Países / Malta

Derecho de autor e inteligencia artificial en Malta

Malta: parcial. Autor sólo puede ser persona natural; no existe ficción para obras generadas por computadora. El output autónomo no obtiene copyright por prompt, pago, selección, publicación o aviso ©. En resultados asistidos se protege únicamente la expresión humana original, identificable y trazable. Fonogramas, primeras fijaciones audiovisuales y bases pueden tener capas separadas. No hay registro estatal de obras ni grants/denials GenAI verificados.

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

Explorar Malta en el mapa →

Marco y alcance

Para afirmar protección, identificar a cada persona natural y enlazar cada rasgo final reclamado con una elección libre y creativa documentada y expresada de modo preciso/objetivo; excluir el residuo determinado por el modelo; luego analizar por separado empleo/cesión, obra colectiva, audiovisual, performer, productor de fijación, base de datos, territorialidad e infringement.

Limitaciones documentadas

No published Maltese merits judgment was located that decides authorship, originality, ownership or scope of copyright in an identified GenAI output. No CJEU merits judgment directly deciding GenAI-output authorship or subsistence was located by the cutoff; non-AI originality authorities control the legal standard and are applied by analogy. Seven national criteria are documented. Cassar Pullicino/NCT and Telestarr supply appellate analogies, Patricia Vella is a counter-authority, and John Borg, Yellow Pages, Agius and Heritage are first-instance; none decides GenAI-output authorship. Agius and Heritage contain older skill/labour language that is in tension with the harmonised CJEU test; John Borg expressly recognises the EU displacement, but no higher national court harmonised the later formulations in an AI case. No national precedent was located on phonogram or first-audiovisual-fixation producer rights in content composed entirely of synthetic sound or moving images. No authority was located treating a purely synthetic voice, avatar or movement as a performer; the statute describes human artistic acts. The factual threshold for prompt specificity, iterative control, seed/parameter choice, candidate selection, inpainting and post-editing remains untested nationally. No work-registration practice exists from which examiner grants, limitations or refusals could be sampled. eCourts and official web searches are subject to OCR, anonymisation, spelling, neutral titles, publication limits and undisclosed AI use; non-public files can escape. The MDIA-hosted AI 2024 chapter is secondary and its 'substantive participation' wording is not an enacted threshold or administrative examination standard. The current ELI page shows no post-2023 amendment, but a non-indexed proposal or later enactment after the cutoff could change the result and requires refresh in future matters. Heritage Malta v Maltaticket is marked appealed on the official eCourts details page; its author-person and ownership holdings are used with an express non-finality reservation.

Registro y actos documentados

Estado
no_registry
Resumen
Malta protege automáticamente y no registra formalmente obras. Commerce sólo registra marcas, patentes, diseños y la autorización de sociedades de gestión; el Copyright Board regula CMO y tarifas, no examina obras. Depósito legal, ISBN, catálogo, repertorio CMO, aviso ©, formulario, AI Act label o certificado de curso/tecnología no son grants. Por ello el estado es no_registry y grants/denials están vacíos.
Actos documentados

