Numerous experts are examining the topic of ’AI and copyright’ on a legal and political level. Quite a lot has happened in recent months. In February, the Federal Council chose OFCOM’s overview of the regulation of artificial intelligence as the basis for its regulatory approach. Based on this approach, regulations should be sector-specific wherever possible. Also in February, the Federal Council recommended accepting the motion by Councillor of States Petra Gössi on ‘Better protection of intellectual property against AI misuse’. The motion aims to regulate the situation in copyright law. CLTR 2025 dug deeper into the questions raised by CLTR 2024: How can copyright be protected without hindering innovation? And what legal conditions protect both creative professionals and users?

Franziska Raaflaub, a legal expert in the IPI’s Legal Services – Copyright and also an active yodeller, kicked off the event. With a humorous introduction (“AI can’t yodel”), she outlined the current state of regulation. In future, the use of works for AI will fall under Article 10 of the Copyright Act. It remains to be seen how this right will be exercised in practice. Various models are under discussion: legal limitations with or without the obligation to pay remuneration and the collective management of exclusive rights. In the latter scenario, a collective management organisation would manage rights and collect remuneration on behalf of many authors. Remuneration would be determined by contract or in accordance with a scale, depending on the model. Each of the various models would be supplemented with an opt-out system. Copyright holders could thus prevent their works from being used in an AI context and seek individual contractual solutions. A regulatory impact assessment (RIA) of these options is currently being prepared.

Next up was David Rosenthal, one of Switzerland’s leading experts in data and technology law. He explained how the use of content is changing. Nowadays, it’s often accessed directly via AI-based search engines such as Google. Users no longer have to visit the original source, such as a media company’s website. Data is obtained via the AI provider, often without the express consent of the authors. This calls existing licensing and remuneration models into question.

The third speaker was Chantal Bolzern, who’s a solicitor and entertainment lawyer. She highlighted various licensing models and their advantages and disadvantages in the context of AI. She also addressed personality rights: protection from digital distortion and deepfakes, as well as posthumous protection issues, i.e. the personality rights of deceased persons. As she explained, these issues would have to be regulated in the Swiss Civil Code (CC) and not in copyright law.

In the subsequent World Café, participants discussed three key questions in small groups:

1. Exceptions and limitations for AI – Are special exceptions in copyright law necessary for AI applications? If so, what exceptions?
2. Management and remuneration – Should remuneration be paid via a collective management organisation (e.g. by means of an extended collective licence) and would an opt-out system make sense?
3. Switzerland’s attractiveness as a business location – How can Switzerland remain an innovation-friendly location despite or thanks to regulation?

The discussions showed that participants recognise the need for a clear legal framework to effectively protect copyright in the age of AI. At the same time, there was broad agreement that innovation should not be hindered. Many expressed concerns about whether opt-outs should be permitted. They felt it was unclear how these could be implemented in practice. Several participants emphasised the importance of a pragmatic, internationally compatible solution to ensure Switzerland’s competitiveness as a business location.

The event was moderated by Felix Addor, who’s the IPI’s Deputy Director General and General Counsel. In his closing remarks, he emphasised the importance of dialogue between academia, business practice and the creative sector in order to develop responsible and sustainable solutions.

The findings from CLTR 2025 will feed into further political and legal work, particularly in light of the upcoming debate in the Council of States on the amended Gössi motion. If it’s accepted, the IPI will likely draft a corresponding bill. In addition, the findings will serve as a basis for further specialist events and exchanges with the industries concerned.