Bibliographie sélective OHADA

Generative AI has heralded a new age of possibilities and significantly altered the landscape of creation. What was once a niche tool has quickly become a de facto tool that everyday users employ to express themselves, particularly due to the rapid integration of such models into popular digital platforms. Accompanying the extensive usage of Generative AI are concerns from rightsholders regarding the tool’s ability to facilitate rapid and extensive copyright infringement. While complete regurgitation has clear copyright infringement concerns, the precise legality remains unclear for AI-generated output that has the potential to benefit from copyright exceptions and limitations. In efforts to reduce its liability, Generative AI models have introduced safety ‘guardrails’ to prevent, restrict, or alter prompts that it deems would generate output that might infringe copyright. While guardrails serve an important purpose in the face of blatant infringement, these also block or revise prompts which may benefit from exceptions and limitations, and therefore do not infringe copyright. Given these developments, the question of whether AI-generated output can benefit from exceptions and limitations to copyright becomes pertinent. Particularly in the realm of parody and pastiche, restrictions on such output pose serious freedom of expression concerns. This paper first explains how the applicability of these exceptions to GenAI output is independent from the questions of legality in the input stage, and ought to be kept that way. Thereafter, it examines the question of whether these exceptions of parody and pastiche under the EU’s copyright regime can apply to AI-generated outputs, and to what extent they apply.

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) now attract personal property rights but continue to challenge existing copyright law. NFTs consist of a digital file, which is either linked to or embedded within a CryptoToken. Copyright in a digital file is, as information only, exploited via communication to the public and making available, whereas a protected work incorporated in a tangible object, i.e. a painting, is exploited via distribution. So, where does this leave protected work incorporated within an NFT, and in particular CryptoArt? What is the nature of a CryptoToken and how does this relate to the underlying digital art file? The landmark case Osbourne v Persons Unknown & Ors [2023] EWHC 340 (KB) confirmed that NFTs are personal property, but the nature of such property rights remains unclear. Drawing on empirical evidence, this paper advocates how copyright law should be interpreted so as to treat NFTs as tangible CryptoAssets, with protected work, whether linked or embedded within the NFT, as incorporated within the CryptoToken. This would equate CryptoArt NFTs to paintings, enabling the distribution of copyright and legitimising secondary markets, which are central to the value and purpose of such NFTs. This reflects the position in practice, is technologically neutral and allows for technological development. It would also provide legal clarity, bolster business confidence, and ensure consumer protection in a rapidly evolving digital landscape. This paper also critiques the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025, arguing that the creation of a third category of ‘thing’ in terms of property rights adds further complexity and challenge from a copyright perspective.

Scholarship on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and copyright tends to frame its inquiry around Turing's question — 'Can machines think?' — and the normative challenges of the new Spring of AI. This paper asks instead whether the governance challenges of Generative AI (GenAI) are genuinely unprecedented, or a new iteration of the endogenous self-structuration processes that have historically linked technological innovation and intellectual property law. Tracing the evolution of creative guilds — from the Stationers' Company to the decentralised guilds of the digital economy — it shows that clashes between creative industries and emergent technologies have consistently been resolved through lex mercatoria before sovereign regulation crystallised. It then argues that GenAI's architecture introduces a collective-moral dimension to authorship that copyright frameworks built around individual creativity cannot accommodate. The paper advances two contributions: pictographic AI-specific licensing instruments modelled on Creative Commons, and protection of complex prompts as copyrightable expression. GenAI's diffusion, it concludes, calls for adaptive governance rather than systemic disruption.

The rapid proliferation of generative artificial intelligence has forced a fundamental re-examination of a question copyright law has never had to answer: can authorship exist without a human author? This article undertakes a comparative analysis of the international copyright frameworks operative in five jurisdictions — the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, and the People's Republic of China — set against the foundational international instruments of global copyright protection: the Berne Convention, the TRIPS Agreement, and the WIPO Copyright Treaty. Drawing on landmark judicial decisions including Thaler v. Perlmutter (D.C. Circuit, 2025), Li Yunkai v. Liu Yuanchun (Beijing Internet Court, 2023), and the CJEU's Infopaq line of cases, as well as the U.S. Copyright Office's January 2025 Part 2 Report on Copyrightability, this article demonstrates that the current international legal architecture is anchored to a human-centred conception of authorship that precludes autonomous AI systems from holding copyright. It further identifies significant and growing divergence in how jurisdictions treat the human-AI collaborative spectrum, and argues that this fragmentation creates regulatory arbitrage, impedes cross-border creative industries, and demands multilateral reform. The article concludes with a proposal for a WIPO-led harmonisation instrument built on the concept of qualified human creative control.