    Casos nacionales

    Dr Louis Cassar Pullicino noe v NCT International Trading Limited, 535/2003/1

    Nombre
    Dr Louis Cassar Pullicino noe v NCT International Trading Limited, 535/2003/1
    Cita
    Court of Appeal (Civil, Superior), 3 December 2010
    Tribunal
    Court of Appeal (Civil, Superior), Malta
    Instancia
    apelación
    Fechas
    Decisión
    2010-12-03
    Estado
    resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
    Resultado
    The first ground was accepted only to clarify the form/content distinction; the appeal was otherwise dismissed, the first-instance judgment confirmed, and costs of both instances imposed on NCT.
    Resumen
    Maps were protected as artistic works only in their authorial form, not in the geographic facts. The evidence established extensive actual reproduction rather than independent creation.
    Antecedentes
    NCT marketed NaviCharT vector charts. The record compared them with Admiralty and CM93/2 charts and identified common spelling errors, contours, edits, clipping and merging. NCT invoked the program's interactivity and 'intelligenza artificjali' to argue independent creation.
    Historia procesal
    NCT appealed the Civil Court, First Hall judgment of 17 September 2008 that had upheld claims by HMSO/the UK Secretary of State for Defence concerning Admiralty Charts.
    Cuestión jurídica
    Whether geographic/topographic information or only the charts' expressive form was protected, and whether NaviCharT reproduced the whole or a qualitatively substantial part.
    Criterio
    Maps were protected as artistic works only in their authorial form, not in the geographic facts. The evidence established extensive actual reproduction rather than independent creation.
    Fundamento decisivo
    Copyright does not monopolise the underlying information. Identity of errors, contours and editorial treatment supplied qualitative evidence of copying; an invocation of software or AI did not rebut those factual correspondences.
    Límites
    Predates the full later CJEU originality line; concerns vector navigation charts, not generative output or prompts.
    Relevancia
    autoria-output
    Referencias relacionadas
      Peso del precedente
      High national authority for separating unprotectable facts or machine function from protectable expression and for evidence of copying. The AI phrase is a litigant's defence, not a holding on AI authorship. Integración/votación: Silvio Camilleri Joseph A. Filletti Geoffrey Valenzia Unanimous published panel judgment by Silvio Camilleri, Joseph A. Filletti and Geoffrey Valenzia; no dissent published.
      Fuente
      Referencia
      Dr Louis Cassar Pullicino noe v NCT International Trading Limited, 535/2003/1
      Enlace
      Consultar fuente
      Autoridad
      Court of Appeal (Civil, Superior), Malta
      Tipo
      national appellate copyright merits judgment on maps, protected form and substantial reproduction; contains an AI argument but is not a GenAI-authorship case
      Tipo de evidencia
      primary_judicial_fulltext_official
      Método de comprobación
      Official PDF and official metadata reviewed in full.
      Localizador
      pp. 1-3 (procedure); pp. 24-27 (form/content); pp. 29-38 (expert evidence, copying and disposition)
      Verificación documentada
      Sí

      Patricia Vella v Marion Mizzi and Corinthia Palace Hotel Co Ltd, 826/2002/1

      Nombre
      Patricia Vella v Marion Mizzi and Corinthia Palace Hotel Co Ltd, 826/2002/1
      Cita
      Court of Appeal (Civil, Superior), 31 January 2011
      Tribunal
      Court of Appeal (Civil, Superior), Malta
      Instancia
      apelación
      Fechas
      Decisión
      2011-01-31
      Estado
      resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
      Resultado
      Appeal dismissed and first-instance outcome maintained.
      Resumen
      The appellate decision treated the hotel as holding the relevant rights and rejected Vella's claims. Raymond Agius (2024) later described Patricia Vella as applying the older English employee-work position despite article 11's express limitation of deemed transfer to software and databases.
      Antecedentes
      Vella, a hotel employee, posed for promotional photographs taken by another hotel employee. The hotel later supplied images for promotional use after a salon business changed hands.
      Historia procesal
      Vella appealed the first-instance rejection of claims arising from promotional photographs taken during her employment at the hotel.
      Cuestión jurídica
      Whether Vella could restrain use of the photographs and whether authorship/ownership lay with the employee photographer or the hotel.
      Criterio
      The appellate decision treated the hotel as holding the relevant rights and rejected Vella's claims. Raymond Agius (2024) later described Patricia Vella as applying the older English employee-work position despite article 11's express limitation of deemed transfer to software and databases.
      Fundamento decisivo
      The case is material principally because the later Agius judgment identifies its tension with the text of Cap. 415; it cannot be silently generalised into a current universal employer-ownership rule.
      Límites
      No GenAI; the official PDF was intermittently unavailable during this run, so the decision's role and tension were cross-verified in the later official Agius judgment and official eCourts metadata.
      Relevancia
      autoria-output
      Referencias relacionadas
        Peso del precedente
        Counter-authority on employee photographs, to be read with article 11 and Agius rather than as a clean rule for all employee or AI-assisted works. Integración/votación: Published appellate panel judgment; no dissent identified.
        Fuente
        Referencia
        Patricia Vella v Marion Mizzi and Corinthia Palace Hotel Co Ltd, 826/2002/1
        Enlace
        Consultar fuente
        Autoridad
        Court of Appeal (Civil, Superior), Malta
        Tipo
        national appellate employment/photography authority retained as a counter-authority; non-AI
        Tipo de evidencia
        primary_judicial_official_limited_retrieval
        Método de comprobación
        Official metadata plus the later official court's direct discussion; no unsupported extension beyond that discussion.
        Localizador
        official eCourts decision dated 31-01-2011; characterization in Raymond Agius, paras. 34-35
        Verificación documentada
        Sí

        Yellow Pages (Malta) Limited v Malta Directories Limited, 552/2005

        Nombre
        Yellow Pages (Malta) Limited v Malta Directories Limited, 552/2005
        Cita
        ECLI:MT:CIVP:2015:95253
        Tribunal
        Civil Court, First Hall, Malta
        Instancia
        tribunal nacional
        Fechas
        Decisión
        2015-06-17
        Estado
        resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
        Resultado
        Damages of EUR 192,357 were awarded; stale-copy and injunction requests were rejected as unnecessary in light of elapsed time/evidence.
        Resumen
        Copyright in a database protects original selection or arrangement, not facts as such. The common errors and structure established extensive copying.
        Antecedentes
        Malta Directories reproduced extensive directory material from Yellow Pages, including trap entries and genuine errors.
        Historia procesal
        Final first-instance judgment in a database/directories infringement action.
        Cuestión jurídica
        Whether the selection or arrangement was the author's own intellectual creation and whether a substantial protected part had been copied.
        Criterio
        Copyright in a database protects original selection or arrangement, not facts as such. The common errors and structure established extensive copying.
        Fundamento decisivo
        The court applied the harmonised creation/intellectual-choice standard and used qualitative and quantitative copying evidence rather than rewarding investment alone.
        Límites
        First instance, non-AI and directed to directories/databases. It does not establish copyright in generated entries.
        Relevancia
        autoria-asistida
        Referencias relacionadas
          Peso del precedente
          National support for protecting a human-curated architecture of outputs independently while refusing to project that layer onto each item. Integración/votación: Jacqueline Padovani Grima Single-judge judgment by Jacqueline Padovani Grima; no panel vote.
          Fuente
          Referencia
          Yellow Pages (Malta) Limited v Malta Directories Limited, 552/2005
          Enlace
          Consultar fuente
          Autoridad
          Civil Court, First Hall, Malta
          Tipo
          national first-instance database originality and substantial-copying judgment; non-AI
          Tipo de evidencia
          primary_judicial_fulltext_official
          Método de comprobación
          Official PDF/indexed full text and official metadata reviewed.
          Localizador
          pp. 1-4 (claims/procedure); pp. 13-16 (originality); pp. 18-22 (copying/remedies/disposition)
          Verificación documentada
          Sí

          Avukat Henri Mizzi noe et v Telestarr Limited, 451/2007/1

          Nombre
          Avukat Henri Mizzi noe et v Telestarr Limited, 451/2007/1
          Cita
          ECLI:MT:ACIV:2016:102417
          Tribunal
          Court of Appeal (Civil, Superior), Malta
          Instancia
          apelación
          Fechas
          Decisión
          2016-09-30
          Estado
          resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
          Resultado
          Appeal dismissed for different reasons; first-instance result confirmed; costs of both instances imposed jointly on plaintiffs.
          Resumen
          Football matches as rule-bound events were not works, but the separate broadcast elements could be protected. Telestarr did not infringe by selling legitimately activated genuine cards, and territorial restrictions could not unlawfully fragment the EU market.
          Antecedentes
          Telestarr sold genuine foreign decoder cards used to receive Premier League broadcasts. The broadcast package included an opening sequence, anthem, prerecorded highlights, graphics and commentary.
          Historia procesal
          FAPL and Melita appealed a first-instance judgment rejecting copyright and exclusivity claims concerning foreign decoder cards for Premier League broadcasts.
          Cuestión jurídica
          Which components were works, whether sales of genuine cards infringed, and whether territorial exclusivity could restrict the EU market.
          Criterio
          Football matches as rule-bound events were not works, but the separate broadcast elements could be protected. Telestarr did not infringe by selling legitimately activated genuine cards, and territorial restrictions could not unlawfully fragment the EU market.
          Fundamento decisivo
          The court corrected the first instance's overbroad statement that FAPL had no copyright at all, then separated protectable authored components from the event and applied EU exhaustion/free-services principles.
          Límites
          No GenAI; part of the ratio is EU market/exhaustion doctrine about authentic decoder cards.
          Relevancia
          doctrina-general
          Referencias relacionadas
            Peso del precedente
            Appellate analogy for decomposing a hybrid AI production into human-authored and unprotectable components rather than treating the package as unitary. Integración/votación: Silvio Camilleri Giannino Caruana Demajo Noel Cuschieri Unanimous published panel judgment by Silvio Camilleri, Giannino Caruana Demajo and Noel Cuschieri; no dissent published.
            Fuente
            Referencia
            Avukat Henri Mizzi noe et v Telestarr Limited, 451/2007/1
            Enlace
            Consultar fuente
            Autoridad
            Court of Appeal (Civil, Superior), Malta
            Tipo
            national appellate judgment separating unprotectable events from protected broadcast elements; non-AI
            Tipo de evidencia
            primary_judicial_fulltext_official
            Método de comprobación
            Official PDF and official metadata reviewed in full.
            Localizador
            pp. 1-4 (procedure/facts); pp. 23-25 (protected elements); pp. 28-31 (EU market and result)
            Verificación documentada
            Sí

