Copyright: from the printing press to AI

Intellectual property rights and in particular copyright seem rather abstract: they involve things you can’t see or touch, such as rights to texts, music or images. A specific system of property ownership based on reproduction rights protects them from unauthorised use. When the Swiss government introduced copyright law in 1883, it stated the following: “Without wishing to embark on a metaphysical discussion of the origin of this property, we shall content ourselves with the fact that, like any other property, it is the result of labour; it differs from purely material property in that, from the moment the author has published his work, the ideas contained therein are no longer his exclusive property, but pass into the possession of all those who appropriate those ideas. It is only fair, however, that the author alone should have the right to reproduce them in the form in which he has created them, and it is precisely this right of reproduction that constitutes what is known as ‘copyright to literary and artistic works’ [2].” Copyright law therefore states that authors have the right to determine how their work is used, but anyone can use their ideas.

Given the emergence of new technologies such as AI, it may seem odd to dig up a 19th-century parliamentary speech and look back to the times of the printing press. But ultimately, the legislator keeps coming back to the same old question: how can copyright protect creative works without unduly restricting the dissemination of knowledge and culture? Copyright history started with the dissemination of knowledge. The UK’s Statute of Anne of 1710 is regarded as the first modern copyright act: it marks the transition from the state-granted printing privilege for publishers to copyright protection for authors. For the first time, the ‘right to copy’ was granted to the creators of a work. That’s why we call it ‘copyright’. The Statute of Anne aimed to promote education by giving authors control over their works, rather than leaving publishers to decide themselves on the availability of books. It also gave authors a greater incentive to publish more books, as it made them less dependent on publishers.

Following on from the printing press, there were numerous other technological revolutions, such as new means of reproducing and disseminating works via radio, television, film, photography and the internet. It became evident that publishers and broadcasters needed protection as well as authors, since they help to disseminate copyright-protected works – and thus also the knowledge contained in the works. The question also kept arising as to what actually constitutes a work and therefore deserves to be protected. The last revision of the Swiss Copyright Act made it clear that product images and holiday snaps are also protected ^[3]. This development did not come out of the blue, however. The 19th century saw a shift from painting to photography, and it was initially uncertain whether photographs could even be considered works. It was argued that pictures were taken by the camera and not by people. However, in its 1884 ruling in ‘Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony’ ^[4], the US Supreme Court ruled, with reference to a photograph of Oscar Wilde, that a photograph may be protected if it represents original intellectual conceptions. This can be achieved, for example, through the use of light and shadow, the choice of clothing, the pose and the overall composition.

AI is presenting yet another challenge for copyright law. The legislator’s mandate for the above-mentioned regulatory project is as follows: “The Federal Council is mandated to create the necessary conditions to ensure that journalistic content and other works and services covered by copyright are afforded comprehensive protection if used by AI providers. It must be ensured that Switzerland’s position as a centre of business and innovation is not weakened or disadvantaged in the face of international competition with respect to AI research, development and commercialisation ^[5].” Once again, the question has to be tackled as to how copyright law can protect creative works without unduly restricting access to knowledge. The specific issues involved will be discussed in more detail in part two of this blogpost (in summer 2026).

^[1] Implementation of Motion 24.4596 Gössi (Link)

^[2] Dispatch from the Federal Council to the Federal Assembly concerning the draft law of 9 December 1881 on copyright to literary and artistic works, BBl 1881 IV 645 ff. 649 (Link in de and fr)

^[3] Information on extended protection of photographs (IPI)

^[4] Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884)

^[5] SECC-S commission report of 7 October 2025.