Human photography under the predecessor statute and EU originality doctrine, not a GenAI output case. It supports the distinction between expressive control and general instructions but does not quantify a prompt threshold.
    Relevancia
    doctrina-general
    Referencias relacionadas
      Peso del precedente
      Strong national appellate merits application of harmonized originality doctrine; persuasive/direct within Croatian commercial litigation, without a claimed stare-decisis rule. Integración/votación: Three-judge panel; the published judgment identifies no dissent or vote breakdown, so unanimity is not asserted.
      Fuente
      Referencia
      Hotel Briig — fotografías, decisiones creativas e instrucción general
      Enlace
      Consultar fuente
      Autoridad
      High Commercial Court of the Republic of Croatia
      Tipo
      primary_judicial_full_text_authenticated_copy
      Tipo de evidencia
      primary_judicial_full_text_authenticated_copy
      Método de comprobación
      Full judgment independently read in an exact reproduction carrying the official electronic-signature record 9-30867-24a4e and control 0d452-4709a-ec0b8; official decision URL retained.
      Localizador
      disposition and paras. 8-10, 12-12.4, 13-14.5 and 17-19
      Verificación documentada
      Sí

      Agent prodaje nekretnina — original elements, expert proof and private authorization

      Nombre
      Agent prodaje nekretnina — original elements, expert proof and private authorization
      Cita
      Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, Revt-473/2015-2, ECLI:HR:VSRH:2020:5470, 6 October 2020
      record kind
      judicial_decision
      Tribunal
      Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia
      Instancia
      national supreme court, civil revision
      Fechas
      Decisión
      2020-10-06
      first instance
      2013-06-17
      Recurso
      2015-09-02
      Estado
      final judgment dismissing revision
      Resultado
      Revision dismissed; rejection of the HRK 3.5 million damages claim remained in force; defendant's response costs were not awarded.
      Resumen
      No. The claimant bore the burden of proving which elements were original rather than predetermined, whether the programs were identical or similar in the protected respects, and the infringement and loss. Authorship and the private authorization identifier alone did not establish the scope of the right or infringement.
      Antecedentes
      The claimant alleged that a real-estate training program titled 'Posrednik u prometu nekretnina' plagiarized her program 'Agent prodaje nekretnina' and sought HRK 3.5 million. Her program had private Croatian Authors Agency authorization identifiers from 1998 through 2004, but the disputed scope, original versus predetermined elements and similarity remained unproved.
      Historia procesal
      The Zagreb Commercial Court dismissed the claim after an interdisciplinary expert examination it had ordered was not conducted because the claimant did not pay the HRK 20,000 advance. The High Commercial Court affirmed. On revision, the Supreme Court reviewed the pleaded procedural and substantive errors and dismissed the revision.
      Cuestión jurídica
      Did authorship and a private authorization number prove protected scope, plagiarism and damages without evidence identifying the original elements and similarity between the programs?
      Criterio
      No. The claimant bore the burden of proving which elements were original rather than predetermined, whether the programs were identical or similar in the protected respects, and the infringement and loss. Authorship and the private authorization identifier alone did not establish the scope of the right or infringement.
      Fundamento decisivo
      The court could not infer plagiarism from failed negotiations, independent program production or private authorization. Because expert evidence needed to distinguish original and unoriginal elements was not produced, the claimant failed the evidentiary predicates for liability and damages.
      Límites
      Applied the predecessor Act to a human-authored training program. It is a burden-of-proof and protected-scope authority, not a ruling that private deposit is legally irrelevant for every evidentiary purpose and not an AI case.
      Relevancia
      doctrina-general
      Referencias relacionadas
        Peso del precedente
        Final Supreme Court application on proof and scope; strong for evidentiary discipline, not an express GenAI holding. Integración/votación: Five-judge panel; no dissent or vote breakdown appears in the published judgment, so unanimity is not asserted.
        Fuente
        Referencia
        Agent prodaje nekretnina — original elements, expert proof and private authorization
        Enlace
        Consultar fuente
        Autoridad
        Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia
        Tipo
        primary_judicial_full_text_cross_checked_reproduction
        Tipo de evidencia
        primary_judicial_full_text_cross_checked_reproduction
        Método de comprobación
        Exact full-text reproduction read and cross-checked against official decision identifier and metadata; the official court host was temporarily unresolved during the second-review fetch.
        Localizador
        full reasons: disputed original/non-original elements, expert order and unpaid HRK 20,000 advance; final burden analysis; private authorization 09-326
        Verificación documentada
        Sí

