On the current vision

Our view on the current version

The EU AI Act entered into force on August 2, 2024. It applies to nearly all AI models and systems made available in the EU, either independently or as part of a product.

As we approach the first year since the EU AI Act became effective, we have drawn the following conclusions regarding its impact on business regulatory risks and compliance burdens: the burden is high, even though the Act’s provisions still lack legal precision.

1. The EU AI Act functions as a complementary framework to existing legislation.

The EU AI Act repeatedly emphasizes its role as complementary to other EU legislation relevant to AI systems and models. Despite its title, the “AI Act” should not currently be seen as the primary regulatory framework for AI developers to define a full set of obligations. Its current value lies in how it references and integrates with pre-existing legal frameworks that already govern AI-related risks, including:

Data Protection (GDPR, ePrivacy Directive, etc.): The AI Act clarifies that data subjects retain their rights under data protection law. It means that AI system training, development, deployment, and usage shall respect data subject rights.
Intermediary Services (DSA - Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, formerly Directive 2000/31/EC): The AI Act complements the obligations for providers of intermediary services embedding AI. It explicitly acknowledges that AI systems can be intermediary services and be subject to the DSA’s risk management framework, compliance with which is presumed to fulfil corresponding AI Act obligations for certain risks.
Product Safety and Market Surveillance (Regulation (EU) 2023/988, Regulation (EU) 2019/1020, formerly Directive 2001/95/EC, etc.): For high-risk AI systems that are components of products covered by existing product safety laws, the AI Act compliance is assessed as part of the conformity assessment required under those existing laws. Notified bodies under those other acts are entitled to control conformity with the AI Act requirements.

Throughout the EU AI Act, there are many examples of such interconnectivity, either through direct references or by indirectly overlapping with the obligations of other laws.

2. The EU AI Act lacks standalone clarity and relies heavily on future implementing instruments.

The Act repeatedly mandates or empowers the European Commission and the AI Office to develop or facilitate a wide range of supplementary documentation, including guidelines on practical implementation, delegated acts for amendments, implementing acts for common specifications and real-world testing procedures, templates for technical documentation and transparency summaries, codes of practice, and common rules.

The documents related to General-Purpose AI Models must be developed by August 2, 2025, when the obligations for these models and the penalties for non-compliance are set to take effect.

As of now, the Code of Practice for General-Purpose AI Models remains in draft form and fails to clarify several critical points, particularly regarding the treatment of modified or fine-tuned GPAI models.

It is still unclear how current uncertainties will affect those covered by the new rules beginning August 2, 2025. At the same time, it is clear that penalties in Europe are strict and designed to deter breaches of the EU AI Act (Chapter XII).

3. To comply with the EU AI Act, businesses must first comply with other EU laws.

The complex and staggered integration of the AI Act into the EU legal landscape means that an effective compliance strategy begins with:

Identifying the technical and functional characteristics of the AI system,
Determining which legal frameworks apply beyond the AI Act itself.

Only after clarifying these factors can businesses assess how the AI Act overlays these obligations, particularly regarding:

(i) Transparency, which is often addressed through DPIAs and LIAs under the GDPR,
(ii) Conformity assessments under product safety regulations,
(iii) Data quality, which under the AI Act blends considerations of copyright, privacy, and consumer protection.

Without any limits

Serbia

Narodnih Heroja 38a, stan 1, Novi Beograd, 11070 Beograd

+381 61 6044 928 info@claims.rs

Finland

Vanha Koivuniementie 9A, 00930 Helsinki

+358 41 5461213 info@claims.fi

France

76-78 avenue des Champs-Élysées Staircase D, 2nd floor, 75008 Paris

+33 6 50 37 41 44 info@claimsip.com

CIS/CA Desk

+381 638 78 26 66 we@claimsip.com

Privacy Policу

Protection of intellectual Propery in Social Networks

We are committed to securing your intellectual property rights in social networks and marketplaces. Whether it's copyright infringements or trademark misuse, we have the knowledge and resources to protect your creations from unauthorized use.

Our approach is comprehensive and proactive, utilizing various strategies simultaneously to maximize the protection of your IP. From legal actions and utilizing the platform's reporting mechanisms to engaging in direct communication with infringing parties, we employ all available means to put an end to unauthorized use. By utilizing this multithreaded process, we ensure that no opportunity to safeguard your creative assets is missed.

Our team possesses a deep understanding of the procedures and policies of various social networks and marketplaces. This knowledge enables us to make prompt and effective decisions within these platforms, ensuring your intellectual property is protected efficiently.

We are well-versed in the intellectual property laws of jurisdictions where social networks and marketplaces are based. This expertise allows us to navigate the legal landscape and enforce your rights with precision and effectiveness.

Our experience extends to the protection of IT products and services, equipping us with the necessary expertise to safeguard your digital assets effectively.

The future of intellectual property cannot be imagined without the history of impressionism. Impressionism became a challenge to the classical canons and turned the idea of art upside down. By changing the essence of creativity, it became the first sign of a revolution in intellectual property law, the fires of which are already flaring up today.

We have analyzed the cases of some of the French Impressionists to understand better the complexity of copyright validity and prolongation.

In this infographic, you can see the years of life of the painters and the years of their copyright validity in France.

On 28 June, 1919, the Treaty of Versailles was signed, putting an end to World War I. This was a turning point in the lives of Western Europe, as well as IP lawyers.

For the first time in history, copyright was prolonged for the duration of the hostilities. For instance, in France, where the peace treaty was signed, the standard 50-year copyright applicable at the time was prolonged by 6 years and 152 days.

A similar prolongation was introduced after World War II (amounting to 8 years and 120 days in France).

In 1995, the European Union established common rules for member-countries. All copyright still valid at the moment was to be protected during 70 years after the author’s death.