Países / Lituania

Derecho de autor e inteligencia artificial en Lituania

Lituania: parcial. La ley exige obra original, expresión objetiva y autor persona física; no existe ficción de obra generada por computadora ni regla de necessary arrangements. El output autónomo no tiene vía verificada de derecho de autor. En un resultado asistido sólo se protege la expresión humana original e identificable. Productor, fijación, audiovisual, software, 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 Lituania en el mapa →

Marco y alcance

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

Limitaciones documentadas

No se localizó sentencia lituana publicada que aplique los arts. 4, 6 y 7 a un output GenAI identificado, a prompts o a selección iterativa. No se localizó sentencia del TJUE que decida directamente autoría o derecho de autor de outputs GenAI. No existe registro estatal de obras; por tanto no existe una población administrativa lituana de grants o denials de outputs GenAI. Repertorios CMO y archivos probatorios privados no son sustitutos. LITEKO y buscadores oficiales pueden omitir asuntos no publicados, anonimizados, con títulos neutrales, sin OCR o sin disclosure del uso de IA. No se localizó la decisión final posterior a la segunda remisión de D. S.; no se afirma que la demandante haya ganado autoría en el fondo. No se localizó precedente lituano sobre derechos conexos de una fijación íntegramente sintética o sobre performer puramente sintético.

Registro y actos documentados

Estado
no_registry
Resumen
El art. 13 hace nacer el derecho al crear la obra. Lituania no tiene registro estatal de obras ni órgano que conceda o deniegue derecho de autor mediante certificado. LATGA registra títulos y titulares de sus miembros para distribuir remuneración, no la obra ni su subsistencia; depósito legal, ISBN/ISSN, catálogos, avisos, formularios y registros de propiedad industrial no son concesiones de derecho de autor.
Actos documentados

    Casos nacionales

    Microsoft Corporation, Symantec Corporation and UAB VTeX v UAB Vilpostus, civil case 3K-3-311/2006

    Nombre
    Microsoft Corporation, Symantec Corporation and UAB VTeX v UAB Vilpostus, civil case 3K-3-311/2006
    Cita
    Microsoft Corporation, Symantec Corporation and UAB VTeX v UAB Vilpostus, civil case 3K-3-311/2006
    Tribunal
    Supreme Court of Lithuania (Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas), Civil Division
    Instancia
    última instancia
    Fechas
    Decisión
    2006-05-03
    Estado
    resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
    Resultado
    Cassation dismissed; the 3 November 2005 appellate ruling remained unchanged. Final and unappealable.
    Resumen
    The Court distinguished authorship from economic ownership: a program author is a natural person or group, while exclusive economic rights may vest in an employer or successor and may be enforced by a legal person. On the evidence and presumptions applied, the claimants established their rights and the unlicensed installations infringed them.
    Antecedentes
    Police inspected Vilpostus on 4 September 2002 and found 17 Microsoft program copies, six Norton AntiVirus copies and one WinLED copy installed on hard drives without end-user licences. The corporate claimants sought statutory compensation and had to establish that corporations could enforce economic rights although the statutory software author is a natural person.
    Historia procesal
    The action was filed on 23 November 2004. The Vilnius Regional Court ruled for the claimants; the Court of Appeal left that result in place on 3 November 2005. Vilpostus sought cassation.
    Cuestión jurídica
    Whether corporate software publishers had standing and sufficient chain-of-title proof where authorship belongs initially to natural persons, and whether installation without licences infringed reproduction rights.
    Criterio
    The Court distinguished authorship from economic ownership: a program author is a natural person or group, while exclusive economic rights may vest in an employer or successor and may be enforced by a legal person. On the evidence and presumptions applied, the claimants established their rights and the unlicensed installations infringed them.
    Fundamento decisivo
    ATGTĮ articles 6 and 10 identify human authorship; employee and transfer rules explain the corporation’s economic title. Authorship presumption and title evidence are analytically distinct. A legal person’s commercial ownership does not make it the human author.
    Límites
    Non-AI software infringement case. Corporate standing and economic ownership do not make a legal person the author, and the judgment does not decide authorship or originality of model outputs.
    Relevancia
    autoria-output
    Referencias relacionadas
      Peso del precedente
      Binding-orienting Supreme Court authority on the human-author/corporate-rightsholder distinction and software. It is not a GenAI-output case. Integración/votación: Česlovas Jokūbauskas (presiding), Dangutė Ambrasienė (rapporteur), Algimantas Spiečius. Three-judge panel; the published decision reports no numerical tally, concurrence or dissent. Unanimity is not inferred.
      Fuente
      Referencia
      Microsoft Corporation, Symantec Corporation and UAB VTeX v UAB Vilpostus, civil case 3K-3-311/2006
      Enlace
      Consultar fuente
      Autoridad
      Supreme Court of Lithuania (Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas), Civil Division
      Tipo
      final national civil copyright judgment; software infringement and chain of title; non-AI
      Localizador
      heading and “Ginčo esmė”; cassation analysis of ATGTĮ arts. 6 and 10 and authorship/title presumptions; operative part
      Verificación documentada
      Sí