            John Borg et v Bristow Potteries Limited, 1334/01TA

            Nombre
            John Borg et v Bristow Potteries Limited, 1334/01TA
            Cita
            Civil Court, First Hall, 26 June 2020
            Tribunal
            Civil Court, First Hall, Malta
            Instancia
            tribunal nacional
            Fechas
            Decisión
            2020-06-26
            Estado
            resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
            Resultado
            All defences were rejected. The court awarded EUR 15,000 damages, EUR 94,102 profits and EUR 20,000 additional damages; delivery-up was refused due to elapsed time and evidence.
            Resumen
            The court held that the old English sufficient-skill/labour/effort test was displaced by EU harmonisation. The work was precisely and objectively identifiable; John Borg's choice of framing and angle was free and creative and left his personal touch, so copyright subsisted and was infringed.
            Antecedentes
            The claim concerned a souvenir plate depicting Mdina with a karozzin and alleged copying by a competitor. The court had to decide eligibility, originality, objective expression and infringement under Cap. 415.
            Historia procesal
            The action was filed on 12 July 2001; a partial judgment issued on 22 June 2011; the final judgment followed after Philip Borg's death and substitution of heirs.
            Cuestión jurídica
            Whether the depicted plate was a precisely and objectively identifiable original artistic work, whether the claimant's choices were free and creative, and whether the competing plate infringed.
            Criterio
            The court held that the old English sufficient-skill/labour/effort test was displaced by EU harmonisation. The work was precisely and objectively identifiable; John Borg's choice of framing and angle was free and creative and left his personal touch, so copyright subsisted and was infringed.
            Fundamento decisivo
            The court compared the statutory test with the CJEU line and found creative discretion in framing and angle rather than mere labour or technical necessity.
            Límites
            First-instance, non-AI and fact-specific to a souvenir design; it does not prescribe a prompt-count or workflow threshold.
            Relevancia
            doctrina-general
            Referencias relacionadas
              Peso del precedente
              Strongest national originality analogy for human contributions to AI-assisted output. It requires expression in the result of a person's free creative choices; it does not decide prompts, generative systems or an autonomous output. Integración/votación: Toni Abela The published first-instance judgment identifies one judge; no panel vote or dissent exists or is inferred.
              Fuente
              Referencia
              John Borg et v Bristow Potteries Limited, 1334/01TA
              Enlace
              Consultar fuente
              Autoridad
              Civil Court, First Hall, Malta
              Tipo
              national first-instance copyright merits judgment applying the CJEU originality line; non-AI
              Tipo de evidencia
              primary_judicial_fulltext_official
              Método de comprobación
              Official PDF reviewed in full.
              Localizador
              pp. 1-7 (procedure/facts); pp. 10-24, paras. 21-52 (originality); pp. 35-38 (disposition)
              Verificación documentada
              Sí

              Raymond Agius noe v Adrian Attard Trevisan et, 1227/2018 MS

              Nombre
              Raymond Agius noe v Adrian Attard Trevisan et, 1227/2018 MS
              Cita
              ECLI:MT:CIVP:2024:149798
              Tribunal
              Civil Court, First Hall, Malta
              Instancia
              tribunal nacional
              Fechas
              Decisión
              2024-11-21
              Estado
              resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
              Resultado
              All remaining claims were dismissed and costs imposed on the plaintiff; the court did not need to reach infringement after finding lack of ownership.
              Resumen
              The court distinguished ideas from their technical/material expression, treated the preparatory design material as a computer program/literary work and held it eligible. Under article 11, economic rights in employee software/databases were deemed transferred to the employer; for other works, the author retains copyright absent contrary agreement.
              Antecedentes
              A human algorithm researcher alleged appropriation of research and preparatory technical work by persons connected with his employer. The dispute required classifying the expression and deciding initial/employee ownership.
              Historia procesal
              The claim was filed on 7 December 2018. A partial judgment of 17 June 2020 held claims against Trevisan and AAT Medical prescribed; no appeal was filed, creating res judicata. The final stage concerned AAT Research.
              Cuestión jurídica
              The court framed three questions: eligibility of the material, ownership, and infringement.
              Criterio
              The court distinguished ideas from their technical/material expression, treated the preparatory design material as a computer program/literary work and held it eligible. Under article 11, economic rights in employee software/databases were deemed transferred to the employer; for other works, the author retains copyright absent contrary agreement.
              Fundamento decisivo
              Preparatory design capable of leading to a computer program was protected expression rather than an abstract algorithm. Because it was produced in employment for software development, statutory economic ownership defeated the claimant's title.
              Límites
              First-instance, non-AI and ownership-dispositive; no holding on model outputs or prompting.
              Relevancia
              doctrina-general
              Referencias relacionadas
                Peso del precedente
                Useful for separating human-authored code/design from model output and for employment allocation. Its skill/labour quotations cannot override the later harmonised test expressly applied in John Borg and controlling CJEU law. Integración/votación: Mark Simiana The published first-instance judgment identifies one judge; no panel vote or dissent exists or is inferred.
                Fuente
                Referencia
                Raymond Agius noe v Adrian Attard Trevisan et, 1227/2018 MS
                Enlace
                Consultar fuente
                Autoridad
                Civil Court, First Hall, Malta
                Tipo
                national first-instance software and employment copyright judgment; non-AI
                Tipo de evidencia
                primary_judicial_fulltext_official
                Método de comprobación
                Official PDF and metadata reviewed in full.
                Localizador
                paras. 19-30, pp. 9-13 (eligibility/expression); paras. 31-37, pp. 13-16 (ownership and result)
                Verificación documentada
                Sí

