ABSTRACT In the spring of 2021, the Swedish Academy accused the national socialist website Nordfront of copyright infringement for publishing excerpts of poems by three National Romantic poets. Even though the works were in the public domain, the Academy argued that the publication violated §51 of the Swedish copyright law, also known as the protection of classics, which protects works by deceased authors that are of cultural significance against being reproduced in ways that can be considered offensive. Originally passed in 1960, this was the first time that this paragraph had been tried in court. The court ruled in favour of Nordfront, thereby calling the applicability of §51 into question. This article analyses the Nordfront case from a cultural, political and legal perspective. It compares the case to previous uses of §51 but also relates it to a recent initiative to establish a national cultural canon. The article finds that the use of the protection of classics largely reflects changes in the heritage and cultural policy discourses of the late twentieth century, where the conservative approach that shaped the formulation and early use of §51 has given way to a more liberal view of culture. Finally, the article discusses the role of the protection of classics and the canon debate in a contemporary cultural heritage context and reflects on how to relate to the politicization of heritage actualized by the culture wars.

The obligate biotrophic fungus Phakopsora pachyrhizi Syd. & P. Syd., the causal agent of soybean rust, is among the most formidable pathogens of soybean (Glycine max [L.] Merr.). The pathogen is now established in all major soybean-growing areas of the world and presents a significant impediment to global soybean production. Most soybean germplasm is susceptible, enabling the fungus to penetrate and colonize the leaf tissue, causing tan-colored necrotic lesions to form at the site of infection. Severe infection reduces photosynthesis and causes premature defoliation, which ultimately decreases crop yield and seed quality. Eight genetic loci, Rpp1/Rpp1b to Rpp7 and Rpp6907, that confer race-specific resistance to P. pachyrhizi (Rpp) have been identified. Rpp2 was identified and characterized in the soybean accession PI 230970 and fine-mapped to a 188.1-kb interval on chromosome 16, a region predicted to contain several toll/interleukin-1 receptor nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (TIR-NLR) genes. To identify Rpp2, we constructed a bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) library from the resistant soybean accession PI 230970. Sequencing BACs that span the Rpp2 locus identified 14 candidate genes with homology to the TIR-NLR family of resistance genes. Of these, seven are predicted to encode full-length R proteins. Co-silencing the Rpp2 candidate genes compromised resistance in soybean accession PI 230970. Gene expression analysis suggests that a single gene, Rpp2C7_PI, which shares the greatest homology to Rpp2C6_Wms82 (Glyma.16G136600) in the Williams 82 reference genome, is responsible for Rpp2-mediated resistance. [Formula: see text] The author(s) have dedicated the work to the public domain under the Creative Commons CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law, 2026.

The copyrightability of mixed musical works, which contain a blend of human and generative AI elements, is an issue of increasing prevalence in copyright law. While there has been some discussion on the copyright status of fully generative AI works, this mainly resides in state law, and much of the federal policy found in Copyright Guides published by the United States Copyright Office is a non-binding opinion. Additionally, the same circuit courts contradict themselves, as seen with the differing views on the fair use of generative AI works in the Ninth Circuit Cases of Bartz v. Anthropic PBC (2024) and Kadrey v. Meta (2023). These issues combine to create a copyright “Dead Man’s Land” where the U.S. Copyright Office is forced to inspect mixed musical works on a case-by-case basis: an inefficient and ineffective mess for the modern day. This paper proposes that Congress pass legislation further itemizing the components of mixed musical works and only allowing generative AI to be used in one such component, alongside integrating state legislation. This policy would allow the U.S. Copyright Office to evaluate all mixed musical works under a unified framework. With the increase of artists creating mixed musical works, this solution only becomes more necessary as time progresses.