      T. V. v AB Žemprojektas, civil case 3K-3-536/2010

      Nombre
      T. V. v AB Žemprojektas, civil case 3K-3-536/2010
      Cita
      T. V. v AB Žemprojektas, civil case 3K-3-536/2010
      Tribunal
      Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Division
      Instancia
      última instancia
      Fechas
      Decisión
      2010-12-20
      Estado
      resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
      Resultado
      Lower judgments changed only to reject the 1,000 LTL moral-damages award; all other portions remained. Final and unappealable.
      Resumen
      Photographs can be protected when they are results of creative human intellectual activity, original and objectively expressed. The images depicting existing buildings and surroundings met that threshold; the limited exchange did not establish the unrestricted use asserted by the defendant. The separate moral-damages award was not supported on the proved record.
      Antecedentes
      The photographer and the hotel company orally agreed that he would photograph a Nida hotel and Juodkrantė holiday property on 17–18 September 2005 in exchange for a weekend stay and meals. He delivered low-resolution JPEGs for selection. The company later used 14 images on websites; the photographer said the agreed use was narrower and sought an injunction, economic damages and moral damages.
      Historia procesal
      Kaunas Regional Court on 1 June 2009 granted injunctive relief, 6,000 LTL economic compensation and 1,000 LTL moral damages. The Court of Appeal affirmed on 10 June 2010. The company sought cassation.
      Cuestión jurídica
      Whether the photographs were protected works and whether delivery for selection implied unrestricted online-use rights and supported moral damages.
      Criterio
      Photographs can be protected when they are results of creative human intellectual activity, original and objectively expressed. The images depicting existing buildings and surroundings met that threshold; the limited exchange did not establish the unrestricted use asserted by the defendant. The separate moral-damages award was not supported on the proved record.
      Fundamento decisivo
      Originality is not novelty and is assessed by the creator’s intellectual contribution rather than the factual subject depicted. Scope of permission must be proved separately from subsistence. The decision’s older references to “objective originality” for certain categories must now be read through the uniform CJEU standard.
      Límites
      Human-photography and licence case. Use of technical equipment did not replace the photographer's choices; the judgment does not set a prompt, iteration or GenAI-control threshold.
      Relevancia
      autoria-asistida
      Referencias relacionadas
        Peso del precedente
        National photographic-originality and licence-scope authority; useful for tool-assisted creation because creative choices can coexist with technical means. Not AI-specific. Integración/votación: Sigitas Gurevičius (rapporteur), Janina Januškienė, Gintaras Kryževičius (presiding). Three-judge panel; no numerical tally, concurrence or dissent is published.
        Fuente
        Referencia
        T. V. v AB Žemprojektas, civil case 3K-3-536/2010
        Enlace
        Consultar fuente
        Autoridad
        Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Division
        Tipo
        final national civil copyright judgment; photographs and scope of permission; non-AI
        Localizador
        “Ginčo esmė”; copyright-object/originality section; operative part changing only moral damages
        Verificación documentada
        Sí