        Rodila nas majka ispod Bilogore — automatic protection and rebuttable authorship evidence

        Nombre
        Rodila nas majka ispod Bilogore — automatic protection and rebuttable authorship evidence
        Cita
        Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, U-III-2456/2004, 5 May 2005, NN 65/2005
        record kind
        judicial_decision
        Tribunal
        Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia
        Instancia
        constitutional court
        Fechas
        Decisión
        2005-05-05
        Publicación
        2005-05-25
        Estado
        constitutional complaint rejected; published official decision
        Resultado
        Constitutional complaint rejected; the ordinary-court awards and findings remained effective.
        Resumen
        Copyright arises through creation without registration. Naming and registration data can support a rebuttable presumption of authorship but do not constitute the right. The ordinary courts' evidence assessment was not constitutionally arbitrary.
        Antecedentes
        The defendants placed the song 'Rodila nas majka ispod Bilogore' on cassette and CD as a traditional work without naming M.K. and N.M.M. The ordinary courts found the two claimants to be authors and awarded each HRK 20,000 for moral harm plus HRK 222.92 economic loss.
        Historia procesal
        After ordinary civil judgments, the publisher and related defendants filed a constitutional complaint alleging arbitrary evaluation of evidence and violation of property and fair-trial rights. The Constitutional Court reviewed the record and rejected the complaint.
        Cuestión jurídica
        Did the absence of constitutive registration defeat authorship, and what evidentiary weight could names and registration-like data carry?
        Criterio
        Copyright arises through creation without registration. Naming and registration data can support a rebuttable presumption of authorship but do not constitute the right. The ordinary courts' evidence assessment was not constitutionally arbitrary.
        Fundamento decisivo
        The predecessor statute tied authorship and protection to creation. The court treated documentary name/registration information as evidence capable of rebuttal and accepted the ordinary courts' corroborated finding of authorship.
        Límites
        Applied a predecessor statute and did not involve AI, a state copyright registry or a substantive registration examination. Its automatic-protection/evidentiary distinction is corroborated by current Article 19(2) and DZIV guidance.
        Relevancia
        doctrina-general
        Referencias relacionadas
          Peso del precedente
          Official Constitutional Court application, strong on the constitutional acceptability of automatic protection and rebuttable proof; not an AI merits precedent. Integración/votación: The official Gazette text expressly records a unanimous decision.
          Fuente
          Referencia
          Rodila nas majka ispod Bilogore — automatic protection and rebuttable authorship evidence
          Enlace
          Consultar fuente
          Autoridad
          Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia
          Tipo
          primary_official_constitutional_full_text
          Tipo de evidencia
          primary_official_constitutional_full_text
          Método de comprobación
          Official Narodne novine full text downloaded and read.
          Localizador
          official disposition and reasons on former Act Article 8, creation without registration, rebuttable presumption and evidence
          Verificación documentada
          Sí

          Scientific handbook — originality assessment depends on the proved work

          Nombre
          Scientific handbook — originality assessment depends on the proved work
          Cita
          Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, Revd-2924/2021-2, ECLI:HR:VSRH:2021:7098, 3 November 2021
          record kind
          judicial_decision
          Tribunal
          Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia
          Instancia
          national supreme court, leave-to-revise stage
          Fechas
          Decisión
          2021-11-03
          first instance
          2019-06-13
          Recurso
          2021-04-08
          Estado
          final inadmissibility order; leave to revise refused
          Resultado
          Leave application rejected as inadmissible; the appellate judgment remained operative.
          Resumen
          No. Whether a particular handbook qualifies depends on the circumstances of that work, and the appellate court had given clear, non-contradictory reasons applying the law to the facts.
          Antecedentes
          A claimant asserted copyright in a scientific handbook. The appellate court treated it as an original intellectual creation with individual character; it was undisputed that the defendant had named her as author in earlier editions.
          Historia procesal
          The Zagreb Commercial Court decided P-1201/2016-65 on 13 June 2019. The High Commercial Court partly affirmed and partly varied in Pž-4688/2019-3 on 8 April 2021. The defendant sought leave to revise; the Supreme Court rejected the application as inadmissible.
          Cuestión jurídica
          Was the proposed general originality question suitable for Supreme Court intervention to secure uniform application of law?
          Criterio
          No. Whether a particular handbook qualifies depends on the circumstances of that work, and the appellate court had given clear, non-contradictory reasons applying the law to the facts.
          Fundamento decisivo
          A differently situated prior decision did not establish conflict. The application challenged fact-sensitive evaluation rather than raising a qualifying general legal question.
          Límites
          Not a merits judgment adopting a new originality test, and the lower judgments were not independently reconstructed in full here. Not an AI case.
          Relevancia
          doctrina-general
          Referencias relacionadas
            Peso del precedente
            Limited; useful only to show that originality must be assessed against proved facts and that this order did not create a universal rule. Integración/votación: Three-judge panel; no dissent or vote breakdown published, so unanimity is not asserted.
            Fuente
            Referencia
            Scientific handbook — originality assessment depends on the proved work
            Enlace
            Consultar fuente
            Autoridad
            Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia
            Tipo
            primary_judicial_full_text_cross_checked_reproduction
            Tipo de evidencia
            primary_judicial_full_text_cross_checked_reproduction
            Método de comprobación
            Exact full-text reproduction read and cross-checked against official decision identifier; official court host temporarily unresolved during second-review fetch.
            Localizador
            paras. 1 and 3-6, especially para. 4
            Verificación documentada
            Sí