                Aġenzija Heritage Malta v Maltaticket.com Ltd, 1278/2011 MS

                Nombre
                Aġenzija Heritage Malta v Maltaticket.com Ltd, 1278/2011 MS
                Cita
                ECLI:MT:CIVP:2025:156487
                Tribunal
                Civil Court, First Hall, Malta
                Instancia
                tribunal nacional
                Fechas
                Decisión
                2025-10-24
                Estado
                resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
                Resultado
                The copyright counterclaims were dismissed. The main contractual claim produced a separate award of EUR 100,214.34 and EUR 1,000 contractual compensation to the defendant.
                Resumen
                A literary-work author must be a physical person; a juridical person cannot write and can acquire rights only through limited statutory rules or a proven assignment. The company failed to prove ownership. All rights reserved wording had no bearing because copyright arises from legal conditions, not unilateral will. The functional ticket layout lacked the claimed artistic eligibility.
                Antecedentes
                A company counterclaimed copyright in ticket layouts and terms of sale. The evidence did not identify the human author or prove an assignment, and the ticket layout was largely functional.
                Historia procesal
                The action was filed on 22 December 2011, stayed in 2012 pending arbitration, and resumed in 2016. The final judgment resolved the contractual claim and Maltaticket's copyright counterclaims; official details mark it appealed.
                Cuestión jurídica
                Whether the ticket layout was an artistic work, whether terms were literary works owned by Maltaticket, whether authorship/assignment was proved, and whether a rights notice affected subsistence.
                Criterio
                A literary-work author must be a physical person; a juridical person cannot write and can acquire rights only through limited statutory rules or a proven assignment. The company failed to prove ownership. All rights reserved wording had no bearing because copyright arises from legal conditions, not unilateral will. The functional ticket layout lacked the claimed artistic eligibility.
                Fundamento decisivo
                The statutory author definition required proof of a human creator and a chain of title. Function and unilateral labelling could not replace eligibility, originality or ownership evidence.
                Límites
                First-instance, non-AI and under appeal; the author-person holding is powerful but not final appellate authority.
                Relevancia
                autoria-output
                Referencias relacionadas
                  Peso del precedente
                  Direct national authority against treating a company, AI system or account holder as author and against treating notice or metadata as a grant. It does not establish the factual threshold for human-AI collaboration. Integración/votación: Mark Simiana The published first-instance judgment identifies one judge; no panel vote or dissent exists or is inferred.
                  Fuente
                  Referencia
                  Aġenzija Heritage Malta v Maltaticket.com Ltd, 1278/2011 MS
                  Enlace
                  Consultar fuente
                  Autoridad
                  Civil Court, First Hall, Malta
                  Tipo
                  national first-instance copyright ownership and eligibility judgment; non-AI
                  Tipo de evidencia
                  primary_judicial_fulltext_official
                  Método de comprobación
                  Official PDF and official appeal metadata reviewed in full.
                  Localizador
                  paras. 53-70, pp. 20-26 (copyright); pp. 26-28 (disposition)
                  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 vigencia, definición de autor como persona natural, inexistencia de CGW/necessary-arrangements, originalidad/fijación, reglas de empleo y cesión y ausencia de registro estatal; media-alta para excluir copyright autoral del output autónomo y delimitar la protección de aportes humanos con Cap. 415, John Borg y la jurisprudencia TJUE; media para prompts, iteración, selección e inpainting porque no hay caso GenAI; media para derechos de productor sobre una fijación íntegramente sintética porque el texto es tecnológicamente amplio pero no existe precedente nacional específico.

                  Enlaces a expedientes individuales