Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Resolution of the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property

The AIPPI World Congress was held in Yokohama, Japan from 13 to 16 September 2025. The event brought together more than 2,800 IP experts to discuss legal trends, vote on resolutions and share experiences.

Key issues included those related to artificial intelligence (AI), trademarks, patents and copyrights.

Experts from Denuo’s Intellectual Property and Technology practice actively participated in preparing reports with detailed information and analysis of legislation as part of the national (Russian) AIPPI group on the following topics:

1. AI and Copyright; and
2. Enforcement Measures Related to IP Objects (Requirements for compensating damage suffered by Defendant).

During the congress, experts from various countries developed resolutions on the development and harmonisation of IP legislation. These resolutions can serve as recommendations from the international IP community for judicial and administrative practice in various jurisdictions.

Currently, Russia lacks comprehensive legislative regulation of AI issues, while such regulation and even some judicial practice already exist in other countries. Considering that Russia is a member of all major international conventions in the field of IP (the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 1883, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of 1886, the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks of 1891, the Universal Copyright Convention of 1952, and others), it is believed that the resolutions will help in developing unique approaches to complex copyright issues related to AI.

The resolution on AI and copyright (Resolution) establishes a framework for balancing the interests of right holders and AI developers, aiming to harmonise issues related to the use of copyrighted materials in the training of an AI System, as well as the implications on whether the AI System itself and/or the output of the AI System can be considered an infringement.

Key Provisions of the Resolution on AI and Copyright

The use of a copyrighted work to train an AI System should require the prior authorisation from the copyright holder. Such consent is not required when it comes to non-commercial scientific research and educational purposes, if national legislation expressly permits such use.

The provider of an AI System or the person/entity training an AI System must provide adequate information regarding the copyrighted works used in the training of the AI System to enable copyright holders to identify the use of their works and exercise or enforce their rights.

An AI System output should not constitute copyright infringement in a work for the sole reason that it is generated by AI. The legal test for copyright infringement in the applicable jurisdiction should also apply to the outputs of a trained AI System.

An AI System output should not constitute copyright infringement for the sole reason that it is in the same style as a copyrighted work used to train an AI System.

An AI System itself should be considered an infringing article, where a) more than a de minimis amount of the training of the AI System was conducted with copyrighted materials used unlawfully or b) where the AI System has been developed specifically to create infringing outputs.

The Resolution defines the categories of persons/entities liable for the use of copyrighted works in AI training. In particular, depending on the circumstances of the case, one or more persons/entities should be held liable for output infringements: a provider of the AI System, i. e. the person/entity that develops the AI System and/or places it on the market; a person/entity that commercially exploits the AI System; and a person/entity that uses the AI System with the aim of and creating infringing outputs, e. g. by using detailed and deliberate prompting.

The Resolution proposes sanctions/remedies for infringements related to works used for AI training. These include: damages, injunctive relief, recall from commercial channels and destruction of the copyrighted products.

All sanctions and remedies should be available, imposed and proportionate on a case-by-case basis to effectively deter copyright infringement and adequately compensate the copyright owners.

* * *

Our next issue will be devoted to the resolution on enforcement measures related to IP objects (Requirements for compensating damage suffered by Defendant).