La politique chinoise d’injonctions antipoursuites (IAP) dans les litiges liés aux brevets essentiels à une norme (BEN) et aux conditions FRAND viole l’Accord sur les ADPIC. Les arbitres de l’OMC ont établi une doctrine de « non-frustration » en vertu de l’article 1:1, affirmant que les mesures nationales ne peuvent pas nuire aux systèmes de propriété intellectuelle (PI) des autres membres. Les IAP chinoises, assorties de lourdes amendes journalières, restreignent indûment les droits des titulaires de brevets en entravant l’application des droits à l’étranger et en faussant les négociations de licences mondiales. La Chine doit désormais réviser sa politique pour garantir la conformité et une transparence accrue pour les « affaires types ». Cette décision limite les effets extraterritoriaux des mesures judiciaires, favorisant une approche plus équilibrée des litiges transfrontaliers en matière de PI. China's Anti-Suit Injunction (ASI) policy in SEP/FRAND disputes violates the TRIPS Agreement. The WTO arbitrators established a "non-frustration" doctrine under Article 1:1, holding that national measures cannot undermine other Members' IP systems. Chinese ASIs, with high daily fines, unduly restrict patentees' rights (Arts. 2 :1 & 2 :2) by obstructing enforcement abroad and distorting global license negotiations. China must now revise the policy to ensure compliance and greater transparency (Art. 6 :1) for influential "type cases". This decision limits the extraterritorial effects of judicial measures, fostering a more balanced approach to cross-border IP litigation.

Fast changing of technology has produced a growing gap between law and technology, in which the legal control is running behind technology. Whereas law is retaliatory, the new technologies, including artificial intelligence, blockchain, biotechnology, and autonomous vehicles, develop in a proactive way and present complex challenges. They are intellectual property rights, privacy, liability, cross-border performance, and ethical uncertainty. Poor time lag in legislation, lack of technical expertise and jurisdictional issues worsen the situation. Possible solutions to such gaps include regulatory sandbox, technology foresight, sunset clauses, and micro-directives. Legal professionals need to be trained interdisciplinarily and interacted with experts on a constant basis. To control the multinational technological development there is the need to have global coordination. Active and adaptive systems are capable of defending rights and also facilitate innovation. Reactive to anticipatory governance should be altered in order to make sure that law is up-to-date with the societal and technological advancements.

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies presents unprecedented prospects and plight within the realm of copyright law. This article investigates the strained interplay between AI-generated content and copyright infringement in Cameroon and across Africa, where legal frameworks often lag behind technological innovations. The concern arises from the ambiguity surrounding authorship, ownership, and the applicability of existing copyright laws to AI-generated works, which poses significant risks for creators and innovators. The question on how does current copyright legislation in Cameroon and broader African jurisdictions address the challenges posed by AI is the core of this work. Legal gaps exist, thereby creating the need to address the constrains introduced by AI, necessitating a reevaluation and reform of copyright laws. Employing a doctrinal and extensive online search, findings of this work reveal that many African nations, including Cameroon, a member of OAPI, lack specific regulations addressing AI's implications for copyright, resulting in uncertainty for creators. The results show a pressing need for revisiting of copyright laws in Cameroon and across Africa, to ensure robust protection for AI-generated works while promoting technological advancement. This article recommends adapting copyright laws for AI-generated works, the need for regional cooperation to explicitly adopt standard definitions of AI and AI operations to circumvent infringement claims, and also incorporate a unified approach to resolve the debate on copyright protection on AI status recognition of authorship and ownership, to enhance legal certainty, creativity and innovation. Le développement rapide des technologies d'intelligence artificielle (IA) ouvre des perspectives inédites, mais soulève également des défis majeurs en matière de droit d'auteur. Cet article examine les interactions complexes entre les contenus générés par l'IA et la contrefaçon au Cameroun et en Afrique, où les cadres juridiques sont souvent en retard sur les innovations technologiques. L'ambiguïté entourant la paternité, la propriété et l'applicabilité du droit d'auteur aux œuvres générées par l'IA est source d'inquiétude, car elle représente un risque important pour les créateurs et les innovateurs. La question de savoir comment la législation actuelle sur le droit d'auteur au Cameroun et, plus largement, dans les juridictions africaines, appréhende les défis posés par l'IA est au cœur de cette étude. Des lacunes juridiques existent, d'où la nécessité de remédier aux contraintes introduites par l'IA et, par conséquent, de réévaluer et de réformer le droit d'auteur. S’appuyant sur une recherche doctrinale et en ligne exhaustive, cette étude révèle que de nombreux pays africains, dont le Cameroun, membre de l’OAPI, ne disposent pas de réglementations spécifiques concernant les implications de l’IA en matière de droit d’auteur, ce qui engendre une incertitude pour les créateurs. Les résultats soulignent l’urgence de revoir les lois sur le droit d’auteur au Cameroun et dans toute l’Afrique, afin de garantir une protection solide des œuvres générées par l’IA tout en favorisant le progrès technologique. Cet article recommande d’adapter les lois sur le droit d’auteur aux œuvres générées par l’IA, de renforcer la coopération régionale pour adopter explicitement des définitions standardisées de l’IA et de ses opérations afin de prévenir les actions en contrefaçon, et d’intégrer une approche unifiée pour résoudre le débat sur la protection du droit d’auteur concernant le statut de l’IA, la reconnaissance de la paternité et de la propriété intellectuelle, afin d’améliorer la sécurité juridique, la créativité et l’innovation.