        UAB Zbiga v UAB Gintaro baldai, civil case 3K-3-509/2013

        Nombre
        UAB Zbiga v UAB Gintaro baldai, civil case 3K-3-509/2013
        Cita
        UAB Zbiga v UAB Gintaro baldai, civil case 3K-3-509/2013
        Tribunal
        Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Division
        Instancia
        última instancia
        Fechas
        Decisión
        2013-11-04
        Estado
        resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
        Resultado
        Cassation dismissed; both lower decisions affirmed, with costs. Final and unappealable.
        Resumen
        Copyright and design protection can coexist, but copyright in an unregistered design still requires original expression. The claimant did not prove that the claimed combination departed from common features of that furniture type or that the accused models copied protected expression. The lower courts’ use of design-law informed-user language was not the proper copyright test, but the evidentiary failure independently sustained dismissal.
        Antecedentes
        Zbiga relied on 2003 and 2006 assignments from designer Z. J. for furniture designs MM-1 and MM-5. It alleged that Gintaro baldai’s Gabija and Tyra models copied those designs and sought an injunction and 52,000 LTL. The drawings captured shape but not colour, material texture or other later asserted elements.
        Historia procesal
        Vilnius Regional Court dismissed the claim on 19 May 2011; the Court of Appeal affirmed on 2 January 2013. Zbiga sought cassation.
        Cuestión jurídica
        Whether unregistered functional furniture designs were original copyright works and whether the defendant copied protected expression rather than common or functional elements.
        Criterio
        Copyright and design protection can coexist, but copyright in an unregistered design still requires original expression. The claimant did not prove that the claimed combination departed from common features of that furniture type or that the accused models copied protected expression. The lower courts’ use of design-law informed-user language was not the proper copyright test, but the evidentiary failure independently sustained dismissal.
        Fundamento decisivo
        Ownership documents and an authorship presumption do not prove originality. Functional and commonplace elements cannot be monopolised without proof of the creator’s individual expression; the claimant must identify what was created and copied.
        Límites
        Human furniture-design dispute predating Cofemel and Brompton. The dismissal turned on proof and commonplace or functional features; it is not a categorical bar for applied art or AI-assisted design.
        Relevancia
        doctrina-general
        Referencias relacionadas
          Peso del precedente
          Negative national base case on functional constraints, proof and expression delimitation. Its 2013 originality vocabulary must be controlled by later CJEU Cofemel/Brompton doctrine. Integración/votación: Algis Norkūnas (presiding and rapporteur), Dalia Vasarienė, Vincas Verseckas. Three-judge panel; no numerical tally, concurrence or dissent is published.
          Fuente
          Referencia
          UAB Zbiga v UAB Gintaro baldai, civil case 3K-3-509/2013
          Enlace
          Consultar fuente
          Autoridad
          Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Division
          Tipo
          final national civil copyright judgment; applied-art furniture designs; non-AI
          Localizador
          “Ginčo esmė”; lower-court history; cassation sections on cumulative protection and design/copyright; operative part
          Verificación documentada
          Sí

          K. Mickevičius publishing house Briedis and textbook authors v UAB E. mokykla, civil case 3K-3-270-687/2017

          Nombre
          K. Mickevičius publishing house Briedis and textbook authors v UAB E. mokykla, civil case 3K-3-270-687/2017
          Cita
          K. Mickevičius publishing house Briedis and textbook authors v UAB E. mokykla, civil case 3K-3-270-687/2017
          Tribunal
          Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Division
          Instancia
          última instancia
          Fechas
          Decisión
          2017-06-15
          Estado
          resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
          Resultado
          Cassation dismissed; the 21 October 2016 appellate ruling left unchanged. Final and unappealable.
          Resumen
          Even informational or scientific works may be protected in their original mode of presentation. Originality is assessed in the context of the work as a whole; a part is protected when it contains elements expressing the author’s intellectual creation. The reproduced covers and structured topic lists were used substantially as a primary commercial organising device, not as subordinate quotation, and authorship attribution was required.
          Antecedentes
          A publisher and textbook authors challenged epratybos.lt electronic exercises linked to three textbook series. The defendant reproduced digitised covers and topic/table-of-contents entries, omitted author names and used the material as the organising basis for paid exercises. It argued that curriculum-driven topic labels were general information and any use was quotation.
          Historia procesal
          The first-instance court granted relief and compensation; the Court of Appeal affirmed on 21 October 2016. E. mokykla sought cassation.
          Cuestión jurídica
          Whether factual and curriculum-constrained textbook structures or parts could be original, how originality of parts should be assessed and whether the commercial use was quotation.
          Criterio
          Even informational or scientific works may be protected in their original mode of presentation. Originality is assessed in the context of the work as a whole; a part is protected when it contains elements expressing the author’s intellectual creation. The reproduced covers and structured topic lists were used substantially as a primary commercial organising device, not as subordinate quotation, and authorship attribution was required.
          Fundamento decisivo
          Constraints reduce but do not necessarily eliminate creative freedom. Facts and themes remain free, while the chosen sequence, formulation and presentation may embody original expression. Fragment analysis cannot ignore the architecture in which the fragment operates.
          Límites
          Human-authored textbook and quotation case. Protection of arrangement does not protect underlying facts, curriculum topics or every extracted fragment, and does not automatically extend to collections of generated outputs.
          Relevancia
          autoria-output
          Referencias relacionadas
            Peso del precedente
            National authority on whole-work analysis, selection/arrangement and protection of parts. Non-AI, but important for compilations and edited output sets. Integración/votación: Janina Januškienė (presiding and rapporteur), Sigitas Gurevičius, Andžej Maciejevski. Three-judge panel; no numerical tally, concurrence or dissent is published.
            Fuente
            Referencia
            K. Mickevičius publishing house Briedis and textbook authors v UAB E. mokykla, civil case 3K-3-270-687/2017
            Enlace
            Consultar fuente
            Autoridad
            Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Division
            Tipo
            final national civil copyright judgment; textbooks, arrangement, extracts and quotation; non-AI
            Localizador
            paras. 27–31 (work/originality/parts), 39–44 (use and attribution), 51–54 (compensation); operative part
            Verificación documentada
            Sí

            MB Novus nexus v UAB Solidas, civil case e3K-3-77-687/2020

            Nombre
            MB Novus nexus v UAB Solidas, civil case e3K-3-77-687/2020
            Cita
            MB Novus nexus v UAB Solidas, civil case e3K-3-77-687/2020
            Tribunal
            Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Division
            Instancia
            última instancia
            Fechas
            Decisión
            2020-03-26
            Estado
            resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
            Resultado
            Cassation dismissed; the 11 July 2019 appellate ruling remained unchanged; EUR 9,500 compensation and other relief stood. Final and unappealable.
            Resumen
            A work requires cumulatively the author’s creative/intellectual activity, originality and objective expression. Functional constraints and use of legal-source fragments do not automatically defeat originality; the package must be assessed as a whole. GDPR did not exhaust the drafter’s choices over content and form, and the templates were not themselves official legal acts. The lower courts correctly found protection and infringement.
            Antecedentes
            Under a 7 March 2018 consultancy agreement, Novus nexus prepared GDPR compliance document packages for three Solidas clients and reserved economic rights. It delivered the packages in April and May 2018. Solidas later supplied highly similar or identical packages and fragments to other entities; 29 of 34 documents in one package used the claimant’s package. Novus sought injunctions, notifications to recipients and EUR 19,000 compensation.
            Historia procesal
            Kaunas District Court on 4 March 2019 granted relief in part and EUR 9,500 compensation. Kaunas Regional Court affirmed on 11 July 2019. Solidas sought cassation.
            Cuestión jurídica
            Whether functional GDPR templates assembled from legal and regulatory material could be original works, whether they were excluded official texts and whether the remedies were supported.
            Criterio
            A work requires cumulatively the author’s creative/intellectual activity, originality and objective expression. Functional constraints and use of legal-source fragments do not automatically defeat originality; the package must be assessed as a whole. GDPR did not exhaust the drafter’s choices over content and form, and the templates were not themselves official legal acts. The lower courts correctly found protection and infringement.
            Fundamento decisivo
            The decisive inquiry is whether the author retained and exercised sufficient expressive freedom in the integrated result. Originality cannot be defeated merely by atomising components or pointing to constraints. The statutory exclusion list is closed and cannot be extended by analogy.
            Límites
            Human-drafted GDPR template package. Functional constraints did not eliminate all creative freedom on the proved facts, but labour, compliance value or assembly alone are not a substitute for the harmonised originality standard.
            Relevancia
            doctrina-general
            Referencias relacionadas
              Peso del precedente
              Direct national threshold authority. Its discussion of differing “subjective/objective” originality levels must be read consistently with the unitary CJEU standard and does not authorise sweat of the brow. Integración/votación: Alė Bukavinienė, Janina Januškienė (presiding and rapporteur), Donatas Šernas. Three-judge panel; no numerical tally, concurrence or dissent is published.
              Fuente
              Referencia
              MB Novus nexus v UAB Solidas, civil case e3K-3-77-687/2020
              Enlace
              Consultar fuente
              Autoridad
              Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Division
              Tipo
              final national civil copyright judgment; GDPR compliance templates; non-AI
              Localizador
              paras. 1–19 (facts and procedure), 22–34 (cumulative test and whole-work originality), 35–37 (official-text exclusion), operative part
              Verificación documentada
              Sí

              D. S. v Lithuanian National Culture Centre, civil case e3K-3-98-469/2021

              Nombre
              D. S. v Lithuanian National Culture Centre, civil case e3K-3-98-469/2021
              Cita
              D. S. v Lithuanian National Culture Centre, civil case e3K-3-98-469/2021
              Tribunal
              Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Division
              Instancia
              última instancia
              Fechas
              Decisión
              2021-04-21
              Estado
              resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
              Resultado
              The 16 June 2020 appellate ruling was vacated and the case remanded for a proper originality and coauthorship assessment. No final merits finding that D. S. was author was made.
              Resumen
              Reconstruction is not per se excluded. Courts must assess whether the concrete result allowed and expressed human creative freedom; artistic merit and contract label do not control. Article 13 ties rights to creation, not contract. Material, technical or organisational assistance alone is not coauthorship, but the claimant’s objectively expressed contribution had to be evaluated rather than reduced to an idea.
              Antecedentes
              D. S. claimed sole or joint authorship in reconstructed Baltic archaeological-historical costumes and related calendar material. She supplied archaeological data, visual material and consultations and coordinated jewellery makers; another participant handled textile work. The defendant argued that reconstruction was dictated by history and that her role was research/coordination rather than protected creation.
              Historia procesal
              A first-instance judgment dated 9 August 2019 rejected the claim; the Court of Appeal affirmed on 16 June 2020. D. S. sought cassation.
              Cuestión jurídica
              Whether “reconstructed” objects are excluded from copyright, whether contract form controls originality and whether research, coordination and contributed material could amount to authorship or coauthorship.
              Criterio
              Reconstruction is not per se excluded. Courts must assess whether the concrete result allowed and expressed human creative freedom; artistic merit and contract label do not control. Article 13 ties rights to creation, not contract. Material, technical or organisational assistance alone is not coauthorship, but the claimant’s objectively expressed contribution had to be evaluated rather than reduced to an idea.
              Fundamento decisivo
              Originality is object-specific and factual. Historical or technical constraints negate protection only when they leave no room for free and creative choices. Coauthorship requires a joint creative contribution unified by a common concept, while financing, coordination, source collection or other assistance alone is insufficient.
              Límites
              First cassation and remand only. It neither declared D. S. author/coauthor nor finally held the reconstructed costumes protected; its relevance to GenAI is analogical.
              Relevancia
              autoria-output
              Referencias relacionadas
                Peso del precedente
                Strong national analogue for AI workflows: separate creative contribution from assistance and do not infer authorship from control, research or coordination. Procedural result must not be reported as a grant of authorship. Integración/votación: Gražina Davidonienė, Sigita Rudėnaitė (presiding and rapporteur), Algirdas Taminskas. Three-judge panel; no numerical tally, concurrence or dissent is published.
                Fuente
                Referencia
                D. S. v Lithuanian National Culture Centre, civil case e3K-3-98-469/2021
                Enlace
                Consultar fuente
                Autoridad
                Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Division
                Tipo
                national copyright/coauthorship cassation; reversal and remand; non-AI
                Localizador
                paras. 25–36 (work/originality/CJEU), 37–39 (creation versus contract), 40–44 (coauthorship and remand), operative part
                Verificación documentada
                Sí