The development of digital platforms such as TikTok has encouraged the emergence of affiliate-based marketing practices in e-commerce activities. Affiliate marketing is a digital marketing system that promotes another person's product or service through a special affiliate link and earns a commission if a purchase or transaction is made through that affiliate link. Product promotion content has become one of the most effective marketing methods in the digital world. However, in practice, there are cases where affiliates reuse video content belonging to creators for promotional purposes and to earn sales commissions without permission. This study aims to analyze the provisions of digital video copyright protection under Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright and to examine forms of copyright infringement in the use of TikTok videos by affiliates. The method used is a normative study, employing a legal approach, a conceptual approach, and factual analysis. Primary and secondary legal materials were used in this study, which was analyzed descriptively and qualitatively. The results of the study show that TikTok videos fall under the category of cinematographic works that are protected as stipulated in Article 40 paragraph (1) letter m of the Copyright Law. Copyright protection arises automatically based on the declarative principle since the creation is realized in a tangible form, covering moral and economic rights. The use of TikTok videos by affiliates for promotional purposes and to earn sales commissions constitutes commercial use which, if done without the creator's permission, violates the creator's economic rights as stipulated in Article 9 paragraph (3) and potentially violates moral rights under Article 5 of the Copyright Law.

This article explores debates concerning the copyrightability of AI-generated content (AIGC) within Chinese legal scholarship through the lens of art law, calling for a humanistic approach to the interpretation of Chinese copyright law given new technological conditions. The three basic concepts that guide the analysis are the following. The first is "authorship," where the art theory's deconstruction of the artistic subjectivity should not eliminate the human creator as an author from the copyright framework of the creative artist. The authorship framework legally establishes authorship based on natural persons. Secondly, the article discusses the concept of "creation" and distinguishes spontaneous artistic expression arising from algorithmic generation. Thirdly, regarding the standard of "originality," the article points out that AIGC lacks the historicity and authenticity associated with traditional human representations of creativity. The formalistic criteria used to assess originality cannot be applied with equal weight when evaluating AIGC.

With the development of artificial intelligence (AI), which makes it possible for robots to carry out jobs that were previously only possible for humans, information technology has rapidly changed on a worldwide scale. Natural language processing-powered tools like virtual assistants serve as examples of this change. Simultaneously, generative AI (GenAI) has become a potent force in artistic creation, posing difficult legal issues with regard to intellectual property, especially copyright. The "output problem," or whether AI-generated works are eligible for copyright protection, is a major concern. Despite being created by humans, AI's ability to be creative on its own defies conventional frameworks that exclusively acknowledge human authorship. This raises questions about who owns the rights: the user, the programmer, or neither? When AI systems use pre-existing copyrighted content in their creation processes, the problem becomes much more complex. WIPO and other international organizations are actively investigating these issues in order to create appropriate regulatory strategies. In order to evaluate the burden GenAI places on copyright law, this article engages with international legal discourse and judicial viewpoints. It draws attention to the shortcomings of existing theories on originality and authorship as well as the more fundamental normative worry that widespread algorithmic replication could weaken artistic originality. In the end, it makes the case for a fair structure that encourages creativity while maintaining originality.

The convergence of artificial intelligence, blockchain, and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) has triggered a doctrinal crisis in copyright, contract, and evidence law across several major jurisdictions, including the United States, the European Union, and selected Asian legal systems. By 2025, over 70% of top NFT sales feature hybrid human–AI creations, yet most remain in legal and economic “gray zones” across jurisdictions. This article examines the challenge of partial AI authorship through a comparative analysis of U.S., EU, and Asian legal frameworks, revealing enduring gaps in originality doctrine, inconsistencies in the treatment of blockchain-based evidence, and contested approaches to smart contract enforceability and royalty mechanisms. Particular attention is given to the technical processes through which AI systems source, transform, and recombine data from public and private domains, raising unresolved questions of infringement, attribution, and authorship when copyrighted works are used without authorization. Drawing on originality doctrine, transformative use standards, and fair use principles, the analysis argues that legal protection should be confined to AI-assisted outputs that reflect meaningful human creative judgment and demonstrable transformation, rather than automated reproduction. Situating these doctrinal tensions within broader patterns of market volatility, regulatory arbitrage, and unequal access to justice. It concludes that adaptive, pluralist governance is essential to achieving legally coherent and socially sustainable outcomes in the digital creative economy.

