Países / Moldavia

Derecho de autor e inteligencia artificial en Moldavia

Moldavia: parcial. La Ley 230/2022 exige autor persona natural y originalidad expresada mediante elecciones libres y creativas que reflejen intelecto, talento y personalidad. No existe ficción de obra generada por computadora. El output autónomo no tiene vía verificada de derecho de autor; en un híbrido sólo se protege expresión humana original e identificable. Productor y fijación son capas separadas. AGEPI registra de forma opcional, pero la inscripción no confiere derechos y no se localizó acto GenAI individual.

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

Explorar Moldavia en el mapa →

Marco y alcance

Autonomous GenAI text, image, music, video or code — no — No natural person created the model-determined expression and no statutory CGW fiction assigns authorship to the user or producer. Detailed natural-language prompt only — no for the output; possible separate prompt work — Original wording of a prompt can be its own literary expression, but instructions, ideas and causal influence do not establish that the user made the output's particular free and creative choices. Repeated generations, seed/parameter changes and selection of one output — not automatically — The history may prove process and preference but not human creation of every selected detail. An original arrangement of several results may be a separate collection. Human-written or human-coded content retained in an AI-assisted work — partial — Retained original wording or code and creative human revision can qualify; unedited model output must be excluded from the claimed scope. Human drawing, photograph, mask, inpainting or layered visual edit — partial — Protection can attach to identifiable original human lines, source imagery, composition and editing when the person determined expressive features, not automatically to generated pixels. Hybrid audiovisual work — partial and layered — Human script, dialogue, direction, composition, animation and montage can qualify under article 19; producer exploitation rights do not create authorship in synthetic shots. Human performance transformed by AI — partial and layered — The source performance and fixation remain distinct protected objects. A purely synthetic voice or avatar is not the person required by the performer definition. Fully synthetic audio first fixed by a person or company — possible related right, no authorial spillover — The phonogram definition covers other sounds or their representations and the producer may be natural or legal. No Moldovan GenAI precedent was located; even if the related right subsists, it does not create an author of music, lyrics, voice or performance. Fully synthetic moving images fixed as a videogram — possible related right, no authorial spillover — A videogram producer has a separate right under articles 40 and 44. It does not make the producer an audiovisual author, and no synthetic-video precedent was located. Collective work organized or financed by a company — allocation only — The statutory definition still requires creation by several natural persons. Article 17's economic-right allocation cannot turn an autonomous output into a collective work. AGEPI certificate, register entry or rejection — evidence, not conferral — Article 9(7) controls. Item-level records matter evidentially and refusals can be reviewed, but entry does not confer copyright and no GenAI act was verified.

Limitaciones documentadas

No published Moldovan judgment was located that decides authorship, originality or scope for an identified GenAI output. No binding AGEPI examination guideline was located for prompts, iteration, seeds, control images, inpainting, fine-tuning, editing, curation or mixed human/machine claims. The public register exposes title, number, author, rightholder, series and year, not the creation process; no-hit searches cannot exclude AI use hidden behind a neutral title. No item-level GenAI application file, certificate, reasoned refusal, correction or appeal was located publicly. The Supreme Court plenary originality guidance interprets repealed Law 139/2010; it is used only for propositions that the current Law 230/2022 now states compatibly, not as a direct construction of the new provisions. The later civil sequel 2a-958/23 produced another remand on 2 November 2023; no final merits outcome after that remand was located. Neither the 2021 CSJ decision nor the 2023 appeal decided actual authorship, infringement or certificate validity. No case was located applying the phonogram definition's other-sounds language or videogram producer right to a 100 % synthetic output. No national case was located defining how much granular control turns an AI-assisted selection, edit or montage into the natural person's own intellectual creation. The February 2026 legislative initiative remained only initiated at cutoff; a later enacted text could change the result and must be rechecked after 30 August 2026. Judicial and web indexing may omit sealed, anonymised, paper-only or non-OCR records and spelling/transliteration variants.

Registro y actos documentados

Estado

none_located

Resumen

AGEPI mantiene un registro estatal y expide certificados, pero el art. 9(7) dispone expresamente que la inscripción es opcional y no confiere derechos. El registro público permite buscar títulos y muestra tanto inscripciones como solicitudes rechazadas. La búsqueda directa multilingüe y por herramientas GenAI no produjo un acto individual elegible; por eso el estado es none_located, no no_registry ni grant implícito.