            Vrijeme je za jazz — director coauthorship and employee-work remuneration questions

            Nombre
            Vrijeme je za jazz — director coauthorship and employee-work remuneration questions
            Cita
            Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, Revd-74/2025-3, 2 October 2025 (published 21 April 2026)
            record kind
            judicial_decision
            Tribunal
            Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia
            Instancia
            national supreme court, leave-to-revise stage
            Fechas
            Decisión
            2025-10-02
            Publicación
            2026-04-21
            first instance
            2024-03-07
            Recurso
            2024-06-11
            Estado
            final order refusing or rejecting leave grounds
            Resultado
            Legal-question leave refused; fundamental-rights limb rejected; HRT response costs refused.
            Resumen
            No. Director coauthorship was not disputed below. The remuneration question rested on a false premise because the HRT rule itself contemplated regulation by employment instrument or author consent. The remaining questions attacked case-specific procedure, not qualifying general law.
            Antecedentes
            A director of Croatian Radiotelevision programs 'Vrijeme je za jazz' pursued copyright claims against HRT. His proposed questions asked whether directing is authorship and whether HRT's unilateral internal rules could exclude remuneration for an employee-created work without the author's consent.
            Historia procesal
            The Zagreb Commercial Court decided P-1234/2018-54 on 7 March 2024; the High Commercial Court partly varied it in Pž-2346/2024-2 on 11 June 2024. The Supreme Court refused the legal-question limb and rejected the fundamental-rights limb of the leave application.
            Cuestión jurídica
            Did the proposed director-authorship and employee-remuneration questions require Supreme Court review for uniform law?
            Criterio
            No. Director coauthorship was not disputed below. The remuneration question rested on a false premise because the HRT rule itself contemplated regulation by employment instrument or author consent. The remaining questions attacked case-specific procedure, not qualifying general law.
            Fundamento decisivo
            Leave review does not decide abstract questions unnecessary to the dispute or founded on a premise contrary to the findings. The clear lower-court reasons on the director's economic rights also defeated the constitutional intervention route.
            Límites
            The order did not decide a new merits rule, applied the predecessor Act to the underlying employment relationship, and is not an AI case. It does not displace current Articles 96 and 100.
            Relevancia
            doctrina-general
            Referencias relacionadas
              Peso del precedente
              Limited admissibility-stage guidance; confirms the disputed/undisputed boundary but does not create a substantive GenAI or employee-work test. Integración/votación: Five-judge panel; no dissent or vote breakdown published, so unanimity is not asserted.
              Fuente
              Referencia
              Vrijeme je za jazz — director coauthorship and employee-work remuneration questions
              Enlace
              Consultar fuente
              Autoridad
              Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia
              Tipo
              primary_judicial_full_text_cross_checked_reproduction
              Tipo de evidencia
              primary_judicial_full_text_cross_checked_reproduction
              Método de comprobación
              Full-text reproduction read; it supplies the official decision URL and official metadata. The source was newly located during the second review.
              Localizador
              disposition and paras. 1, 4-10; official metadata for dates and finality
              Verificación documentada
              Sí