                D. S. v Lithuanian National Culture Centre, civil case e3K-3-177-701/2022

                Nombre
                D. S. v Lithuanian National Culture Centre, civil case e3K-3-177-701/2022
                Cita
                D. S. v Lithuanian National Culture Centre, civil case e3K-3-177-701/2022
                Tribunal
                Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Division
                Instancia
                última instancia
                Fechas
                Decisión
                2022-06-21
                Estado
                resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
                Resultado
                The 16 September 2021 appellate ruling was vacated and the case remanded again. The published second cassation still does not finally declare D. S. sole author or coauthor.
                Resumen
                It did not. The appellate court fragmented the work, discounted the use of multiple sources and failed to evaluate the concrete whole and the claimant’s creative contribution with adequate evidence. The Supreme Court again declined to decide factual originality itself and remanded.
                Antecedentes
                After the 2021 remand, the Court of Appeal again rejected the claim, treating the reconstructed costumes and the claimant’s contribution through component-by-component and evidentiary reasoning that the Supreme Court found inconsistent with the binding first cassation. The record included multiple sources, absence of a surviving complete costume specimen and competing contributions to textile and ornament decisions.
                Historia procesal
                Following e3K-3-98-469/2021, the Court of Appeal issued a new ruling on 16 September 2021. D. S. again sought cassation.
                Cuestión jurídica
                Whether the appellate court complied with the first cassation’s binding directions and properly assessed the whole costume, creative freedom, evidence and possible coauthorship.
                Criterio
                It did not. The appellate court fragmented the work, discounted the use of multiple sources and failed to evaluate the concrete whole and the claimant’s creative contribution with adequate evidence. The Supreme Court again declined to decide factual originality itself and remanded.
                Fundamento decisivo
                Whole-work originality cannot be tested by asking whether each individual historical datum or component is protected. Combining sources may evidence choices rather than negate them. A court must identify the work and the claimant’s contribution and may require expert evidence; cassation cannot replace missing factual findings.
                Límites
                Second cassation and remand only. It corrected fragmented analysis and evidentiary treatment but again made no final finding of originality, authorship or coauthorship.
                Relevancia
                autoria-output
                Referencias relacionadas
                  Peso del precedente
                  Essential procedural continuation that prevents overstating the 2021 case. Strong on whole-output/component discipline and evidentiary proof, but not a final authorship merits judgment. Integración/votación: Alė Bukavinienė, Andžej Maciejevski, Antanas Simniškis (presiding and rapporteur). Three-judge panel; no numerical tally, concurrence or dissent is published.
                  Fuente
                  Referencia
                  D. S. v Lithuanian National Culture Centre, civil case e3K-3-177-701/2022
                  Enlace
                  Consultar fuente
                  Autoridad
                  Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Division
                  Tipo
                  second national cassation in same copyright/coauthorship dispute; reversal and remand; non-AI
                  Localizador
                  paras. 25–30 and subparagraphs (binding effect, evidence and whole-work analysis); operative part
                  Verificación documentada
                  Sí

