Drepturi de autor asupra conținutului generat de inteligența artificială: cine le deține la locul de muncă?

Copyright on AI-generated content only exists under Dutch law if a human made creative choices that are recognisable in the result. Text, images or code that a tool such as ChatGPT produces from a short prompt and that you use unedited is in principle not protected, so nobody owns it; where an employee does add creative input, the copyright is in principle vested in the employer under Article 7 of the Dutch Copyright Act (Auteurswet), while a freelancer keeps it unless it is transferred by a written deed.

The terms of use of an AI provider settle less than they appear to. A provider cannot create a copyright that Dutch law does not recognise, and it cannot override the mandatory rules on employee works, moral rights or transfers. This article explains how the rights are allocated, where the infringement and confidentiality risks lie, and what the AI Act, the GDPR and the Works Councils Act require of employers in 2026.

Does AI output qualify for copyright?

Usually not, if it is generated from a short prompt and used as is. Dutch copyright protects works with their own original character that bear the personal stamp of the maker; the Court of Justice of the EU requires the author’s own intellectual creation, based on free and creative choices.

Output that results from the system rather than from human choices falls short of that test. Anyone, including a competitor, may then copy it. Dutch law has no separate category for computer-generated works and no registration route: copyright under the Copyright Act arises automatically or not at all.

Genuine human authorship changes the analysis. Selecting from variants, reworking structure and wording, and combining fragments into a whole with its own composition can produce a protected work. Document the editing step and who did it, because in a dispute the party claiming copyright must prove the human creative input.

Two other regimes can fill part of the gap. The Databases Act (Databankenwet) protects a substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting data. The Trade Secrets Act (Wet bescherming bedrijfsgeheimen) protects unprotected material commercially, as long as you keep it secret with reasonable measures.

Who holds the rights: employer, employee or freelancer?

Dutch law allocates copyright by relationship, not by who typed the prompt. Under Article 7 of the Copyright Act the employer is regarded as the author of works an employee makes in the course of duties that consist of producing such works, unless the parties agreed otherwise.

A marketing officer who writes campaign copy with an AI tool falls within that rule; a warehouse employee who writes a novel in the evening does not. Article 8 of the Copyright Act adds a rule for works published by a legal entity as its own without naming a natural person as author.

Outside employment the default reverses. A freelancer, an unpaid intern, an agency or a consultant keeps the copyright, and the client only gets a licence as far as the assignment implies one. Under Article 2 of the Copyright Act a transfer requires a deed: a signed written instrument, not an e-mail or an invoice reference. Sign it before the work starts.

Moral rights stay with the human author even after a transfer. Under Article 25 of the Copyright Act the author can oppose publication without his name, changes to the work and any distortion that harms his honour or reputation. Some of these rights can be waived for changes to the work (Article 25(3)), but the right to oppose distortion cannot.

Patents follow their own rules. An inventor must be a natural person, and an employee’s invention made in a job that involves inventing belongs to the employer under the Patents Act 1995 (Rijksoctrooiwet), with possible fair compensation for the employee. The bigger AI risk is disclosure: putting an unpublished invention into a public AI tool before filing can destroy novelty. Our avocați în domeniul proprietății intelectuale also handle the drepturi de publicare și portret întrebări care apar atunci când imaginile generate seamănă cu persoane reale.

What do AI platform terms settle, and what not?

Most AI providers state that, between provider and user, the rights in the output belong to the user. Their terms usually add an indemnity in favour of the provider, a right to suspend accounts, and separate rules for business plans on whether input is used for training.

Three limits apply. A provider can only transfer what exists: if Dutch law grants no copyright, the clause transfers nothing. No clause makes the output free of third-party rights, and the indemnity protects the provider, not you. And mandatory Dutch and EU rules prevail whatever law the terms choose: Article 7 and Article 2 of the Copyright Act, the non-waivable moral rights and data protection law.

In practice: let staff work in company accounts, agree in the termenii licenței și ai serviciilor where data are stored and whether input is used for training, and align employment and contractor agreements with the platform terms. Terms change regularly, so check the version in force when you use the tool.

When does AI output infringe someone else’s rights?

If generated text, images or code reproduce protected expression of a third party in recognisable form, publishing it requires permission. The risk lies with the party that publishes.

Dutch law has no general fair-use defence. The quotation right in Article 15a of the Copyright Act only applies to quotations in, for example, an announcement, review or scientific treatise, in proportion, with the source and author named. It does not cover generated text that silently reuses someone else’s phrasing.

The text and data mining exceptions in the Copyright Act, based on the EU Directive on copyright in the digital single market, govern the training of models, not your use of the output. Under the AI Act, providers of general-purpose AI models must have a copyright policy and publish a summary of their training content.

Generated code can contain open-source fragments with licence conditions, including copyleft obligations that clash with a proprietary product. Use licence scanning, require review by a named developer before commit, and keep prompt and version history to show independent creation. Our guide on dispute privind proprietatea intelectuală în Olanda sets out the routes if a claim arises.

How do you keep prompts and confidential information safe?

What goes into the model matters as much as what comes out. Under the Trade Secrets Act information is only a protected trade secret if it is secret, has commercial value because of that, and is subject to reasonable measures to keep it secret.

Pasting a draft contract, a client list, source code or an unpublished invention into a consumer AI account is hard to reconcile with reasonable measures, and lost protection does not come back. A non-disclosure agreement with a client usually forbids disclosure to third parties, and an external AI service can be such a third party, particularly if it uses input for training. Enterprise plans that exclude training and keep data in the European Economic Area reduce, but do not remove, that risk.