Artificial Intelligence's (AI) technology growing rapidly has caused the newly added layer of complexity to copyright. It makes humans the essentials of the law swooshing in almost impossible,Who is the one who is going to be liable for posting? The paper describes the AI-produced content which has been available to the user like never before and it gives an in-depth analysis of the matter where the examples of legal uncertainties include authorship, ownership, infringement, and moral rights. The article is a comparative study of the legal systems in the US, the UK, and the European Union in the context of their AI works regulations and exposes the non-conformities and gaps in the existing rules on AI-generated works. The work is a discussion about the new approaches that are being implemented and the worldwide perspectives that are being explored in connection with computerized content phenomena, both from a regulatory aspect and through the new business model. The study is about the suggestions for the intellectual property field that is both open and supportive of the argument that the innovation should still be protected humanly and is capable of dealing with the existing AI-related problems up till now along with the chances that can arise in the future.

Trademarks are economic tools that aid businesses to communicate with their customers and capture a vast section of the population. Trademarks are only useful when used efficiently in the course of trade, meaning the higher the reputation of the mark, the more consumers want to associate themselves to the products or services the mark is affixed upon. This study examines the criteria to own a trademark and how ownership claims are handled between the African Organisation of Intellectual property as known by its French acronym OAPI and the competent domestic courts found at the level of Member States which has become a breathing ground for confusion in the resolution of disputes. Due to both bodies having concurrent jurisdiction in dispute resolution, the cost has become unbearable on trademark owners or beneficiaries of an exclusive license of exploitation, coupled with inconsistency in judgements from the two structures. The article highlights some key improvements expanding trademark subject matter and provides information on how the two institutions cited above handle matters of jurisdiction based on case law. The article also brings to the limelight how the OAPI administrative litigation bodies can collaborate with the competent domestic courts to arrive at clear and concise decisions. In conclusion the paper provides some recommendations on bridging the gap between both jurisdictions in order to attain the objectives of all parties involved.

The present article explores the implication of fairness as a regulatory and competition law concept applied to digital and Artificial Intelligence markets, in light of recent law and policy developments targeting the interaction between data, market power and competition law. Much of the policy discussions, legislative proposals as well some emerging case law elevate the matter of “fairness” in the context of digital markets and AI, creating both a novel regulatory framework as well as encouraging competition law to curb “unfairness” of said markets and related “unfair practices”. The interface between intellectual property rights and competition law is of utmost importance in this context, where we might find similar analogous insights as we can find regarding the matter of fairness within traditional EU competition law. Further, the question remains whether the “fairness norm” expressed in regulatory acts such Digital Markets Act, EU AI Act and the EU Data Act are akin to the “fairness” norms found in Union competition law, mainly under Article 102 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

The freedom of the parties to choose the applicable law to the merits is often presented as an important benefit of arbitrating disputes involving intellectual property (IP). Yet, the reality is more uncertain and controversial than is commonly assumed. Is party autonomy really permitted in IP arbitration? Should it be? This article answers these questions with regard to patents, trademarks, and copyrights, using recent examples drawn from arbitral practice. It first examines the situation where the parties only made a choice of contract law, and considers in this regard whether that law can and/or should be extended to infringement claims and/or the remedies to infringement, either directly or through the technique of characterization. After discussing the impact of overriding mandatory rules in contractual IP cases, the article then examines the situation where the parties chose a law to govern IP questions, including by way of a broad choice-of-law agreement covering non-contractual problems. It seeks to provide as much guidance as possible to arbitral tribunals, using mainly the distinction among infringement, ownership, and validity issues, and by distinguishing among different scenarios in which party autonomy is more or less acceptable.

La titularité des droits sur les créations intellectuelles des salariés est un terreau fertile pour les pratiques contraires aux valeurs éthiques ; et pour cause, le droit du travail et le droit de la propriété intellectuelle ne poursuivent pas en principe les mêmes objectifs. D’ailleurs, une question fondamentale a de tout temps jalonné la rencontre du droit du travail et de la propriété intellectuelle : celle de savoir qui sera titulaire des droits qui découleraient des créations intellectuelles réalisées par un salarié. La logique économique voudrait que la réponse soit en faveur de l’employeur, le salarié étant rémunéré dans le cadre de son contrat de travail. Cependant, cette logique économique est loin de correspondre à la réalité du régime juridique de la titularité des droits sur ces créations de salariés. De plus, il existe au sein du droit de la propriété intellectuelle deux régimes bien distincts qui ne concilient pas les mêmes intérêts : celui du droit d’auteur qui, par la prépondérance de sa nature personnaliste, a tendance à favoriser l’auteur ; et le régime de la propriété industrielle qui a plutôt pour but d’inciter les entreprises à investir dans la recherche. En optant pour une optimisation de la conciliation entre les divers intérêts en présence, le législateur OAPI entend préserver l’éthique dans la titularité des créations intellectuelles des salariés. À la question de savoir quels sont les mécanismes mis en œuvre par le législateur OAPI pour préserver cette éthique, il faut retenir que le législateur OAPI garantit cette éthique en procédant à une régulation tant légale que conventionnelle de l’influence du lien de subordination sur la titularité de telles créations.

One of the issues faced by many creative economy actors in this relatively newly established industry is the lack of supporting infrastructure, such as the limited access to financing and one of the prominent issues is banks’ reluctance to accept intellectual property (“IP”) as collateral to secure loans including problems concerning valuation of IP Asset as Collateral which has implications several regulation concerning Intellectual Property. In the spirit of furthering the creative economy, the Government has recently issued Government Regulation Number 24 of 2022 on Intellectual Property-Based Creative Economy Financing. This matters includes in relation with IP assets that are exposed and exploited their product (goods or services) on the basis of exclusivity in financing and loan contractual scheme as collateral. This article normative legal research in which intended for studies that are literary and practical works which is Intellectual Property (IR) system in relation with valuation and execution as bank collateral either Indonesia prevailing law and Islamic (Syariah) Law. The result of this research that IP owners often deal with complex contractual relationships that involve different forms of cooperation in research, production or commercialization. most important aspect concerning capacity and competency with comprehensive knowledge deal with IP Asset as Collateral before Banks, and others financial institution, execution of guarantees as applied to Islamic banking has adopted many syariah law, in the practice, there are still many problems the implementation of guarantees as applied to Islamic banking has adopted many Islamic laws. However, in the practice, there are still many problems that arise from the Islamic law scope the concept of justice and the philosophy of maslahah.

On trouve sur le marché une multitude de signes utilisés par les commerçants pour se distinguer de leurs compétiteurs ou pour mettre en avant la qualité de leurs produits. Ces différents signes sont régis par des systèmes de protection distincts pouvant souvent entrer en conflit. Cet article vise à présenter un cas de conflit entre une indication géographique protégée roumaine et une marque nationale individuelle Roumaine enregistrée ultérieurement One finds in trade a multitude of signs with the help of which traders try to distinguish themselves from their competitors or to distinguish the qualities of their products. These signs have different protection systems and often come into conflict. The purpose of this article is to present such a conflict between a protected geographical indication from Romania and a subsequent individual national trademark from Romania.

RÉSUMÉ Au cours de l’année 2023, plusieurs projets de loi, décisions administratives et judiciaires ont marqué le droit de la publicité et du marketing au Canada, tout comme au Québec.Cet article brosse un portrait général des principaux développements en la matière.Spécifiquement, il discute de certains développements législatifs, administratifs et judiciaires en matière de : (1) publicité fausse ou trompeuse ; (2) concours publicitaires ; (3) cookies et publicité ciblée ; (4) exigences linguistiques ; et (5) publicité sur les aliments et les boissons. MOTS-CLÉS Droit de la publicité et du marketing – Publicité fausse ou trompeuse – Concours publicitaires – Cookies – Publicité ciblée – Charte de la langue française – Publicité sur les aliments et les boissons ABSTRACT In 2023, several bills, administrative and judicial decisions have impacted advertising and marketing law in Canada and Quebec.This article provides a general overview of the main developments in this area.Specifically, it discusses legislative, administrative, and judicial developments related to: (1) false or misleading advertising; (2) promotional contests; (3) cookies and targeted advertising; (4) language requirements; and (5) food and beverage advertising. KEY WORDS Advertising and marketing law – False or misleading advertising – Promotional contests – Cookies – Targeted advertising – Charter of the French language – Food and beverage advertising

RÉSUMÉ Dans cet article, nous analysons la décision de 2023 rendue par la Cour supérieure du Québec dans l’affaire A. B. c.Google, l’une des rares décisions québécoises qui explorent la responsabilité des plateformes en ligne sous l’angle de la Loi concernant le cadre juridique des technologies de l’information (LCCJTI).Cet examen vise à déterminer si le jugement représente une évolution significative dans l’interprétation de la faute civile imputable à ces entités numériques, en vertu de l’article 22 LCCJTI.Bien que le jugement apporte certaines clarifications en enrichissant la jurisprudence existante, il introduit également des ambiguïtés qui rendent le régime de responsabilité des plateformes à la fois flexible et d’une sévérité relativement modérée. MOTS-CLÉS Éditeur – Faute extracontractuelle – Injonction – Moteur de recherche – Moralité publique – Responsabilité civile – Services informatiques interactifs ABSTRACT In this article, we analyze the 2023 Quebec Superior Court decision in A. B. v.Google, one of the few decisions to explore the liability of online platforms under the Act to establish a Legal framework for information technology (IT Framework Act).The purpose of this review is to determine whether the judgment represents a significant evolution in the interpretation of civil fault attributable to these digital entities, under section 22 of the IT Framework Act.While the judgment brings certain clarifications by enriching existing jurisprudence, it also introduces ambiguities that make the liability regime for platforms both flexible and relatively moderate in severity. KEYWORDS Editor – Extracontractual fault – Injunction – Search engine – Public morals – Civil liability – Interactive computer service

Face à la contrefaçon cybernétique, les mesures techniques de protection des créations de l’esprit sont apparues comme la solution indispensable à la préservation des droits de propriété intellectuelle dans l’environnement numérique. Toutefois, au-delà de leur grande diversité et au fur et à mesure de leur évolution, les techniques de contournement ont suivi. Face à ces utilisateurs habiles, il est apparu essentiel de consacrer une protection juridique des mesures techniques de protection. C’est l’approche adoptée par le législateur OAPI qui aménage une protection juridique des mesures techniques de protection à deux niveaux : une protection en amont, marquée par la prohibition des actes visant à porter atteinte aux mesures techniques de protection des créations de l’esprit ; et une protection en aval, marquée par l’aménagement des sanctions à la fois civiles et pénales lorsque les actes prohibés sont posés.

Les exceptions de fouille de textes et de données sont souvent évoquées dans les discussions juridiques autour des systèmes d’intelligence artificielle. Si les exceptions prévues par le droit européen sont souvent critiquées, elles sont également comparées aux exceptions d’autres pays. Cet article vise ainsi à préciser l’exception de fouille de textes et de données japonaise dans le contexte de l’IA générative, revenant notamment sur son apparente souplesse. This article focuses on the notion of «freedom to link» and its apprehension abroad (especially by countries of Romano-Germanic legal tradition) to draw the limits of this freedom. Second, it focuses on the identification of means for the protection of intellectual property rights affected by hypertext links when they are neither regulated nor well regulated/apprehended by the jurisprudence in Brazil.

The OAPI member states constitute a space for theharmonization of copyright in Africa. This harmonizationis yet to be completed, as attested by the conventionalrules relating to the publishing contract. In addition,investigating about the publishing contract in the OAPIspace requires an examination of both the text of theBangui Agreement and that of the national laws of the 17member states. Some differences must be pointed outkeeping in mind the question of possible conflict of laws.