              Procedimientos conocidos

              OSSA training materials — non-final proof and standing control

              Nombre
              OSSA training materials — non-final proof and standing control
              Cita
              Zagreb Commercial Court, P-602/2023-22, 7 November 2025 (non-final)
              record kind
              judicial_decision
              Tribunal
              Zagreb Commercial Court
              Instancia
              first-instance commercial court
              Fechas
              Decisión
              2025-11-07
              Publicación
              2025-11-23
              Presentación
              2022-12-30
              Estado
              non-final first-instance judgment; appeal available
              Resultado
              All substantive claims rejected; claimant ordered to pay EUR 3,300 costs. The judgment was expressly non-final.
              Resumen
              No on the record presented. The court could not examine originality because the OSSA educational program was absent, the claimant proved instructor licensing rather than copyright ownership, and unauthorized teaching/use or retained materials were not proved.
              Antecedentes
              A former employee/instructor claimed EUR 26,544.56 and injunctive/return relief over OSSA safety-training lectures, manuals, cards and equipment. He was trained and licensed as an instructor, but the underlying educational program belonged to another entity and was not produced in the court file.
              Historia procesal
              The action was filed on 30 December 2022. After a public hearing closed on 2 October 2025, a single Zagreb Commercial Court judge issued judgment on 7 November 2025. The published metadata expressly marks it non-final and provides a 15-day appeal route.
              Cuestión jurídica
              Did the claimant prove authorship/ownership, protected original expression, unauthorized teaching/use and loss?
              Criterio
              No on the record presented. The court could not examine originality because the OSSA educational program was absent, the claimant proved instructor licensing rather than copyright ownership, and unauthorized teaching/use or retained materials were not proved.
              Fundamento decisivo
              Protected expression, title and infringement each required evidence. A license to teach and mere advertising did not establish authorship or unauthorized exploitation of the claimed materials.
              Límites
              Non-final, mixed contract/license/copyright dispute, not GenAI. It cannot be cited as settled national precedent and does not hold that lectures can never be works.
              Relevancia
              procedimiento-relacionado
              Referencias relacionadas
                Peso del precedente
                Control only: recent first-instance application of proof rules, expressly non-final. Integración/votación: Single-judge first-instance decision; no panel vote.
                Fuente
                Referencia
                OSSA training materials — non-final proof and standing control
                Enlace
                Consultar fuente
                Autoridad
                Zagreb Commercial Court
                Tipo
                primary_judicial_full_text_cross_checked_reproduction
                Tipo de evidencia
                primary_judicial_full_text_cross_checked_reproduction
                Método de comprobación
                Full text and official-source metadata read in an exact reproduction; non-final status retained.
                Localizador
                disposition; paras. 1-2, 10-18, 25-29; remedy notice and official metadata
                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

                Architectural competition — use beyond competition purpose

                Nombre
                Architectural competition — use beyond competition purpose
                Cita
                High Commercial Court of the Republic of Croatia, Pž-6267/2016-3, 18 January 2019
                record kind
                judicial_decision
                Tribunal
                High Commercial Court of the Republic of Croatia
                Instancia
                national commercial appellate court
                Fechas
                Decisión
                2019-01-18
                first instance
                2015-10-28
                Estado
                appellate affirmance under predecessor commissioned-work rules
                Resultado
                HRK 197,685 award and appealed costs affirmed.
                Resumen
                No under the predecessor Act and contract. Ownership of the physical item was distinct from copyright; the author retained rights beyond the agreed competition purpose.
                Antecedentes
                A developer ran an architectural competition, paid HRK 15,000 for the entry, then used the claimant's urban-planning project to market/sell the land although the eventual buyer did not build from it.
                Historia procesal
                The Zagreb Commercial Court awarded HRK 197,685 for unauthorized use in P-3640/2013. A single High Commercial Court judge rejected defendants' appeal and affirmed.
                Cuestión jurídica
                Did paying the competition amount and acquiring the physical project authorize use to market the property?
                Criterio
                No under the predecessor Act and contract. Ownership of the physical item was distinct from copyright; the author retained rights beyond the agreed competition purpose.
                Fundamento decisivo
                The scope of authorized exploitation turned on the contract and then-current statutory default; a clause purporting to eliminate reliance on copyright conflicted with the former non-waiver rule.
                Límites
                Current Article 96 now presumptively grants a commissioner the exclusive exploitation rights needed for its activity unless otherwise agreed. This 2019 decision therefore cannot be copied forward as the current default. Only a non-official full-text reproduction was independently available in this review.
                Relevancia
                doctrina-general
                Referencias relacionadas
                  Peso del precedente
                  Historical/contextual only for commission scope and physical-object distinction; not current exact law and not GenAI. Integración/votación: Single-judge appellate decision; no panel vote.
                  Fuente
                  Referencia
                  Architectural competition — use beyond competition purpose
                  Enlace
                  Consultar fuente
                  Autoridad
                  High Commercial Court of the Republic of Croatia
                  Tipo
                  secondary_full_text_reproduction_not_promoted
                  Tipo de evidencia
                  secondary_full_text_reproduction_not_promoted
                  Método de comprobación
                  Full text read on a private legal mirror; no official document identifier was independently recovered, so it remains historical/control only.
                  Localizador
                  heading, undisputed facts and reasons applying former arts. 73-74, 77 and 179
                  Verificación documentada
                  Sí

