Países / Letonia

Derecho de autor e inteligencia artificial en Letonia

Letonia: parcial. La ley exige autor persona física y resultado de actividad creativa; no existe ficción de obra generada por computadora ni regla de necessary arrangements. El output autónomo no tiene vía verificada de derechos de autor. En un resultado asistido sólo se protege expresión humana original e identificable. Productor, fijación, audiovisual, fonograma, colección y base de datos son capas separadas. 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 Letonia en el mapa →

Marco y alcance

Para afirmar protección, identificar a cada persona física y vincular cada rasgo final reclamado con una elección libre y creativa documentada en materiales fuente, capas, máscaras, versiones, montaje o edición; excluir el residuo determinado por el modelo y mantener separadas titularidad, contrato, audiovisual, productor/fijación, fonograma, filme, colección y base de datos.

Limitaciones documentadas

No published Latvian merits judgment was located that decides authorship, originality or scope of authors' rights in an identified GenAI output. No CJEU merits judgment directly deciding GenAI output authorship/subsistence was located by the cutoff; non-AI originality cases control by analogy. The national case index is subject to anonymisation, neutral titles, publication selection and documents without OCR; undisclosed AI use is not searchable. No state registration practice exists from which examiner grants, limitations or refusals could be sampled. AKKA/LAA's 2026 rules are aggregate CMO policy; no named item-level public acceptance or exclusion was found, and private repertoire files were not accessible. No Latvian precedent was located on phonogram or film-producer rights in a fixation composed entirely of synthetic sound or moving images. No authority was located treating a synthetic voice/avatar as a performer; the statutory definition points to a person. The 2026 stage-arts amendment package was pending; later enactment or alteration after the cutoff could change the consolidation but not this dated conclusion. The factual threshold for prompt specificity, iterative control, seed/parameter choice, candidate selection, inpainting and post-editing remains case-specific and untested nationally.

Registro y actos documentados

Estado

no_registry

Resumen

El art. 2 hace nacer el derecho con la creación y elimina registro, documentación y formalidades. Letonia no tiene registro estatal voluntario u obligatorio de obras. AKKA/LAA registra fichas de repertorio para repartir regalías —y desde 2026 excluye obras musicales 100 % IA de ese repertorio—, pero esas entradas o exclusiones no son grants o denials estatales.

Actos documentados

Casos nacionales

SKA-82/2024, administrative case A420196620

Nombre

SKA-82/2024, administrative case A420196620

Cita

ECLI:LV:AT:2024:0726.A420196620.9.S

Tribunal

Senate of the Supreme Court of Latvia (Augstākā tiesa)

Instancia

última instancia

Fechas

Decisión: 2024-07-26
tax decision: 2020-05-05
lower judgment: 2022-03-23

Estado

resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada

Resultado

The Senate vacated the 23 March 2022 judgment, remanded for a new examination and ordered refund of the EUR 70 security; the Senate judgment is final and nonappealable.

Resumen

The statutory inquiry has two distinct requirements: creation by a natural person and a result of that person's creative activity. A gameplay video may include multiple protectable elements and a creative combination; each must be assessed. Modifications or additions to pre-existing content are protected only to the extent they satisfy both requirements.

Antecedentes

A person made more than 200 Twitch/YouTube gameplay streams per year and received EUR 8,776.85 in 2017 and EUR 30,153.11 in 2018 through Streamlabs. The tax authority treated the activity as taxable economic activity and assessed EUR 6,688.27 income tax, EUR 416.09 late fee and EUR 6,688.27 penalty.

Historia procesal

The State Revenue Service decided on 5 May 2020. The Administrative Regional Court dismissed the challenge on 23 March 2022 and stated that showing gameplay was not a protected work. The Senate heard the cassation in written proceedings.

Cuestión jurídica

Whether the lower court could categorically exclude gameplay videos without testing natural-person creation, creativity and the separate components and combination.

Criterio

Fundamento decisivo

Originality requires the person's free and creative choices. The lower court's categorical treatment failed to analyse commentary, image, graphics, text and their arrangement, so the copyright premise underlying tax treatment was legally incomplete.

Límites

The Senate did not hold that this claimant's videos were protected, did not decide GenAI, and did not determine the remand outcome or final tax liability.

Relevancia

administrativo

Referencias relacionadas

Peso del precedente

High national appellate authority and the closest national analogy for hybrid outputs; application remains element- and fact-specific. Integración/votación: Reporting senator Ermīns Darapoļskis; senators Anita Kovaļevska and Rudīte Vīduša; Administrative Cases Department; written proceedings. Three judges are identified; no numerical vote, dissent or separate opinion is published, and unanimity is not inferred.

Fuente

Referencia: SKA-82/2024, administrative case A420196620
Enlace: Consultar fuente
Autoridad: Senate of the Supreme Court of Latvia (Augstākā tiesa)
Tipo: national copyright judgment under current statute and EU originality standard; non-AI
Tipo de evidencia: complete_primary_judgment_official_court
Localizador: paras. 1-8, 11-12, 16-19 and operative part
Verificación documentada: Sí

SKC-2/2025, civil case C30575718

Nombre

SKC-2/2025, civil case C30575718

Cita

ECLI:LV:AT:2025:0513.C30575718.22.S

Tribunal

Senate of the Supreme Court of Latvia (Augstākā tiesa)

Instancia

última instancia

Fechas

Decisión: 2025-05-13
Presentación: 2017-01-09
first instance: 2020-03-06
Recurso: 2021-11-17
cassation admitted: 2022-07-04

Estado

resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada

Resultado

The Senate rejected requests concerning the 18 October 2021 procedural ruling, vacated the 17 November 2021 judgment insofar as it dismissed claims and awarded costs, remanded that portion and refunded EUR 300 security; nonappealable.