Actos documentados

Casos nacionales

CSJ Plenary Decision no. 1 of 25 April 2016, modified by no. 36 of 4 December 2017

Nombre

CSJ Plenary Decision no. 1 of 25 April 2016, modified by no. 36 of 4 December 2017

Cita

Hotărârea Plenului CSJ nr. 1/2016, modificată prin nr. 36/2017

Tribunal

Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Moldova

Instancia

última instancia

Fechas

Decisión: 2016-04-25
modification: 2017-12-04

Estado

resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada

Resultado

Nationwide interpretive guidance issued and later amended; no individual relief or merits disposition.

Resumen

Author means a natural person; protection concerns objectively expressed original intellectual creation without registration; components may qualify separately; technical, material or auxiliary help is not creative contribution. Untransposed EU acts are non-binding and CJEU case law may be used as recommendation.

Antecedentes

Institutional interpretive guidance for courts applying repealed Law 139/2010; it has no adversarial parties or case-specific facts. It surveys general copyright principles, protected objects, originality, coauthorship and evidence.

Historia procesal

Adopted by the CSJ Plenary on 25 April 2016 and expressly amended on 4 December 2017. It is not an individual judgment and predates Law 230/2022.

Cuestión jurídica

How Moldovan courts should identify authors, original works and creative contributions under the former copyright statute, and what weight to give untransposed EU law and CJEU case law.

Criterio

Fundamento decisivo

Only a natural person's intellectual contribution expressed in the claimed form can ground authorship; formal registration, quality, novelty or technical assistance cannot substitute for originality.

Límites

It interprets repealed Law 139/2010, is not a GenAI ruling and is used here only where its propositions are textually compatible with Law 230/2022. Its references to CJEU authorities remain persuasive/recommendatory in Moldova rather than national holdings.

Relevancia

administrativo

Referencias relacionadas

Peso del precedente

Author is a natural person; copyright protects original expression without registration; originality reflects intellectual effort/personality; components may qualify separately; technical, material or auxiliary help is not creative contribution. The plenary decision also labels CJEU case law recommendatory for Moldovan courts rather than binding as such. Integración/votación: Institutional plenary guidance; the published text does not disclose a numerical vote or separate dissent.

Fuente

Referencia: CSJ Plenary Decision no. 1 of 25 April 2016, modified by no. 36 of 4 December 2017
Enlace: Consultar fuente
Autoridad: Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Moldova
Tipo: national judicial guidance under repealed Law 139/2010, retained only where textually consistent with Law 230/2022
Tipo de evidencia: primary_full_text
Localizador: paras. 2-3 and 52-56; official PDF pp. 3-4 and 20-22
Verificación documentada: Sí

Cojocaru / Tankulevici / AGEPI, file 3ra-1136/21, 15 December 2021

Nombre

Cojocaru / Tankulevici / AGEPI, file 3ra-1136/21, 15 December 2021

Cita

Dosarul nr. 3ra-1136/21

Tribunal

Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Moldova, expanded Civil, Commercial and Administrative Litigation Panel

Instancia

última instancia

Fechas

filing cojocaru: 2019-04-04
first instance: 2020-10-27
Recurso: 2021-06-15
supreme court: 2021-12-15
Decisión: 2021-12-15

Estado

resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada

Resultado

Cassation admitted; the 15 June 2021 appellate judgment vacated in full; case remanded to a different Chișinău Court of Appeal panel. The CSJ decision was not subject to further appeal.

Resumen

No. The lower courts' conclusions were premature. A representative's self-declaration that the deposited object was original did not attest the truth of the submitted documents, and the courts had not examined decisive signatures, powers, pleadings and evidence.

Antecedentes

Certificate AP 5776/2017 for Tucano Design recorded Ruslan Cojocaru as applicant, author and economic rightholder for 55 colour images. Cojocaru said the filing and authorship entry were made without his instruction. Designer Andrei Tankulevici claimed creation during employment and separately sought registration of 80 works as Этно Мотивы; AGEPI refusal no. 1799/2019 cited the prior entry and pending dispute.

Historia procesal

The Chișinău District Court rejected the connected challenges on 27 October 2020 and the Chișinău Court of Appeal affirmed on 15 June 2021. Tankulevici sought cassation. The CSJ reviewed whether the lower courts had examined the application, powers, signatures, competing authorship positions and third-party requests.

Cuestión jurídica

Could the lower judgments sustain the registration/refusal without determining who filed and signed the application and deposited sheets, the scope of authority, the actual relief sought and the competing authorship evidence?

Criterio

Fundamento decisivo

A copyright register file and declaration do not carry predetermined or conclusive probative force where authority, signatures and actual authorship are contested; courts must examine the complete evidentiary record and give reasoned answers to decisive claims.

Límites

The CSJ did not determine who authored the designs, did not finally validate or cancel AP 5776, did not order registration of application 1172/2019, applied the former statute and did not address AI. It is an evidentiary/procedural remand, not a substantive copyright grant.

Relevancia

administrativo

Referencias relacionadas

Peso del precedente

A registry application and self-declaration of originality did not by themselves establish authenticity or actual authorship. Courts must evaluate powers, signatures, creation claims and the whole evidence. The Supreme Court vacated the appeal judgment and remanded; it did not resolve who authored the works or validate/cancel the certificate on the merits. Integración/votación: Expanded five-judge civil/commercial/administrative panel; all five judges are named, with no numerical vote or separate dissent published.

Fuente

Referencia: Cojocaru / Tankulevici / AGEPI, file 3ra-1136/21, 15 December 2021
Enlace: Consultar fuente
Autoridad: Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Moldova, expanded Civil, Commercial and Administrative Litigation Panel
Tipo: individual national judicial review of copyright registry evidence; non-AI and prior statute
Tipo de evidencia: primary_full_text
Localizador: pp. 1-4 (facts and claims), 16-20 (analysis and disposition); declaration at p. 17; disposition at p. 20
Verificación documentada: Sí

Tankulevici v. Cojocaru, Tucano Coffee, Universul Restaurantelor et al., file 2a-958/23, 2 November 2023

Nombre

Tankulevici v. Cojocaru, Tucano Coffee, Universul Restaurantelor et al., file 2a-958/23, 2 November 2023

Cita

Dosarul nr. 2a-958/23 (electronic file 2-19165914-02-2a-15032023)

Tribunal

Chișinău Court of Appeal, Civil, Commercial and Administrative Litigation Panel

Instancia

apelación

Fechas

action: 2019-10-17
first instance: 2022-12-12
Recurso: 2023-11-02
Decisión: 2023-11-02

Estado

resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada

Resultado

Appeal admitted; first-instance judgment vacated; case remanded to the same district court before a different panel. The appellate decision states that it is not subject to appeal.

Resumen

No. The appellate court admitted the appeal, vacated the 12 December 2022 judgment and remanded the civil action to a different first-instance panel for full examination.

Antecedentes

Tankulevici alleged that he created the visual style and artworks used by the Tucano Coffee network while working for Universul Restaurantelor and later Tucano Coffee. He challenged the attribution reflected in AP 5776/2017 and sought findings of moral/economic-right infringement, publication of corrections, remuneration and damages. The record included employment and assignment agreements, the 55-image certificate and his later 80-work application.

Historia procesal

The Chișinău District Court rejected the civil action on 12 December 2022. Tankulevici appealed. The Court of Appeal reviewed whether the first-instance court had identified the exact disputed works, evidence and legal bases and had adequately addressed the claims.

Cuestión jurídica

Could the first-instance court reject the authorship and infringement action without concretely examining the claimed works, evidence and decisive arguments?

Criterio

No. The appellate court admitted the appeal, vacated the 12 December 2022 judgment and remanded the civil action to a different first-instance panel for full examination.

Fundamento decisivo

An authorship/infringement claim involving identified registration records and competing creation evidence must receive specific evidentiary analysis and reasoned answers; a conclusory rejection cannot stand.

Límites

The Court of Appeal did not finally identify the author, determine infringement or award relief; it is non-AI and concerns the same broader Tucano dispute. No later final merits judgment was located in the bounded official search.

Relevancia

autoria-output

Referencias relacionadas

Peso del precedente

A court must identify and assess the concrete works, creation evidence, register records and decisive claims before rejecting authorship/infringement; the decision itself does not settle those merits. Integración/votación: Three judges are named; the official publication gives no numerical division or separate dissent.

Fuente

Referencia: Tankulevici v. Cojocaru, Tucano Coffee, Universul Restaurantelor et al., file 2a-958/23, 2 November 2023
Enlace: Consultar fuente
Autoridad: Chișinău Court of Appeal, Civil, Commercial and Administrative Litigation Panel
Tipo: individual national appellate remand on authorship and infringement evidence; non-AI and no final merits holding
Tipo de evidencia: primary_full_text
Localizador: pp. 1-6 (facts, employment, registrations and relief), pp. 10-14 (appellate analysis, remand and disposition)
Verificación documentada: Sí