                  Criminal case 2K-79-976/2024

                  Nombre
                  Criminal case 2K-79-976/2024
                  Cita
                  Criminal case 2K-79-976/2024
                  Tribunal
                  Supreme Court of Lithuania, Criminal Division
                  Instancia
                  última instancia
                  Fechas
                  Decisión
                  2024-04-09
                  Estado
                  resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
                  Resultado
                  Both lower criminal judgments were vacated, the criminal case was terminated under ultima ratio and the civil claim left unexamined. Copyright subsistence was not denied.
                  Resumen
                  The draft status and nonpublication did not defeat protection. The victim’s analysis, interpretation and conclusions satisfied the cumulative work test. Merely transmitting guidelines, approving a plan or providing noncreative assistance did not establish coauthorship. Yet criminal liability was disproportionate under ultima ratio on the case facts.
                  Antecedentes
                  A Lithuanian-language draft analysis about political-party organisation was sent within a collaborative publication process. Parts were translated and published in an English-language book chapter released on 12 January 2017 under two other names. The accused argued that the source was unpublished, unfinished, general research material and that project guidance or approval supported coauthorship.
                  Historia procesal
                  Kaunas District Court convicted on 4 November 2022; Kaunas Regional Court issued a judgment on 4 September 2023. The accused sought cassation.
                  Cuestión jurídica
                  Whether an unpublished intermediate scientific text could be a protected work, whether administrative/academic findings controlled the criminal court, whether guidance or plan approval created coauthorship and whether criminal punishment was justified.
                  Criterio
                  The draft status and nonpublication did not defeat protection. The victim’s analysis, interpretation and conclusions satisfied the cumulative work test. Merely transmitting guidelines, approving a plan or providing noncreative assistance did not establish coauthorship. Yet criminal liability was disproportionate under ultima ratio on the case facts.
                  Fundamento decisivo
                  Copyright attaches at creation to original expression, including intermediate drafts. The tribunal must independently determine protected expression and proof; other proceedings do not substitute. Coauthorship requires creative contribution, not supervision or organisational input.
                  Límites
                  Human scientific-text criminal case. The criminal proceeding ended under ultima ratio and the civil claim was left unexamined; the judgment does not grant a civil remedy or address GenAI outputs.
                  Relevancia
                  administrativo
                  Referencias relacionadas
                    Peso del precedente
                    Recent Supreme Court confirmation on drafts, evidentiary independence and assistance versus coauthorship. The procedural termination must not be misreported as a finding of no copyright. Integración/votación: Albinas Antanaitis (presiding), Olegas Fedosiukas, Rima Ažubalytė (rapporteur). Three-judge panel; no numerical tally, concurrence or dissent is published.
                    Fuente
                    Referencia
                    Criminal case 2K-79-976/2024
                    Enlace
                    Consultar fuente
                    Autoridad
                    Supreme Court of Lithuania, Criminal Division
                    Tipo
                    final national criminal copyright judgment applying the civil work threshold; non-AI
                    Localizador
                    paras. 9–15 (work/originality/draft/coauthorship), paras. 20–25 (ultima ratio), operative part
                    Verificación documentada
                    Sí