Purpose Copyright laws have a significant impact on higher education, as it is crucial for teachers, students and university libraries to use copyrighted material ethically and legally. With the recent growth of the digital environment, copyright has become increasingly important. This study aims to investigate the levels of knowledge and attitudes toward copyright among teachers, students and librarians, as well as the role of libraries and library schools in promoting copyright compliance. Design/methodology/approach A systematic review approach was used following PRISMA guidelines. The authors used four major scholarly databases to extract the maximum relevant studies. Following the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 27 studies were included in this review. The authors also performed a quality assessment to evaluate the quality of included studies. Findings The findings reveal that copyright remains a persistent issue, and existing research indicates that students, faculty members and library professionals require more structured training on various aspects of copyright law. These include national regulations, digital licensing, international copyright institutions and legislation, as well as emerging copyright-related issues and challenges. The evidence points to significant gaps in awareness that need to be addressed through curriculum updates, strengthened institutional policies and targeted professional development programs. Libraries, in particular, have a critical role to play in promoting copyright awareness, ensuring compliance and advocating for responsible use of information, especially in the context of emerging copyright challenges in the digital era. Research limitations/implications This study provides implications for better practices of copyrights among the academic fraternity. The roles of universities, libraries, Library and Information Science (LIS) schools’ and professional associations have been identified to protect copyright through curriculum revision, information literacy instructions, training programs and using various online learning platforms. Originality/value This comprehensive review identified the need for cohesive collaborative efforts among key stakeholders, including universities, libraries, LIS schools and associations equipping students, faculty and professionals with the necessary knowledge, skills and expertise to navigate the complexities of copyright law, including in traditional academic settings and in the evolving digital landscape.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is a developing technology that creates unique images, essays, and other outputs based on a user’s prompt. To train AI to produce such outputs, however, the program requires a large dataset to learn from—datasets that typically contain many human artists’ copyrighted works. AI’s reliance on these datasets potentially implicates copyright law when its outputs bear similarities to human artists’ works. This Note focuses on the legal challenges brought by and available to freelance visual artists, whose livelihoods are particularly vulnerable to AI image generation because they rely on social media and informal work-for-pay relationships. This Note argues that the generally accepted Fair Use analysis that AI outputs are obviously transformative fails to consider the full implications of the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith decision and the potential impact of AI generated images replacing freelance social media artists. This Note advocates that courts should seize the opportunity of emerging copyright litigation to definitively hold that AI generated images are not inherently transformative.

Artificial Intelligence now is far beyond the scope of the first application as the device that helps humans. The existing AI has the power to compose music, draw, compose stories, create videos, create architecture and even compose computer code. The legal question, which this development raises, is: Who is the author of an AI-generated work? The copyright laws in India were fashioned in a way that could only allow human beings to produce works of creativity. With AI being a significant component of the creativity process, the issues of ownership, rights, and legal protection arise. The notion that humans are the only potential authors provides loopholes in a great majority of jurisdictions, providing that AI-generated works do not fall under the current copyright laws.

Artificial intelligence plays a significant role in automation, minimizing human intervention in fields such as medicine, art, and law. Despite the historically close relationship between art and technology, generative AI has expanded the potential for creative activity. A sufficient catalyst for this process has been the proliferation of pre-trained AI systems, that have accelerated development of technologies in natural language processing and visual content generation. The development of artificial intelligence determines a revision of established doctrinal approaches in intellectual property. The study aims to provide a justification for the legal protection of results generated using artificial intelligence. The key legal risk in the field is the lack of legal grounds for granting protection to such results under de lege lata regulation. Current “silence” of the legislator regarding objects created by artificial intelligence exacerbates the issue of legal uncertainty. At the same time, there is a significant risk that artificial intelligence itself will infringe the exclusive rights of third parties. Beyond intellectual property rights, objects created by artificial intelligence, may be unreliable and misleading, as well as violate personal data laws. These challenges highlight the need to adapt legal frameworks to new digital realities. The relevance of the study stems from the dilemma facing legislators: to recognize artificial intelligence as sui generis legal personality or to modify the protection mechanism by shifting creativity criterion within copyright law to an investment criterion within related law. The aim of the research is to resolve this dichotomy. The methodological basis of the work is based on comparative legal and formal logical methods. The scholar novelty lies in the comprehensive analysis of the hypothesis regarding the transition from the creativity criterion to the investment criterion. The article demonstrates that modifying the copyright protection mechanism by shifting the creativity criterion within copyright law to the investment criterion within related rights represents the most preferable vector of legal policy.

