{"id":10843,"date":"2026-02-11T17:22:34","date_gmt":"2026-02-11T15:22:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/legalaccelerators.com\/?p=10843"},"modified":"2026-02-11T18:53:31","modified_gmt":"2026-02-11T16:53:31","slug":"balancing-innovation-and-protection-inside-aippis-2025-resolution-q295-on-ai-copyright","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/legalaccelerators.com\/ro\/balancing-innovation-and-protection-inside-aippis-2025-resolution-q295-on-ai-copyright\/","title":{"rendered":"Balancing Innovation and Protection: Inside AIPPI\u2019s 2025 Resolution Q295 on AI &amp; Copyright"},"content":{"rendered":"<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"10843\" class=\"elementor elementor-10843\" data-elementor-post-type=\"post\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-030f71d e-flex e-con-boxed e-con e-parent\" data-id=\"030f71d\" data-element_type=\"container\" data-e-type=\"container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"e-con-inner\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-9ac95fb elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"9ac95fb\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<h2><b>AI, Copyright, and the AIPPI Resolution Q295 (2025)<\/b><\/h2>\n<p>AI has pushed copyright into new territory, especially around the use of protected works for training and the legal status of AI outputs.<\/p>\n<p>At the <strong>2025 AIPPI World Congress in Yokohama<\/strong>, the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) adopted <strong>Resolution Q295 (\u201cAI &amp; Copyright\u201d)<\/strong>, a detailed harmonization proposal on these issues.<\/p>\n<p>AIPPI described Q295 as <em>\u201cprobably the most important work that has been written on the subject to date.\u201d<\/em> (AIPPI\u2019s own characterization: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.aippi.org\/news\/aippi-adopts-four-important-resolutions-at-the-2025-yokohama-world-congress\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.aippi.org\/news\/aippi-adopts-four-important-resolutions-at-the-2025-yokohama-world-congress\/<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Note:<\/strong> Q295 is not binding law. It is a policy blueprint aimed at guiding legislators and stakeholders.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<hr>\n<h3>&nbsp;<\/h3>\n<h3>1) Training rule: authorization as the default<\/h3>\n<p>Q295\u2019s baseline is clear: using copyrighted works to train AI should require <strong>prior authorization<\/strong>, unless an exception applies.<\/p>\n<h3>&nbsp;<\/h3>\n<h3>2) Exceptions: existing exceptions + a public-interest carve-out<\/h3>\n<p>Q295 emphasizes two tracks:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>General exceptions still apply<\/strong> (training should benefit from the same exceptions available for other uses, if legal conditions are met).<\/li>\n<li><strong>A targeted public-interest exception<\/strong> is encouraged for not-for-profit training done solely for public-interest purposes (e.g., non-commercial scientific research or education). This exception should not extend to commercial exploitation of the trained system and\/or the training dataset.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Where a jurisdiction allows commercial training without authorization, Q295 proposes safeguards:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Right holders should have an <strong>opt-out<\/strong>, and<\/li>\n<li>If they do not opt out, a <strong>compensation mechanism<\/strong> should apply.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Any exception should comply with the <strong>Berne three-step test (Art. 9(2))<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<h3>&nbsp;<\/h3>\n<h3>3) Transparency obligations<\/h3>\n<p>To make rights enforceable, Q295 calls for transparency from the entity providing or training the system, including:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Adequate information about copyrighted works used for training (so right holders can identify use and enforce rights).<\/li>\n<li>Identification of copyrighted materials input by users and used for training.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>&nbsp;<\/h3>\n<h3>4) Outputs: how infringement should be assessed<\/h3>\n<p>Q295 takes several positions to clarify output disputes:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Outputs should be assessed under ordinary infringement rules of the applicable jurisdiction.<\/li>\n<li>Style alone should not amount to infringement.<\/li>\n<li>An output should not be infringing solely because training was infringing.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Scope matters:<\/strong> if authorization\/exception covers only training, outputs may still infringe; if it covers outputs too, they should not.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Moral rights remain relevant<\/strong> (authors may object to derogatory treatment prejudicial to honor\/reputation, where applicable).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>&nbsp;<\/h3>\n<h3>5) Liability: providers, exploiters, and \u201cdeliberate prompting\u201d users<\/h3>\n<p>Depending on the facts, liability for infringing outputs may attach to:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The <strong>provider<\/strong> (developer and\/or entity placing the system on the market),<\/li>\n<li>The <strong>commercial exploiter<\/strong>, and\/or<\/li>\n<li>A <strong>user who aims to generate infringing outputs<\/strong> (e.g., via \u201cdetailed and deliberate prompting\u201d).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>&nbsp;<\/h3>\n<h3>6) The AI system as an \u201cinfringing article\u201d + remedies<\/h3>\n<p>Q295 proposes that an AI system can be treated as an <strong>\u201cinfringing article\u201d<\/strong> where:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>More than a <em>de minimis<\/em> amount of training used copyrighted materials unlawfully; or<\/li>\n<li>The system was developed specifically to create infringing outputs.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Remedies may include (case-by-case): <strong>damages, injunctive relief, recall, and destruction<\/strong>, applied across:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Infringement via training,<\/li>\n<li>Infringement via outputs, and<\/li>\n<li>The AI system itself as an infringing article.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Q295 also supports <strong>damages and\/or an account of profits<\/strong> to address harm and the bypassing of consent, with proportionality in remedies.<\/p>\n<h3>&nbsp;<\/h3>\n<h3>Conclusion<\/h3>\n<p>Resolution Q295 is a granular harmonization proposal that frames AI training and outputs through familiar copyright tools: authorization, tightly bound exceptions (including the three-step test), enforceable transparency, and a tiered liability\/remedy model. Even as a non-binding instrument, it is likely to influence how future rules are drafted.<\/p><p><br><\/p><p>For more details, please check <a href=\"https:\/\/aippi.soutron.net\/Portal\/Default\/en-GB\/RecordView\/Index\/6327\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>AI, Copyright, and the AIPPI Resolution Q295 (2025) AI has pushed copyright into new territory, especially around the use of protected works for training and the legal status of AI outputs. At the 2025 AIPPI World Congress in Yokohama, the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) adopted Resolution Q295 (\u201cAI &amp; Copyright\u201d), [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":10853,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[71,60],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10843","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ip","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalaccelerators.com\/ro\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10843","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalaccelerators.com\/ro\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalaccelerators.com\/ro\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalaccelerators.com\/ro\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalaccelerators.com\/ro\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10843"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/legalaccelerators.com\/ro\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10843\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10856,"href":"https:\/\/legalaccelerators.com\/ro\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10843\/revisions\/10856"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalaccelerators.com\/ro\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10853"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalaccelerators.com\/ro\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10843"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalaccelerators.com\/ro\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10843"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalaccelerators.com\/ro\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10843"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}