Mónaco: parcial. La Ley 491 protege sin formalidad, pero el sistema vigente y la jurisprudencia parten de autor personal, elecciones creativas y aporte intelectual humano; no existe ficción de obra generada por computadora. El output autónomo queda fuera bajo la mejor lectura. Sólo la expresión humana original, identificable y probada puede protegerse; productor, fijación, audiovisual, fonograma, software, selección/arreglo y conexos son capas separadas. No hay registro constitutivo ni acto GenAI individual verificado.
Investigación abierta. Corte general del Atlas: 31 de agosto de 2026. Cobertura no significa revisión completa ni vigencia certificada.
Marco y alcance
Autonomous output: Law No. 491 does not expressly say natural person or exclude AI, so the result is a reasoned national-law inference rather than a direct statutory sentence. Life/death duration, paternity, honor/reputation and a moral right attached to the person's author, together with TPI 2018 human choices, the First President's 2002 statement on intellectual contribution of persons, the official humanist description and no CGW fiction, make no the best current answer for model-determined expression. Official policy corroboration: the Superior Audit Commission's human-only statement and suggestion of a sui generis regime support the reading that current law does not already vest autonomous outputs. Because the Commission is not a court adjudicating authorship or a legislature, its report is not used alone and cannot turn a proposal into enacted law. Pending reform: Bill No. 1045 is deliberately quarantined. Its human-creation, originality, audiovisual producer and related-right provisions show proposed modernization. Draft art. 104 and the 2026 committee agenda prove it had not replaced Law No. 491; no draft rule is applied as law. Prompting and iteration: a sufficiently original human prompt may be a separate literary object, but an idea, system, method, desired style, instruction or outcome is not the model-generated expression. Prompt count, retries, seed, temperature, selection, rejection, account ownership, payment, compute, intention and provider terms are evidence only, not a substitute for identifiable human expression. Assisted work: TPI 2018 is tool-neutral in the useful sense that digital RAW files, metadata and post-processing could prove human choices. Human writing, drawing, photography, performance, code, masking, compositing, retouching, inpainting, frame editing, color/contrast work or selection/arrangement may be protected only to the extent that original human expression is perceptible and proven in the final object. Separability: Law art. 7 permits separate exploitation of a personal contribution in a divisible collaboration and arts. 4-5 protect human transformation. Those provisions do not make the system a coauthor or give the human the model residue. If the claimed human and model components cannot be mapped, the whole-output claim remains high risk. Ideas and effort: TPI 2017 excludes ideas, concepts, know-how, methods, techniques, systems and services and puts the burden on the claimant. Expertise, labor, pedagogical architecture, commercial success and investment therefore cannot replace work qualification and authorship. Software: Monaco Télécom states that programs are protected because persons intellectually contribute to their coded form, but its procedural result was only an expert appointment before judgment on execution difficulties. The 2013 DVL case adds a proof gate: a claimant must identify and document the precise program part personally created. Model, application, source code, prompt library, fine-tune and output are different objects; rights in code do not propagate to outputs without a statutory bridge. Computer-assisted-design false positive: MOLIPOR records a party's allegation that drawings were made by CAO. The Court did not adopt it as a holding on authorship and expressly declined to adjudicate the requested declarations of authorship. It cannot support a yes category for computer-created outputs. Compilation/database: no current express compilation or sui generis database-maker rule was located in Law No. 491. A human selection/arrangement may plausibly be analyzed as original expression or transformation, but labor, volume and investment alone do not suffice. A database's legal-deposit status has no subsistence effect. Audiovisual: cinematographic works are listed, but current Law No. 491 has no special producer-author or necessary-arrangements clause. Creative human contributions and chain of title must be proved separately. Bill No. 1045's proposed producer rules and Law No. 544 business/visa authorization cannot be substituted for a current authorship rule. Phonogram/fixation/broadcast: Rome, Phonograms, Law No. 1.472 and its implementing tariff may create object-specific related rights or remuneration. The domestic statute is narrow and tied to TV retransmission/recording. No located authority generalizes first fixation or investment into authorship of synthetic lyrics, images, music, voice or frames. Performer: a captured human performance remains a separate rights object. A wholly synthetic voice/avatar is not shown by the located texts to be a human performer. The presence of a related right in a recording or broadcast does not cure absent human authorship