The creations of literary and artistic nature act as a unique feature for humans. The objective of the copyright is to protect the writer or creator of the original work from the unauthorized reduplication or exploitation of his accouterment as the copyright law grants the exclusive right on the creative work. In general sense, copyright society can be referred to as a legal body whose object is to protect or safeguard the interest of owners of the work in which copyright subsists. Further, it gives assurance to the creative authors of the commercial management apart from protection. Thus, a Copyright Society is an intermediary that links creators and users of copyrights in such a manner that promotes an equitable and profitable environment for holistic growth by way of providing the management of royalties and licensing facilities to the former and a diverse market to the latter. The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 covers the regulation of Copyright Societies in a clear and concise manner and further establishes that it is foremost the copyright owners and authors, who benefit from the membership in said associations. Despite the ever-present challenges and the increasing technological requirements to keep these societies functional, the need of the same still remains indispensable with its significant contribution to the global economy and the cultural development.

Recent changes in European Union plant health regulations require diagnostic laboratories to obtain ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation for all tests on regulated pests conducted under official controls. However, meeting all requirements of this standard is challenging due to the vast number of pest, host, and matrix combinations that require test validation and proficiency testing. In plant virology, adopting a risk-based systems approach to validation can help to meet ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation requirements. This approach acknowledges that workflows, which may consist of single or multiple tests, are used for the detection and identification of specific viruses, viroids, and phytoplasmas. For each test within a workflow, validation is determined through a risk analysis based on its specific purpose, and the entire diagnostic process is validated through the combination of tests. This approach could fit within the definition of a “flexible scope” as defined by the European co-operation for Accreditation. When combined with diagnostic expertise and contextual understanding in plant health diagnostics, as well as proficiency testing at the method level, this approach improves overall diagnostic proficiency in a cost-effective way and may facilitate accreditation and compliance with plant health regulations in the European Union. [Formula: see text] The author(s) have dedicated the work to the public domain under the Creative Commons CC0 “No Rights Reserved” license by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law, 2026.

Generative artificial intelligence poses a significant challenge to traditional notions of authorship. This article examines some of those issues through the lens of copyright law. By looking at the major input and output challenges issues raised against AI by copyright, we evaluate the ways in which generative AI is forcing authors to reassess how they create, and what it means to be an author. We examine some of the many copyright lawsuits pending against generative AI providers, as well as policy and legislative proposal in the United States and abroad.

Abstract The value of a creative work is realized through its exploitation. However, in China, a persistent issue arises when works remain unexploited even after the conclusion of an exploitation contract. This lack of exploitation undermines the valorization of creative works. Chinese copyright law provides only limited protection in the domain of paper book publication (Art. 34, para. 3 of the Chinese Copyright Law). In other contexts, the exploiter does not have an obligation to exploit the work. In other words, the exploiter can hold the exploitation rights under the contract but not exploit the work. This situation is detrimental to the proper valorization of works and compromises their potential. In contrast, European legislators have recognized a similar issue. To address it, Art. 22 of European Directive 2019/790 introduces a general right of revocation, allowing authors to terminate exclusive exploitation contracts in cases of non-exploitation. France and Belgium have both transposed this right into their national legislation, serving as valuable inspirations for the establishment of a general right of revocation in China.

This article revisits the right of communication to the public within the EU copyright framework, situating it in the broader historical trajectory of attempts to achieve technological neutrality in copyright law. It traces how successive technological shifts, from analogue transmission to on-demand digital access, have repeatedly exposed the limits of technology-driven legal formulations, resulting in interpretive fragmentation and uncertainty. Building on doctoral research conducted during the rise of streaming platforms, the paper argues that the commercial emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) marks a new stage in this ongoing cycle. Current disputes concerning AI training and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) mirror earlier debates about online access and communication to the public. The paper concludes that while a genuinely technology-neutral and legally coherent rule remains challenging to achieve, its pursuit is essential to ensure legal predictability and to balance innovation with the protection of rightholders in evolving digital environments.