                  Doctrina supranacional

                  Painer — creative choices in photography

                  Nombre
                  Painer — creative choices in photography
                  Cita
                  C-145/10, Painer, EU:C:2011:798
                  record kind
                  judicial_decision
                  Tribunal
                  Court of Justice of the European Union
                  Instancia
                  Third Chamber
                  Fechas
                  Decisión
                  2011-12-01
                  Estado
                  final preliminary ruling
                  Resultado
                  Preliminary questions answered; application and final disposition returned to the referring national court.
                  Resumen
                  A photographer can make free and creative choices in preparation, capture and post-production and stamp the work with personal touch.
                  Antecedentes
                  Portrait photographs raised the scope of originality and protection under EU copyright law.
                  Historia procesal
                  National litigation generated a preliminary reference; the CJEU answered the referred EU-law questions in the cited judgment.
                  Cuestión jurídica
                  Which human choices can make a photograph the author's own intellectual creation?
                  Criterio
                  A photographer can make free and creative choices in preparation, capture and post-production and stamp the work with personal touch.
                  Fundamento decisivo
                  Originality follows from expressive freedom and choices, not a special artistic-merit test.
                  Límites
                  Human photography; no GenAI issue and no quantified prompt/control threshold.
                  Relevancia
                  doctrina-general
                  Referencias relacionadas
                    Peso del precedente
                    Binding interpretation of harmonized EU law for Croatian courts within the interpreted field; supranational, not Croatian national case law. Integración/votación: Third Chamber; CJEU judgments publish no individual dissent.
                    Fuente
                    Referencia
                    Painer — creative choices in photography
                    Enlace
                    Consultar fuente
                    Autoridad
                    Court of Justice of the European Union
                    Tipo
                    primary_supranational_full_judgment
                    Tipo de evidencia
                    primary_supranational_full_judgment
                    Método de comprobación
                    Official EUR-Lex judgment and cited paragraphs checked.
                    Localizador
                    paras. 87-94
                    Verificación documentada
                    Sí

                    Cofemel — autonomous concept of a work

                    Nombre
                    Cofemel — autonomous concept of a work
                    Cita
                    C-683/17, Cofemel, EU:C:2019:721
                    record kind
                    judicial_decision
                    Tribunal
                    Court of Justice of the European Union
                    Instancia
                    Third Chamber
                    Fechas
                    Decisión
                    2019-09-12
                    Estado
                    final preliminary ruling
                    Resultado
                    Preliminary questions answered; application and final disposition returned to the referring national court.
                    Resumen
                    There must be original subject matter reflecting free and creative choices and an expression identifiable with sufficient precision and objectivity; aesthetics alone is insufficient.
                    Antecedentes
                    Clothing designs were claimed as copyright works based partly on aesthetic effect.
                    Historia procesal
                    National litigation generated a preliminary reference; the CJEU answered the referred EU-law questions in the cited judgment.
                    Cuestión jurídica
                    What conditions make subject matter a 'work' under EU law?
                    Criterio
                    There must be original subject matter reflecting free and creative choices and an expression identifiable with sufficient precision and objectivity; aesthetics alone is insufficient.
                    Fundamento decisivo
                    The originality and identifiable-expression requirements are cumulative.
                    Límites
                    No AI authorship ruling; supplies general work/originality gates only.
                    Relevancia
                    doctrina-general
                    Referencias relacionadas
                      Peso del precedente
                      Binding interpretation of harmonized EU law for Croatian courts within the interpreted field; supranational, not Croatian national case law. Integración/votación: Third Chamber; CJEU judgments publish no individual dissent.
                      Fuente
                      Referencia
                      Cofemel — autonomous concept of a work
                      Enlace
                      Consultar fuente
                      Autoridad
                      Court of Justice of the European Union
                      Tipo
                      primary_supranational_full_judgment
                      Tipo de evidencia
                      primary_supranational_full_judgment
                      Método de comprobación
                      Official EUR-Lex judgment and cited paragraphs checked.
                      Localizador
                      paras. 29-35
                      Verificación documentada
                      Sí