in underlying expression. Ownership: sale, assignment, commission, employer status or contract can allocate rights only after a protected work exists. The commissioned portrait/bust presumption in art. 10 is a transfer presumption, not authorship or originality. Corporate control does not manufacture an author. No fixation shortcut: Law No. 491 contains no general fixation requirement or fixation-based authorship. Making a file tangible may prove existence and enable a related right, but it cannot by itself create authorial protection in autonomous expression. Registration architecture: art. 1 makes protection automatic. The TPI's Soleau holding directly establishes that deposit before the Monaco IP Division does not suffice to qualify content as a work. Since Ordonnance 5.451/2015 the legal-deposit office is the Médiathèque Communale; the deposit remains for patrimony and consultation, so a number, receipt or seal is not a merits decision. Individual outcomes: no qualifying public GenAI grant or denial was found. A filing, deposit, generic certificate, © notice, CMO repertoire/license, ISBN, cinema visa, NFT, patent, trade mark, design, press statement or AI mention is excluded unless an individual decision states the protected/denied scope and reasons. Constitution and treaties: property protection presupposes a right recognized by ordinary law and does not create authorless rights of authorship. Berne removes formalities and governs international protection; Rome and Phonograms protect separate objects. WCT/WPPT signatures were not misreported as ratification. None creates a machine author. Jurisdiction: French law, EU directives and CJEU originality cases are not controlling merely by proximity. A Monaco court has expressly stated non-membership and non-application in the context before it. Only national statutes/cases and binding treaties were used for the operative rule. Evidence quality: high for official statutory, judicial, Gazette and parliamentary sources; medium-high for the human-authorship inference; medium for hybrid separability and producer/fixation; medium-low for negative public practice because protection is unregistered, AI disclosure is not required and Legimonaco publishes only a selection of decisions. Defenses and failure modes: no human author; no original expression; idea/method only; model residue not separable; prompt or investment substituted for expression; producer/fixation/CMO/deposit miscast as authorship; software ownership miscast as output ownership; assignment miscast as subsistence; synthetic performer; third-party material; false foreign-law import; no AI disclosure. Atomic exclusions: this issue does not decide training/TDM, infringement or substantial taking, privacy/data protection, image/voice/personality, passing off, unfair competition, platform contract, trade secret, patent, trade mark, design, cultural-property rules or general AI regulation except to avoid category error.
Limitaciones documentadas
No se localizó sentencia monégasca ni acto administrativo motivado que resuelva directamente autoría, originalidad, prompting, edición, separabilidad o disclosure de un output GenAI. La Ley 491 no define expresamente al autor como persona física ni formula una definición general de originalidad; la conclusión humana es sistemática y jurisprudencial, no una exclusión GenAI textual. El Projet de loi 1045 seguía en estudio en marzo de 2026; no se localizaron actas posteriores que demostraran adopción y no se evaluó un eventual texto consolidado de comisión no publicado. No se verificó un registro estatal general de obras, pero pueden existir enveloppes, depósitos, correspondencia o archivos probatorios físicos/no indexados que no constituyen grants. No existe índice público completo de concesiones, negativas, retiros, recursos, repertorios CMO o depósitos legales; IA puede no revelarse en título o expediente. Legimonaco declara que su jurisprudencia publicada es una selección. No se localizó autoridad vigente que atribuya una obra audiovisual enteramente sintética a productor, director, usuario o persona que haga arreglos necesarios. El alcance general doméstico de derechos conexos fuera de la Ley 1.472 televisiva y los tratados fragmentarios no está codificado en una ley moderna publicada; el proyecto propone completar precisamente esa brecha. No se localizó regla o caso nacional vigente de compilación GenAI, selección/arreglo asistido o derecho sui generis del fabricante de base de datos. No se localizó autoridad sobre si una voz/avatar enteramente sintético puede activar derechos de intérprete; la mejor lectura separa performance humana de síntesis. No se obtuvo guía administrativa oficial de IA/derecho de autor ni manual de examen/depósito; el informe de la Commission Supérieure des Comptes es política/auditoría, no guía decisoria. WCT y WPPT constan firmados pero sin instrumento/entrada en vigor para Monaco en WIPO al corte; un cambio posterior de tratado debe revalidarse. No se realizó auditoría manual página por página de cada Journal de Monaco 2023-2026; OCR, anexos, scans y material no publicado limitan los resultados cero. No se recuperó en el resultado oficial localizado el texto íntegro del arrêt de Monaco Télécom de 22 enero 2002; la decisión de 13 mayo sólo lo describe y resuelve provisionalmente dificultades de ejecución.