A refined prompt library or system configuration is know-how in itself. Store it with access control, mark it confidential and cover it in confidentiality clauses in employment and contractor agreements. For employee data, the rules on drepturile și obligațiile angajatorului aplică în paralel.

What do the AI Act, the GDPR and the Works Councils Act require of employers?

The EU AI Act applies in phases. The bans on prohibited practices have applied since 2 February 2025, including the ban on recognising employees’ emotions at work outside medical or safety purposes.

Obligations for providers of general-purpose AI models have applied since 2 August 2025, and the transparency rules since 2 August 2026. A deployer that publishes AI-generated text to inform the public on matters of public interest must disclose that, unless a human has reviewed it and someone bears editorial responsibility. The AI omnibus, Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, in force since 27 July 2026, postponed the obligations for high-risk systems, which include recruitment and staff management tools.

The GDPR applies to every prompt that contains personal data. The employer is the controller and needs a lawful basis, purpose limitation, a retention period and a processing agreement with the provider; transfers outside the European Economic Area need a transfer mechanism. Health data in an HR context are special category data that are rarely allowed in a convenience tool, and fully automated decisions with significant effects on employees are restricted. A data protection impact assessment is usually needed for systematic monitoring of staff.

Under Article 27(1)(l) of the Works Councils Act (Wet op de ondernemingsraden), an employer needs the works council’s consent for a system that can monitor the presence, conduct or performance of staff. An AI policy that logs prompts or measures output usually falls under that rule. Involve the works council early; this is part of the wider framework of Legea muncii olandeză.

Where does it go wrong in practice?

Four patterns cause most disputes. First, a competitor copies a published AI campaign and the company has no right to enforce because no human creative choice can be shown; register a trade mark or design for the elements that can be registered.

Second, a freelancer delivered material without a deed of assignment under Article 2 of the Copyright Act, and the gap surfaces in due diligence or when the relationship ends. Third, generated code carries a copyleft licence that conflicts with a proprietary product. Fourth, an employee used a private account or took the prompt library to a new employer; this is usually resolved with a acord de soluționare that also covers return and deletion of material.

Which contracts and policies secure your position?

Three documents settle ownership: the employment contract, the contractor agreement and the internal AI policy. Each covers a different relationship.

The employment contract should confirm that rights in work created in the job belong to the employer, with or without AI tools, and record consent to changes as far as Article 25 of the Copyright Act allows. It should require approved tools and company accounts. A clauză penală în contractul de muncă is possible if the statutory requirements are met.

Contractor agreements need a signed deed of assignment of existing and future rights, a warranty against third-party infringement and an indemnity. Ask whether AI tools were used and require disclosure of open-source components. The AI policy should name approved tools, list what may never go into a prompt, require a named human reviewer before publication, and set a retention period for prompts. Check the wider obligațiile pe care le au angajatorii în temeiul legislației olandeze înainte de a o aplica.

In international teams, copyright is territorial: protection in each country follows that country’s law, while the contract follows the chosen law. Mandatory employment rules of the country where the employee habitually works still apply. For groups, an intra-group licence or assignment keeps the rights where needed, reflected in the acordul acționarilor when the IP is a material asset.

Ce ar trebui să verifici ca angajator?

Most gaps are contractual and can be closed before a dispute. Check these points.

• Do employment contracts confirm employer ownership of AI-assisted work and require company accounts?
• Is there a signed deed of assignment under Article 2 of the Copyright Act for every freelancer, agency and intern?
• Does your AI policy list approved tools, forbidden prompt content and a human review step?
• Did the works council consent to any monitoring of AI use under Article 27(1)(l) of the Works Councils Act?
• Do the provider’s terms exclude training on your input and keep data in the EEA, with a processing agreement in place?

What should you check as an employee or freelancer?

Your rights depend on your contract and on what the law reserves for you. Check these points before you use AI tools for a client or employer.

• As an employee: does producing this type of material fall within your duties, so that Article 7 of the Copyright Act applies?
• As a freelancer: have you signed a deed of assignment, and for which rights and which payment?
• Does your contract or the client’s NDA allow you to enter client information into an AI tool?
• Have you checked generated code and text for third-party material before delivery?
• Which moral rights under Article 25 of the Copyright Act have you waived, if any?

What can we do for you with copyright on AI-generated content?

Gama de avocați IT advise employers, agencies, freelancers and technology companies; see also our articles on drepturi de autor asupra fotografiilor și când conținutul este public.

• We review your employment contracts and contractor agreements and draft AI and IP clauses and deeds of assignment.
• We draft an internal AI policy and prepare the request for works council consent.
• We check the terms of your AI providers on ownership, training use and data storage.
• We assess whether published AI-assisted material is protected and act against copying.
• We respond to infringement claims and negotiate settlements, including return and deletion of material.

Rezumat

• AI output used without human creative input is in principle not protected by copyright under Dutch law.
• Where copyright arises, an employee’s work belongs to the employer under Article 7 of the Copyright Act; a freelancer’s work only transfers by a signed deed under Article 2.
• Platform terms cannot create copyright or override mandatory Dutch and EU law.
• Employers must meet the AI Act, the GDPR and, for monitoring, the works council consent requirement of Article 27(1)(l) of the Works Councils Act.

Întrebări frecvente