                      Brompton Bicycle — technical constraints and creative freedom

                      Nombre
                      Brompton Bicycle — technical constraints and creative freedom
                      Cita
                      C-833/18, Brompton Bicycle, EU:C:2020:461
                      record kind
                      judicial_decision
                      Tribunal
                      Court of Justice of the European Union
                      Instancia
                      Fifth Chamber
                      Fechas
                      Decisión
                      2020-06-11
                      Estado
                      final preliminary ruling
                      Resultado
                      Preliminary questions answered; application and final disposition returned to the referring national court.
                      Resumen
                      Protection is possible only insofar as technical considerations did not leave the author unable to reflect personality through free and creative choices.
                      Antecedentes
                      A folding bicycle shape was claimed as a copyright work despite technical-functional constraints.
                      Historia procesal
                      National litigation generated a preliminary reference; the CJEU answered the referred EU-law questions in the cited judgment.
                      Cuestión jurídica
                      Can technically dictated subject matter be original?
                      Criterio
                      Protection is possible only insofar as technical considerations did not leave the author unable to reflect personality through free and creative choices.
                      Fundamento decisivo
                      Intention matters only as evidence of expressed choice; it cannot overcome expression wholly dictated by function.
                      Límites
                      No GenAI case; analogy must be tied to actual absence or presence of human expressive freedom.
                      Relevancia
                      doctrina-general
                      Referencias relacionadas
                        Peso del precedente
                        Binding interpretation of harmonized EU law for Croatian courts within the interpreted field; supranational, not Croatian national case law. Integración/votación: Fifth Chamber; CJEU judgments publish no individual dissent.
                        Fuente
                        Referencia
                        Brompton Bicycle — technical constraints and creative freedom
                        Enlace
                        Consultar fuente
                        Autoridad
                        Court of Justice of the European Union
                        Tipo
                        primary_supranational_full_judgment
                        Tipo de evidencia
                        primary_supranational_full_judgment
                        Método de comprobación
                        Official EUR-Lex judgment and cited paragraphs checked.
                        Localizador
                        paras. 22-27 and 34
                        Verificación documentada
                        Sí

                        Football Dataco — original selection or arrangement

                        Nombre
                        Football Dataco — original selection or arrangement
                        Cita
                        C-604/10, Football Dataco, EU:C:2012:115
                        record kind
                        judicial_decision
                        Tribunal
                        Court of Justice of the European Union
                        Instancia
                        Third Chamber
                        Fechas
                        Decisión
                        2012-03-01
                        Estado
                        final preliminary ruling
                        Resultado
                        Preliminary questions answered; application and final disposition returned to the referring national court.
                        Resumen
                        Copyright can protect selection or arrangement expressing free and creative choices; labor, skill or effort alone does not satisfy originality.
                        Antecedentes
                        Football fixture lists raised whether skill and labor or arrangement choices could establish database copyright.
                        Historia procesal
                        National litigation generated a preliminary reference; the CJEU answered the referred EU-law questions in the cited judgment.
                        Cuestión jurídica
                        When is selection or arrangement of database contents original?
                        Criterio
                        Copyright can protect selection or arrangement expressing free and creative choices; labor, skill or effort alone does not satisfy originality.
                        Fundamento decisivo
                        The protected object is the original structure, not the data or each item.
                        Límites
                        Does not make each selected AI output a work and does not decide AI-generated content.
                        Relevancia
                        doctrina-general
                        Referencias relacionadas
                          Peso del precedente
                          Binding interpretation of harmonized EU law for Croatian courts within the interpreted field; supranational, not Croatian national case law. Integración/votación: Third Chamber; CJEU judgments publish no individual dissent.
                          Fuente
                          Referencia
                          Football Dataco — original selection or arrangement
                          Enlace
                          Consultar fuente
                          Autoridad
                          Court of Justice of the European Union
                          Tipo
                          primary_supranational_full_judgment
                          Tipo de evidencia
                          primary_supranational_full_judgment
                          Método de comprobación
                          Official EUR-Lex judgment and cited paragraphs checked.
                          Localizador
                          paras. 30 and 37-46
                          Verificación documentada
                          Sí

                          British Horseracing Board — obtaining versus creating database contents

                          Nombre
                          British Horseracing Board — obtaining versus creating database contents
                          Cita
                          C-203/02, British Horseracing Board, EU:C:2004:695
                          record kind
                          judicial_decision
                          Tribunal
                          Court of Justice of the European Union
                          Instancia
                          Grand Chamber
                          Fechas
                          Decisión
                          2004-11-09
                          Estado
                          final preliminary ruling
                          Resultado
                          Preliminary questions answered; application and final disposition returned to the referring national court.
                          Resumen
                          Investment in obtaining concerns seeking and collecting existing independent materials, not creating the materials; separable verification/presentation investment may count.
                          Antecedentes
                          A racing database involved investment in compiling and maintaining race information.
                          Historia procesal
                          National litigation generated a preliminary reference; the CJEU answered the referred EU-law questions in the cited judgment.
                          Cuestión jurídica
                          What investment counts as obtaining, verifying or presenting contents for the sui generis right?
                          Criterio
                          Investment in obtaining concerns seeking and collecting existing independent materials, not creating the materials; separable verification/presentation investment may count.
                          Fundamento decisivo
                          The Directive distinguishes creation of data from qualifying collection and verification investment.
                          Límites
                          No GenAI case; generation cost cannot automatically be recast as obtaining existing materials.
                          Relevancia
                          doctrina-general
                          Referencias relacionadas
                            Peso del precedente
                            Binding interpretation of harmonized EU law for Croatian courts within the interpreted field; supranational, not Croatian national case law. Integración/votación: Grand Chamber; CJEU judgments publish no individual dissent.
                            Fuente
                            Referencia
                            British Horseracing Board — obtaining versus creating database contents
                            Enlace
                            Consultar fuente
                            Autoridad
                            Court of Justice of the European Union
                            Tipo
                            primary_supranational_full_judgment
                            Tipo de evidencia
                            primary_supranational_full_judgment
                            Método de comprobación
                            Official EUR-Lex judgment and cited paragraphs checked.
                            Localizador
                            paras. 31-42
                            Verificación documentada
                            Sí

                            Mio and Konektra — creative choices must be visible in the claimed subject matter

                            Nombre
                            Mio and Konektra — creative choices must be visible in the claimed subject matter
                            Cita
                            Joined Cases C-580/23 and C-795/23, Mio and Konektra, EU:C:2025:941
                            record kind
                            judicial_decision
                            Tribunal
                            Court of Justice of the European Union
                            Instancia
                            First Chamber
                            Fechas
                            Decisión
                            2025-12-04
                            Estado
                            final preliminary ruling
                            Resultado
                            Preliminary questions answered; application and final disposition returned to the referring national court.
                            Resumen
                            The court must identify creative choices visible in the subject matter; free choices are not presumed creative, intention/process are non-decisive unless expressed, and infringement requires recognizable reproduction of original creative elements rather than the same overall impression.
                            Antecedentes
                            Swedish and German applied-art disputes concerned dining tables and modular furniture, the originality of utilitarian design, and the proper infringement comparison.
                            Historia procesal
                            National litigation generated a preliminary reference; the CJEU answered the referred EU-law questions in the cited judgment.
                            Cuestión jurídica
                            Must originality focus on the process/intentions or on creative choices expressed in the subject matter, and what must be reproduced for infringement?
                            Criterio
                            The court must identify creative choices visible in the subject matter; free choices are not presumed creative, intention/process are non-decisive unless expressed, and infringement requires recognizable reproduction of original creative elements rather than the same overall impression.
                            Fundamento decisivo
                            Copyright protects expression bearing the author's personality. Technical constraints, intention, inspiration, professional recognition and independent-similarity evidence have the limited roles specified by the judgment.
                            Límites
                            Applied art, not AI. It is particularly relevant by analogy to proof of which human choices are expressed in a final output, but does not decide prompt authorship or model control.
                            Relevancia
                            doctrina-general
                            Referencias relacionadas
                              Peso del precedente
                              Binding interpretation of harmonized EU law for Croatian courts within the interpreted field; supranational, not Croatian national case law. Integración/votación: First Chamber; CJEU judgments publish no individual dissent.
                              Fuente
                              Referencia
                              Mio and Konektra — creative choices must be visible in the claimed subject matter
                              Enlace
                              Consultar fuente
                              Autoridad
                              Court of Justice of the European Union
                              Tipo
                              primary_supranational_full_judgment
                              Tipo de evidencia
                              primary_supranational_full_judgment
                              Método de comprobación
                              Official EUR-Lex judgment and cited paragraphs checked.
                              Localizador
                              paras. 48-82 and 84-92
                              Verificación documentada
                              Sí