Resumen

Copyright was not the claim and could not be adjudicated. Organisational activity and investment may ground a broadcaster's related right in a broadcast under sections 47 and 53, but cannot ground copyright, which requires creative activity by a natural person.

Antecedentes

Russian Teledistribucija sued Russian Kinomania.TV in litigation centered on non-use and revocation of Multimania marks. The initial multi-claim intellectual-property action was severed; copyright was not pleaded as the object of this cassation.

Historia procesal

Claims were filed on 9 January 2017 and severed on 24 May 2018. The first instance cancelled marks on 6 March 2020; Riga Regional Court partly cancelled and partly dismissed on 17 November 2021. Cassation was admitted only for the dismissed claims and costs on 4 July 2022.

Cuestión jurídica

Whether organisational activity and investment in broadcasting had been treated as a source of copyright, and what parts of the trademark judgment and costs survived cassation.

Criterio

Fundamento decisivo

The judgment distinguishes the statutory object and basis of broadcasting neighbouring rights from authorial copyright and rejects the contention that the lower court awarded or transferred an author's rights. Its principal reasoning otherwise concerns trademark-use evidence.

Límites

The copyright passage is ancillary to a trademark dispute, not an adjudication of subsistence in any specific work and not an AI or synthetic-fixation case.

Relevancia

doctrina-general

Referencias relacionadas

Peso del precedente

High court, but only narrow persuasive weight for the copyright/related-right boundary because copyright was outside the pleaded object. Integración/votación: Reporting senator Zane Pētersone; senators Normunds Salenieks and Marika Senkāne; Civil Cases Department; written proceedings. Three judges are identified; no numerical vote, dissent or separate opinion is published, and unanimity is not inferred.

Fuente

Referencia: SKC-2/2025, civil case C30575718
Enlace: Consultar fuente
Autoridad: Senate of the Supreme Court of Latvia (Augstākā tiesa)
Tipo: national Supreme Court trademark judgment containing an ancillary copyright/related-rights boundary; non-AI
Tipo de evidencia: complete_primary_judgment_official_intergovernmental_reproduction
Localizador: paras. 1-7, 22-22.2.2, 25-26 and operative part
Verificación documentada: Sí

SKC-23/2024, civil case C30638718

Nombre

SKC-23/2024, civil case C30638718

Cita

ECLI:LV:AT:2024:0604.C30638718.13.S

Tribunal

Senate of the Supreme Court of Latvia (Augstākā tiesa)

Instancia

última instancia

Fechas

Decisión: 2024-06-04
first instance: 2019-01-11
cjeu reference: 2019-10-14
Recurso: 2022-02-25

Estado

resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada

Resultado

The Senate left the 25 February 2022 judgment unchanged and dismissed the cassation; the judgment is final and nonappealable, leaving the EUR 1,667 cost award intact.

Resumen

Obtaining includes finding and collecting existing independent materials and excludes resources used to create them; verification concerns accuracy, and presentation concerns systematic or methodical arrangement and individual access. The threshold must not be set excessively high.

Antecedentes

Alma Career Latvia, formerly CV-Online Latvia, sought to prohibit Melons from using kurdarbs.lv links that gave access to job advertisements in the cv.lv database and claimed litigation costs.

Historia procesal

Riga City Court granted the claim on 11 January 2019. Riga Regional Court referred C-762/19 to the CJEU on 14 October 2019; the CJEU answered on 3 June 2021. On 25 February 2022 the Regional Court dismissed and awarded EUR 1,667 costs to Melons; Alma Career appealed in cassation.

Cuestión jurídica

How to identify investment in obtaining, verifying and presenting database contents, and whether extraction/reutilisation threatened recoupment of that investment.

Criterio

Fundamento decisivo

Although the appellate investment analysis was defective, the separate and sufficient ground stood: Alma Career did not prove a sufficiently likely, non-hypothetical risk to recoupment. Contract/site terms were a distinct cause not pleaded in this action.

Límites

It concerns sui generis database protection and an aggregator, not copyright in individual records or AI outputs. WIPO metadata mislabels the case as SKA-23/2024; the signed body and ECLI confirm SKC-23/2024.

Relevancia

doctrina-general

Referencias relacionadas

Peso del precedente

High national appellate authority on the sui generis database layer, read consistently with the CJEU answer in C-762/19. Integración/votación: Reporting senator Zane Pētersone; senators Ļubova Kušnire and Marika Senkāne; Civil Cases Department; written proceedings. All three judges are named and sign the published decision; no numerical vote, dissent or separate opinion is published, and unanimity is not inferred.

Fuente

Referencia: SKC-23/2024, civil case C30638718
Enlace: Consultar fuente
Autoridad: Senate of the Supreme Court of Latvia (Augstākā tiesa)
Tipo: national database-right judgment; non-AI
Tipo de evidencia: complete_primary_judgment_official_court
Localizador: paras. 1-7, 10-17 and operative part
Verificación documentada: Sí