                    UAB Delfi v UAB Vikimedija and VšĮ Debunk EU, civil case e3K-3-158-421/2025

                    Nombre
                    UAB Delfi v UAB Vikimedija and VšĮ Debunk EU, civil case e3K-3-158-421/2025
                    Cita
                    UAB Delfi v UAB Vikimedija and VšĮ Debunk EU, civil case e3K-3-158-421/2025
                    Tribunal
                    Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Division
                    Instancia
                    última instancia
                    Fechas
                    Decisión
                    2025-11-13
                    Estado
                    resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
                    Resultado
                    Both lower decisions were vacated and the matter remanded to first instance. The Supreme Court did not declare Delfi the author or finally award all exclusive rights.
                    Resumen
                    Written-form rules do not make an unsigned copyright contract automatically void. Emails, performance, payment and delivery may prove agreement and must be assessed. Any transfer is construed narrowly to the rights and uses necessary for the contract’s purpose; source-code transfer normally requires explicit treatment.
                    Antecedentes
                    Delfi’s Google Digital News Initiative project involved a platform for finding and processing disinformation. Vikimedija employees built the programs and source code. The parties exchanged a draft DNI agreement and emails in 2017–2018 but never signed one document; Delfi paid EUR 302,812.18 and used the delivered platform. The dispute concerned exclusive economic rights, source code and open-source licences.
                    Historia procesal
                    Klaipėda District Court rejected the claim on 7 October 2024; Vilnius Regional Court affirmed on 18 February 2025. Delfi sought cassation.
                    Cuestión jurídica
                    Whether absence of signatures alone defeated a commissioned-work agreement and what economic rights and source-code delivery obligations could be inferred from the parties’ conduct and contractual purpose.
                    Criterio
                    Written-form rules do not make an unsigned copyright contract automatically void. Emails, performance, payment and delivery may prove agreement and must be assessed. Any transfer is construed narrowly to the rights and uses necessary for the contract’s purpose; source-code transfer normally requires explicit treatment.
                    Fundamento decisivo
                    Creation/authorship and downstream economic-right allocation are distinct. The platform was created by Vikimedija employees; commissioning, payment and acceptance may allocate rights only through proved statutory/contractual rules. Neither customer control nor financing is authorship.
                    Límites
                    Contract and software-rights remand, not a final award of ownership or source code. Payment, commissioning and acceptance may evidence agreement but do not establish customer authorship or protection of autonomous output.
                    Relevancia
                    doctrina-general
                    Referencias relacionadas
                      Peso del precedente
                      Current national technology/chain-of-title authority. Useful for GenAI commissioning contracts but not authority that software or AI output is authored by the customer. Integración/votación: Donatas Šernas (presiding and rapporteur), Agnė Tikniūtė, Eglė Zemlytė. Three-judge panel; no numerical tally, concurrence or dissent is published.
                      Fuente
                      Referencia
                      UAB Delfi v UAB Vikimedija and VšĮ Debunk EU, civil case e3K-3-158-421/2025
                      Enlace
                      Consultar fuente
                      Autoridad
                      Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Division
                      Tipo
                      national software commission and economic-rights cassation; reversal and remand; non-AI
                      Localizador
                      paras. 31–50 (agreement/form/performance), 51–61 (scope of transfer and source code), operative part
                      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

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

                      Fuentes de la ficha

                      Alcance de la confianza documental

                      Alta para la ley vigente, autor-persona-física, nacimiento automático, ausencia de registro estatal y separación entre autoría y titularidad; alta para los holdings y resultados de nueve decisiones nacionales leídas en texto oficial; media-alta para excluir el output autónomo por inferencia conjunta de los arts. 4, 6, 7 y 13 y doctrina TJUE; media para prompts, iteración, selección, inpainting y fijaciones puramente sintéticas porque no hay decisión nacional o TJUE directa.

                      Enlaces a expedientes individuales