                              Institutul G. Călinescu — creative restoration of a pre-existing text

                              Nombre
                              Institutul G. Călinescu — creative restoration of a pre-existing text
                              Cita
                              C-649/23, Institutul G. Călinescu, EU:C:2026:213
                              record kind
                              judicial_decision
                              Tribunal
                              Court of Justice of the European Union
                              Instancia
                              First Chamber
                              Fechas
                              Decisión
                              2026-03-19
                              Estado
                              final preliminary ruling
                              Resultado
                              Preliminary questions answered; application and final disposition returned to the referring national court.
                              Resumen
                              It may be a work if the editor's free and creative choices reflect personality and the subject matter is identifiable. Skill alone is irrelevant; the public-domain original remains public and protection does not confer exclusivity over it.
                              Antecedentes
                              A Romanian critical edition restored a public-domain Latin manuscript with corrections, additions, comments and critical apparatus; the edition was reproduced while its editor was credited only in footnotes.
                              Historia procesal
                              National litigation generated a preliminary reference; the CJEU answered the referred EU-law questions in the cited judgment.
                              Cuestión jurídica
                              Can a critical edition restoring public-domain text be a work, and how are constrained scholarly choices and protected scope assessed?
                              Criterio
                              It may be a work if the editor's free and creative choices reflect personality and the subject matter is identifiable. Skill alone is irrelevant; the public-domain original remains public and protection does not confer exclusivity over it.
                              Fundamento decisivo
                              Choices in words, sequence, combination, composition and critical apparatus can qualify when not dictated by purely technical rules or constraints. Protection attaches to original expression without privatizing the source.
                              Límites
                              Human scholarly editing, not AI. It supports limited protection of identifiable human transformation of pre-existing/generated material but does not decide GenAI output authorship.
                              Relevancia
                              doctrina-general
                              Referencias relacionadas
                                Peso del precedente
                                Binding interpretation of harmonized EU law for Croatian courts within the interpreted field; supranational, not Croatian national case law. Integración/votación: First Chamber; CJEU judgments publish no individual dissent.
                                Fuente
                                Referencia
                                Institutul G. Călinescu — creative restoration of a pre-existing text
                                Enlace
                                Consultar fuente
                                Autoridad
                                Court of Justice of the European Union
                                Tipo
                                primary_supranational_full_judgment
                                Tipo de evidencia
                                primary_supranational_full_judgment
                                Método de comprobación
                                Official EUR-Lex judgment and cited paragraphs checked.
                                Localizador
                                paras. 49-69
                                Verificación documentada
                                Sí

                                Fuentes de la ficha

                                Alcance de la confianza documental

                                High for current statutory human authorship, originality and no-registry conclusions; medium for the precise AI-assisted threshold and GenAI application of neighboring/database rights because no Croatian or CJEU GenAI merits decision was located.

                                Búsquedas y límites de los resultados sin casos

                                verified absence
                                Sí
                                Fecha de búsqueda
                                2026-08-31
                                Búsquedas
                                7
                                vocabularies
                                • ChatGPT/Midjourney/DALL-E
                                • generativna/generativne umjetna inteligencija
                                • artificial intelligence
                                • broad umjetna inteligencija + autorsko pravo
                                Alcance
                                No published Croatian merits judgment expressly deciding authorship, originality or subsistence of a modern generative-AI output was located in the documented public database queries. This is a bounded zero, not universal nonexistence.
                                Límite de acceso
                                The counts were captured from the official database on 29 August 2026. During the 31 August second review the official court host intermittently failed DNS resolution, so the negative was not silently refreshed or broadened. Search-engine cross-checks found no responsive GenAI copyright decision. Indexing/OCR/language limits remain.

                                Enlaces a expedientes individuales