ITALY Law and Practice Contributed by: Monica Riva, Alessandra Ottolini, Francesco Chierichetti and Giulia Ghidini, Legance
works of the human intellect and to works created with the assistance of AI tools, provided they are the result of the author’s intellectual work. Purely AI-generated outputs with no human creative contribution are therefore unlikely to be protected by copyright. Where AI is used as a tool, authorship will depend on the extent and nature of the human choic- es made in conceiving, selecting, prompting, arrang- ing or refining the output. AI systems cannot be named as inventors for patent purposes. The prevailing approach, consistent with the EPO’s DABUS decisions, is that the inventor must be a natural person. In AI-assisted inventions, inven- torship is attributed to the individual(s) who made the relevant inventive contribution. Businesses usually address ownership of AI-assisted outputs through contracts, internal policies, employee invention rules, assignment clauses and warranties concerning training data and third-party rights. 7.3 Training Data, Model Development and Infringement Risk Using copyrighted works or protected databases in AI training may raise risks relating to reproduction, extraction, communication to the public, technologi- cal protection measures and breach of licence terms. The risk increases where the user lacks lawful access or ignores a valid rights reservation, or where outputs reproduce protected expression. Trade secret risks arise where confidential technical or business information is included in datasets with- out authorisation, or where model outputs disclose or make it possible to infer protected information. Italian law implements the EU text and data mining exceptions in Articles 70-ter and 70-quater of the Copyright Law. Article 70-ter covers TDM for scien- tific research under specific conditions, while Article 70-quater permits broader TDM, including commercial uses, where the user has lawful access and the rights holder has not reserved its rights in an appropriate manner. Law No 132/2025 added Article 70-septies, confirming that reproductions and extractions for AI
systems, including generative AI, are permitted only in accordance with those TDM rules. Enforcement may include: • injunctions; • evidence-gathering measures; • disclosure orders; • damages; and • in serious cases, criminal sanctions introduced for certain TDM violations. 7.4 Enforcement Against AI-Enabled Infringement Infringers using generative AI tools may be pursued through the ordinary civil and criminal mechanisms available for IP infringement, including: • injunctions; • description orders; • seizure; • disclosure; • damages; and • orders against intermediaries where the legal requirements are met. Law No 132/2025 introduced additional AI-related provisions. It amended the Copyright Law to address AI-assisted works and TDM, added a criminal offence for the unlawful dissemination of AI-generated or AI- altered images, videos or voices that cause unjust harm and are capable of misleading as to authentic- ity, and introduced criminal sanctions for certain TDM violations. Evidence and causation remain challenging. In the absence of a special AI-specific civil liability presump- tion, Italian courts apply ordinary rules: the claimant must prove the protected right, the infringing act, the damage and the causal link. Technical evidence, expert reports, disclosure requests and preservation orders are therefore important. Platforms and tool providers may face liability depend- ing on their role, knowledge, control over the infring- ing activity, contractual commitments and compliance with applicable digital services, consumer, product
151 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook