International Comparative Legal Guide – Copyright Laws and Regulations, Greece 2025 – An ICLG publication contributed by Marios Sioufas
rights and avoidance of possible conflicts with existing rights has become an integral part of the Intellectual Property Practice.
The team has also developed with the addition to its clientele of a major Technology Transfer Office of one of the biggest universities in Greece. The variety of the IP matters in this regard has expanded tremendously, including patents, trade secret protection, agreements with inventors and other institutions and companies with respect to research and development.
In this regard, the in-depth knowledge and expertise in the field of IP has set the practice apart from other firms.
To download this chapter FREE
Contributor
Marios Sioufas
Sioufas & Associates Law Firm is one of the biggest Greek law firms, with a wide portfolio of clients. The law firm was founded in 1999 and operates in Greece, Romania. The offices are based in Athens, Thessaloniki, Patras and Bucharest. The firm’s Intellectual Property practice has skyrocketed in the last few years, with trademarks, designs and patents at the core of both advising and litigation. Numerous trademarks and designs filings have taken place over the last few years, both on a national and European level. Advising on availability issues of IP
1. Copyright Subsistence
1.1 What are the requirements for copyright to subsist in a work?
According to articles 1, 4 and 12 of L. 2121/1993, protection is granted to works that are original. “Originality”, a concept not defined by the law, is the conclusion that, under similar circumstances and with the same objectives, no other creator/author would reasonably be able to create a work of a similar nature, or alternatively that the work exhibits an individual peculiarity or a minimum threshold of “creative height”, i.e. some distance from what is already known. Therefore, the individuality of each work plays a vital role and reflects the specificity of the creative process of its creator, thus that the work possesses a “statistical uniqueness”.
1.2 Does your jurisdiction operate an open or closed list of works that can qualify for copyright protection?
Greece operates under an open list of works according to article 2 of L. 2121/1993.
1.3 In what works can copyright subsist?
Copyright can subsist in any literary work or work of art or science, expressed in any form, in particular written or spoken texts, musical compositions, with or without text, theatrical works, with or without music, choreographies and pantomimes, audio-visual works, works of visual arts, including drawings, paintings and sculptures, engravings and lithographs, architectural works, paintings, photographs, works of applied art, illustrations, maps, three-dimensional works of art relating to geography, topography, architecture or science. In addition, the following are protected: translations, adaptations, adjustments and other alterations of works or expressions of folk tradition; and collections of works or collections of expressions of folk tradition or of simple facts and figures, such as encyclopaedias and anthologies. Protection is also afforded to databases, software and preparatory material of their design, along with the C.A.D. file if source code is included.
1.4 Are there any works which are excluded from copyright protection?
Apart from the well-known idea-expression dichotomy, the following works are excluded from protection: official texts by which the State exercises its powers, i.e. legislative, administrative or judicial texts; expressions of folk tradition; news; and simple facts and data.
1.5 Is there a system for registration of copyright and, if so, what is the effect of registration?
Copyright subsists at the moment of the creation/authorship of a work and it is not subject to any formalities. To obtain a certain date as regards the existence of the work, one could either submit it at a notary public or utilise a timestamp service, such as the one provided by the Hellenic Copyright Organization (OPI) at https://www.timestamp.gr/
1.6 What is the duration of copyright protection? Does this vary depending on the type of work?
Intellectual property lasts for the life of the creator and 70 years after his/her death, calculated from the first day of January of the year following the author’s death. For anonymous or pseudonymous works, copyright lasts 70 years from the first day of January of the year following the one in which the work was made available to the public.
For neighbouring rights, the duration of protection is 50 years from the creation, material incorporation, publication or performance of the work (depending on the type of work), subject to certain conditions and deviations.
1.7 Is there any overlap between copyright and other intellectual property rights such as design rights and database rights?
As far as trademarks are concerned, the distinctive character required by law is not identical to the originality requirement of L. 2121/1993. However, a mark could in principle be protected by copyright, should the originality (for the design of the mark) requirement be met. However, there is a closer link with design rights, since the criteria of novelty and individual character could overlap with or meet the originality pre-requisite of copyright. Presidential Decree 259/1997 for design rights provides for the “double protection” of works that also fulfil the copyright criteria. The same applies for database rights that can either be protected by copyright or by the sui generis right of article 45 A of L. 2121/1993.
1.8 Are there any restrictions on the protection for copyright works which are made by an industrial process?
No, all works benefit from copyright protection regardless of whether or not they were made by an industrial process.
1.9 Would Copyright subsist in a work which is created by a Generative AI tool?
Only literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works have an originality requirement. In Europe, the work must be the intellectual creation of the author (reflecting their personality). This arises from Berne Convention: Art 2(5) states ‘collections…which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations shall be protected’.
Currently there are two types of AI technology. 1) Transformative AI: the AI is acting to transform something that already exists. 2) Generative AI: the AI is doing something new; it generates a new work entirely. This can be trying to imitate something that already exists, or it can be creating something entirely new.
According to ECJ, Funke Medien, C-469/17, in order for the subject matter to be regarded as a ‘work’, two conditions must be satisfied cumulatively. First, the subject matter must be original in the sense that it is its author’s own intellectual creation. In order for an intellectual creation to be regarded as an author’s own, it must reflect the author’s personality, which is the case if the author was able to express his creative abilities in the production of the work by making free and creative choices.
In addition, Advocate General Trstenjak opined in Case C-145/10 (Painer) that only human creations are therefore protected, which can also include those for which the person employs a technical aid, such as a camera.
More importantly, the AIPPI Resolution 2019 concluded that AI generated works should be eligible for protection by copyright if there is sufficient human intervention in the creation of the work. AI generated works should not be protected by Copyright without human intervention.
When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship. As a result, that material is not protected by copyright. Unlike ordinary tools, the outputs of which reflect the creative contributions of their users, the outputs of generative tools may reflect the creative contributions of the tool’s designer, or may reflect the intertwined creative contributions of the designer and the user. (J. Ginsburg & L. Budiardjo, Authors and Machine, Berkeley Tech. Law Journal, 2019, vol. 34, p. 409).
If the user of the AI makes original choices to create the AI generated work, the user could be characterised as being the author – or one of the authors – of the generated work. This is in line with Infopaq C-5/08, where it was held that a work is original if it is the “author’s own intellectual creation”. Selection, arrangement, etc., can confer and convey originality.
2 Ownership
2.1 Who is the first owner of copyright in each of the works protected (other than where questions 2.2 or 2.3 apply)?
The creator/author of a work is the initial beneficiary of the economic and moral rights in the work. Also, the director is presumed to be the creator of an audio-visual work.
2.2 Where a work is commissioned, how is ownership of the copyright determined between the author and the commissioner?
The initial creator/author of the work and the owner of such intellectual property rights is the natural person who accepted and executed the order, and not the person who placed the order. The commissioner becomes the owner of the copyright in the work in the case where, in the commission agreement, the parties agreed in writing for the transfer of the intellectual property rights in the work or the exploitation of such rights, pursuant to article 14 of L. 2121/1993.
2.3 Where a work is computer-generated (whether or not using AI), who is the first owner of copyright?
The are two categories for computer generated works: i) computed-aided works, i.e. when the computer is not the only tool for the creation of the work; and ii) computer-produced works, where the content and the expression is materially affected by the computer. When the computer is used as a tool for the creation of a work, i.e., graphical representations and architectural designs, the person who uses the computer and the program should be considered the owner of copyright. In this kind of works, the creator decides the basic elements and the final version.
2.4 Is there a concept of joint ownership and, if so, what rules apply to dealings with a jointly owned work?
The law provides for three types of joint ownership, namely collaboration, collective and composite works. Collaboration works are considered to be those created by the co-operation of two or more creators. Such persons are the original co-owners of the economic and moral rights in the work. Unless otherwise agreed, the rights are owned in equal shares. Collective works are those created with the independent contributions of several authors under the intellectual direction and co-ordination of a natural person. That natural person shall be the original owner of the economic and moral rights in the collective work. The collective work, like the collaborative work, is created by a majority of authors, with the difference being that there is no co-creation in the form of direct collaboration, but rather independent and distinct contributions by several creators who merge into a new work, the collective work. The initiative and responsibility for the creation of the collective work lies with a natural person, who takes the coordination and intellectual direction of the work, and that person is recognised as the original owner of the intellectual property right in the collective work. Composite works are made by parts that have been created separately and the authors of these parts shall be the initial co-owners of the rights in the composite work and the exclusive initial owners of the rights in the part created by the each of them, provided that it is capable of being exploited separately.
3 Exploitation
3.1 Are there any formalities which apply to the transfer/assignment of ownership?
Article 14 of L. 2121/1993 foresees that transactions concerning the transfer of rights, the assignment or licence of exploitation and the exercise of moral rights shall be null and void if they are not in writing. Only the creator may invoke the nullity of the contract. This provision establishes the obligation to use a written form for every legal transaction concerning a property right, departing from the principle of the atypical nature of legal transactions introduced by article 158 CC. Such a need for protection does not arise for the secondary beneficiary, i.e. the person who acquired the property rights indirectly from the creator, nor for the presumed author.
For neighbouring rights provided in articles 46-51 of L. 2121/1993, agreements are only valid if they are in writing.
3.2 Are there any formalities required for a copyright licence?
The same provisions as above apply.
3.3 Are there any laws which limit the licence terms parties may agree to (other than as addressed in questions 3.4 to 3.6)?
According to article 13 of L. 2121/1993, the licence granted can never include all of the future works of the creator and cannot be considered to encompass ways of exploitation that were not known at the time of the conclusion of the agreement. Sub-licences must also have the consent of the creator (for exclusive licences). In general, the exploitation of the work is subject to the moral rights of the creator, which cannot be waived. In addition, there are special provisions with regard to remuneration for licensing, publisher agreements and translations, audio-visual production agreements, radio and TV reproduction, theatrical works, music in cinemas and photography.
3.4 Which types of copyright work have collective licensing bodies (please name the relevant bodies)?
The collective licensing bodies are as follows:
- directors/screenwriters – SADA;
- composers/lyricists – AUTODIA-EDEM;
- playwriters/translators of plays –THESPIS;
- directors of photography/set designers/costume designers/sound engineers/editors – ISOKRATIS;
- creators of visual works – OSDEETE;
- authors/publishers – OSDEL;
- photographers – PHOEBUS;
- musicians – APPOLON;
- producers of audio-visual works – DIAS/IRIDANOS;
- actors – DIONYSOS;
- singers – ERATO;
- producers of cinematography works – ERMIAS;
- producers of phonograms – GRAMMO;
- Organization for Collective Management & Protection of Related Rights – TVRIGHTS; and
- Organization for Collective Management & Collection of Related Audio Rights – GEA.
3.5 Where there are collective licensing bodies, how are they regulated?
The legal framework for collective management organisations and collective protection organisations and of independent management entities is provided by L. 4481/2017. The relevant licences are issued by the Ministry of Culture and Sports, and the organisations are supervised by the OPI.
3.6 On what grounds can licence terms offered by a collective licensing body be challenged?
Recourse may be made to the competent single-member Court of First Instance or to mediation, for various matters connected to the licence terms of IP rights. The most common issues related thereto are the existence or not of a payment obligation and the exact amount to be paid, the public or private performance of a work and contractual terms that could be deemed unreasonable or that discriminate unfairly between licensees.
4 Owners’ Rights
4.1 What acts involving a copyright work are capable of being restricted by the rights holder?
Rightsholders can allow or restrict the following acts: a) the registration and the direct or indirect, temporary or permanent reproduction of their works by any means and in any form, in whole or in part; b) the translation of their works; c) the revision, adaptation and other modification of their work; d) as regards the original or copies of their works, their distribution to the public in any form by sale or otherwise; e) rental and public lending, as regards the original or copies of their works; f) the performance in public of their work; g) the transmission or retransmission of their works to the public by radio and television, by electromagnetic waves or by cable or other physical means or by any other means parallel to the earth’s surface or by satellite; h) to communicate their works to the public, by wire or wireless or any other means, and to make their works accessible to the public in such a way that anyone can access them wherever and whenever they choose; and i) the importation of copies of their works produced abroad without the consent of the author.
4.2 Are there any ancillary rights related to copyright, such as moral rights, and, if so, what do they protect, and can they be waived or assigned?
Moral rights are foreseen in article 4 of L. 2121/1993. Such provisions grant the rightsholder the following: a) the right to decide when, where and how the work is to be made available to the public (publication); b) the right of recognition of the origin of the work (paternity), in particular, the right to request, as far as possible, the inclusion of his/her name in the copies of the work and in any public use of his/her work, or, on the contrary, to reserve the right to claim anonymity or to use a pseudonym; c) the right of prohibition to distort, abridge or otherwise modify his/her work and any infringement of the author due to the circumstances in which the work is presented or communicated to the public; d) the right to access to his/her work, even if the economic right in the work or ownership of the material carrier of the work belongs to another person, in which case the access must be carried out in a way that causes the least possible disturbance to the rightsholder; and e) in the case of literary or scientific works, the withdrawal from the transfer of the economic right or of its exploitation or licence, where this is necessary for the protection of his/her personality because of a change in his/her beliefs or circumstances and with the payment of compensation to the counter-party concerned for the consequential damage suffered.
Τhe moral right is non-transferable between living persons, and only after the death of the author does the moral right pass to his/her heirs (articles 4 § 3 and 12 of L. 2121/1993). However, the consent of the author to acts or omissions that would otherwise constitute an infringement of the moral right is, according to article 16, a lawful exercise of that right, and the author/creator is thus bound by it.
4.3 Are there circumstances in which a copyright owner is unable to restrain subsequent dealings in works which have been put on the market with his consent?
According to the doctrine of exhaustion of rights (articles 3 and 41 of L. 2121/1993), the right of distribution within the Community is exhausted only if the first sale or in any other way the first transfer of ownership of the original or copies of the work within the Community is effected by the rightsholder or with his consent. In such cases, the owner cannot object to the distribution of his/her work within the Union. Moreover, the first sale of a copy of a computer program within the European Union by the author or with consent exhausts his/her distribution right of this copy within the Union, with the exception of the right of control of subsequent leases of the program or of copies thereof. As a general rule, for digital works, the rightsholders’ rights are not exhausted by acts of communication to the public according to article 3 of L. 2121/1993.
5 Copyright Enforcement
5.1 Are there any statutory enforcement agencies and, if so, are they used by rights holders as an alternative to civil actions?
Yes, there are – in particular: 1) the Authority of Special Inspections (ΥΠ.Ε.Ε) of the Ministry of Finance; 2) local Customs duty authorities; and 3) police departments. These agencies perform inspections of compliance with L. 2121/1993 and notify the rightsholders through the OPI (Ministerial Decision 101/2007).
5.2 Other than the copyright owner, can anyone else bring a claim for infringement of the copyright in a work?
On a general note, for civil actions, collecting societies can bring a claim for infringement. The same applies to heirs of the copyright owner, licensees (if such was agreed) and owners of economic rights and rightsholders.
5.3 Can an action be brought against ‘secondary’ infringers as well as primary infringers and, if so, on what basis can someone be liable for secondary infringement?
Action can be also brought against secondary infringers. The basis is common with the primary infringers, i.e. the violation of the intellectual property rights of the rightsholder. The secondary infringers could also be obliged by court to provide detailed information about anything related to the infringing article, product or service. Action could also be initiated against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right according to Directive 2001/29. This provision gives rightsholders the right to take action not only against persons who directly infringe the intellectual property rights, but also against third parties who mediate or facilitate the infringement.
5.4 Are there any general or specific exceptions which can be relied upon as a defence to a claim of infringement?
The main defences for such claims are abusive exercise of the right, claim of no damage suffered, private use, reproduction of short parts for expression of opinions or critics or for teaching, reproduction of works in schoolbooks, reproduction of works for informative purposes and certain uses in museums and libraries. There are also exceptions for software products, including reverse engineering.
5.5 Are interim or permanent injunctions available?
Yes. If an infringement of a right is suspected, the Single Member Court of First Instance shall order the conservative seizure of the objects held by the defendant as a precautionary measure. Instead of this measure, the court may order a detailed inventory of the illegal objects, including a photograph of them. The court may also order the conservative seizure or judicial sequestration of goods suspected of infringing rights under the law in order to prevent their entry or circulation in the trade. In cases of infringements committed on a commercial scale, the court may order as a protective measure the conservative seizure of the assets of the alleged infringer, including the freezing of bank accounts.
5.6 On what basis are damages or an account of profits calculated?
Infringers are generally liable to compensation/indemnification and payment of moral damages. This compensation may not be less than twice the amount of the remuneration normally or lawfully payable for the type of exploitation that the offender has carried out without authorisation. Alternatively, without requiring fault of the infringer, the rightsholder may request the payment of the amount by which the former became enriched by the exploitation of the work or the payment of the profit that the debtor has derived from such exploitation.
5.7 What are the typical costs of infringement proceedings and how long do they take?
For interim measures, the minimum attorney fees and costs of the proceedings are approximately €500, excluding costs of witnesses, experts and other related amounts, e.g. bailiffs. Civil action costs are categorised depending on the amount claimed. Court decisions with regard to interim measures are issued within approximately two months from the hearing of the case, while for civil actions the relevant period is approximately one-and-a-half years from filing the lawsuit.
5.8 Is there a right of appeal from a first instance judgment and, if so, what are the grounds on which an appeal may be brought?
If the appellant resides in Greece, the time limit for appeal is 30 days. If he resides abroad or his residence is unknown, then 60 days. In both cases the time limit begins from the service of the judgment closing the proceedings. If the judgment has not been served, the time limit for appeal is two years, beginning from the publication of the judgment closing the proceedings.
An appeal may be filed for numerous reasons, such as errors of law, errors of facts, contradicting reasonings and for not taking into account particular evidence. Descriptions of such grounds must be specific.
5.9 What is the period in which an action must be commenced?
Claims for unjust enrichment and return of profits are subject to a 20-year-period time-bar. The main compensatory claims due to illegal acts of IP rights are subject to a time-bar period of five years beginning from the knowledge of the damage, according to article 937 of the Greek Civil Code.
6 Criminal Offences
6.1 Are there any criminal offences relating to copyright infringement?
On a general note, for violations of provisions regarding the rightsholders’ economic rights, the law foresees the sentence of imprisonment of up to one year and a financial penalty of between €2,900–€15,000. If the benefit from such illegal acts is especially large, then the sentence of imprisonment is up to two years and the financial penalty between €6,000–€30,000. If the offender performs the above acts as a profession “or on a commercial scale” or if the circumstances under which the act was carried out indicate that the offender is particularly dangerous for the protection of intellectual property or related rights, then imprisonment of up to 10 years is imposed along with a monetary penalty of €15,000–€60,000, as well as removal of the operating licence of the business in the context of which the act was carried out.
The initial sentences of up to one year’s imprisonment and a financial penalty of between €2,900–€15,000 also apply to violations of the database right and to offenders that illegally use specific technology and systems that surpass IP technological protection measures.
6.2 What is the threshold for criminal liability and what are the potential sanctions?
For the abovementioned sanctions to be imposed, the threshold of criminal liability of article 66 par.1 of L. 2121/1993 is wilful misconduct according to the Greek Penal Code, even dolus eventualis.
7 Current Developments
7.1 Have there been, or are there anticipated, any significant legislative changes or case law developments?
Some of the most significant legislative changes are:
- L. 4961/2022 with regard to emerging technologies, whereby 3D printed works are included in the definition of works protected by intellectual property (L. 2121/1993). In particular, computer-aided design files (CAD files) are also now protected, provided they contain source code. 3D printers are also added as material carriers of digital reproduction, the use of which accords to the creators of works a reasonable remuneration. Rightsholder rights are enriched in this regard, as a licence is required for communication to the public on digital platforms of digital models, design files or design databases. Exceptions to such economic rights have also been introduced, along with limitations and certain obligations of the providers of digital platforms.
- L. 4947/2022 on the lifting of confidentiality/secrecy of communications, in order to discern violations of IP rights on the internet for serious crimes/felonies.
- L.4996/2022 transposed the Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright in the digital single market and 2019/789 on copyright in online television and radio programmes. Some of the new provisions relate to: text and data mining for the purposes of scientific research by research organisations or cultural heritage institutions; the use of protected content by online content-sharing service providers; and the reasonable remuneration of authors in cases of reproduction for private use when such reproduction is carried out using technical means, such as by computers, smartphones and tablets, etc.
- -L.5113/2024 introduces legislative measures for the implementation of the EU DLT Pilot Regime.
- The Regulation of the National Telecommunications and Postal Services Commission (EETT), which specifies the criteria for determining the fees to be paid to publishers by information society service providers, as provided for in article 18, paragraph 5 of Law 4996/22, has been submitted for public consultation.
7.2 Are there any particularly noteworthy issues around the application and enforcement of copyright in relation to digital content (for example, when a work is deemed to be made available to the public online, hyperlinking, in NFTs or the metaverse, etc.)?
EDDPI is a committee recently founded (2018) for the notification of violations of IP rights on the internet. It consists of an out-of-court mechanism to which rightsholders may resort in order to achieve the prompt and effective termination and prevention of the infringement of their rights in the digital environment. The aim and the role of EDPPI is to promptly provide for specific orders on a case-by-case basis regarding copyright-protected works and other subjects and matters of protection, while special procedures (live blocking injunctions) are provided for sports and cultural events.
With regard to copyright, purchasing an NFT work does not automatically transfer the rights of the copyright holder. The copyright in the underlying asset is transferred if this is explicitly agreed (usually through a smart contract).
In this regard, it must be highlighted that, by, virtue of L.4961/2022 on emerging technologies, data recordals or transactions in general can be effected through Distributed Ledger Technology-D.L.T. In court or other administrative proceedings, the existence of the recordal or the transaction, effected through such technology, must be proved by providing relevant data or information thereof. For the conversion of the data or the transaction from a machine-readable form to a readable form, an expert on cryptography could provide a report on this topic. Smart contracts have also been regulated by the abovementioned legal framework, i.e., L.4961/2022.
7.3 Have there been any decisions or changes of law regarding the interaction between copyright law and the creation and deployment of artificial intelligence systems? In particular, please reference any pending (or decided) disputes where copyright owners have challenged AI developers in relation to the use of works in the development of AI tools.
No. Greece has recently legislated (L. 4961/2022) on AI systems, although the scope of such framework remains on arrangements to establish appropriate safeguards to ensure the rights of natural and legal persons, to enhance accountability and transparency in the use of AI systems, and to complement the existing institutional framework for cybersecurity.
However, it must be pinpointed that according to the EU AI Act, the providers of general purpose AI models will need to abide by specific rules, including declaring that an output is AI generated, checking for foreseeable risks and biases, implementing data governance measures and providing specific documentation, etc. More importantly, and with respect to IP and trade secrets, they will also be required to make a sufficiently detailed summary of the use of training data protected under copyright law publicly available. In addition, providers should put in place a policy to comply with Union law on copyright and related rights, in particular to identify and comply with the reservation of rights expressed by rightsholders pursuant to Article 4(3) of Directive (EU) 2019/790. The abovementioned summary should be generally comprehensive in its scope instead of technically detailed to facilitate parties with legitimate interests, including copyright holders, in exercising and enforcing their rights under Union law, for example by listing the main data collections or sets that went into training the model, such as large private or public databases or data archives, and by providing a narrative explanation about other data sources used.
To download this chapter FREE
Σιούφας & Συνεργάτες | Γιώργος Σιούφας | Μάριος Σιούφας
For More Info
Contact the secretariat of the Legal Services Directorate at telephone: 213 017 5600, or send an email to info@sioufaslaw.gr and we will contact you immediately.