Music and songs are copyrighted works protected by Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright. However, the rights of the copyright holder, as the owner of the economic rights to musical works, are often not fulfilled because coffee shop and restaurant business actors fail to meet their obligations by paying royalties to the copyright holder. Failure by coffee shop and restaurant business actors to pay royalties constitutes a violation of the economic rights held by copyright holders. The purpose of this study is to examine the legal protection afforded to creators for the use of their works, in the form of music or songs, for commercial purposes in public places such as coffee shops or restaurants. The research method used is a normative legal research method with a legislative approach, namely by examining copyright law instruments that provide legal protection for copyright holders, as well as copyright provisions related to royalties, particularly in the context of playing music in coffee shops and restaurants, and a conceptual approach, namely by examining views and doctrines consistent with the development of legal science. The data used in this study consist of primary data and secondary data. Primary data are obtained from legal sources, while secondary data are obtained from books, journals, and articles

The copyright disputes over AI-generated works essentially boil down to determining their originality and the proportion of human involvement. At present, there remain gaps in the ownership allocation rules based on the level of human input, and the existing copyright law also has inadequate provisions on the subjects of infringement liability and its constitutive elements. This paper conducts research based on the dual-track criterion of "objective originality + subjective contribution". At the qualitative level, this criterion not only aligns with the current technological level but also abides by the basic requirements of copyright law for the subjectivity of human creation. At the level of right ownership, classification shall be made according to the differences in human participation: where humans are fully involved, the relevant rights shall be enjoyed by natural persons; where human input is limited, reference may be made to British legislation to vest the copyright in "the party that has completed the basic preparations for the generation of the work"; where multiple parties participate jointly, the subject of right ownership shall be determined in accordance with the norms governing joint works and service works. At the level of infringement determination, it is necessary to first clarify the scope of liability of three types of subjects—algorithm developers, platform service providers and users—based on the principle of fault liability, and examine fault in combination with obligatory elements, so as to balance the contradiction between promoting innovation and protecting rights and interests.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is playing an increasingly prominent role in the analysis, reinterpretation, and even rewriting of historical narratives. Through powerful technologies such as deepfakes, generative models, and machine learning algorithms, AI can manipulate historical data and imagery in ways that challenge the integrity and authenticity of the historical record. These technological advances raise significant legal and ethical questions, particularly regarding the ownership and authenticity of AI-generated content, the potential spread of misinformation, and the risks posed by revisionist histories driven by algorithmic manipulation. As AI’s capacity to generate and disseminate historical reconstructions grows, concerns about intellectual property rights, defamation, historical falsification, and the distortion of cultural memory have become increasingly urgent. This paper critically investigates the implications of AI's involvement in shaping historical discourse, with a focus on the intersection between technology, law, and historical integrity. It explores how existing legal frameworks—such as copyright law, defamation law, and regulations on misinformation—apply to AI-generated historical content and whether these laws are sufficient to address the novel challenges posed by AI-driven historical revisionism. Through an interdisciplinary analysis, the paper examines the legal status of AI-generated works, the attribution of authorship and liability, and the tension between free expression and the need to preserve factual historical narratives. In addition to evaluating current legal regimes, this study proposes a set of legal and policy reforms aimed at ensuring transparency, accountability, and ethical standards in the use of AI for historical purposes. It advocates for the development of international guidelines and regulatory mechanisms to safeguard against the misuse of AI in historical contexts, while still encouraging technological innovation and scholarly exploration. Ultimately, this paper offers a balanced approach to managing AI’s transformative potential in historical scholarship, ensuring that advancements in AI contribute to, rather than undermine, the accurate and responsible understanding of the past.

This paper undertakes a comparative legal analysis of copyright protection for cinematographic works in India alongside established international norms, particularly focusing on the challenges presented by digital technologies and artificial intelligence. It critically examines how emerging issues like generative AI necessitate a re-evaluation of existing copyright frameworks to maintain a balance between safeguarding creators' rights and fostering innovation . Specifically, this study will delve into the complexities arising from generative AI's capacity to produce novel outputs from copyrighted material, thereby implicating the integrity of copyright protection and the evolving contours of personality rights . This analysis will also explore the potential for non-expressive use of copyrighted works in machine learning, considering whether such applications fall outside traditional copyright subject matter entirely in the Indian legal context. The paper will assess how various jurisdictions are currently navigating the intricate intersection of generative AI, copyright, and personality rights, examining recent legal developments and judicial interpretations. Furthermore, this research will investigate the unique architectural elements within Indian Copyright Law that might offer distinct perspectives on issues such as reproduction and adaptation rights in the context of AI-generated content . Such an examination is crucial given the global implications of AI-generated content, which can transcend national borders instantaneously, leading to diverse legal consequences across different jurisdictions. This comparative study endeavors to identify best practices and potential pathways for harmonization between India's copyright regime and international standards in addressing these technologically induced legal complexities.