The provider of an AI system that generates synthetic image, audio, video, or text content must ensure that the outputs are marked in a machine-readable format as artificially generated or manipulated (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, Article 50(2)).
If a developer changes the intended purpose of an AI system already placed on the market in such a way that it becomes a high-risk system, the developer is deemed to be the provider and is subject to all obligations under Article 16 (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, Article 25(1)(c)).
The free distribution of open-source Adobe clones developed by Atlantase does not in itself make them unlawful, because under § 2(1) of the Copyright Act (Autoriõiguse seadus, hereinafter AutZS), protection extends only to the result of the author’s own intellectual creation. This means that similarity of idea, functionality, or user interface does not yet amount to copying. The real legal risk lies in whether protected elements have been recreated in the course of development: source code, an original title, or intermediate stages of creation, whose protectability is presumed under AutZS § 2(4)–(6) until someone proves otherwise. A second level concerns the use of artificial intelligence itself: where the applications generate images, text, or video, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (the AI Act) imposes transparency obligations on both the provider and the deployer. For users and the market, the current position is uncertain: the clones may be used free of charge, but each deployer bears the risk that some element may prove protectable or that AI outputs may fail to comply with labelling requirements.
In a dispute concerning similarity, the burden of proof lies on the party contesting protectability, because under AutZS § 2(6), the work is presumed to be protected, except where there is an obvious excluding circumstance. If the author of the clone created the program in the performance of employment duties or pursuant to the employer’s instructions, copyright arises in the author, but the employer holds an exclusive licence to exercise the economic rights (AutZS § 31(5), provision cited in source [15]). On the artificial intelligence side, the applicable obligations are precisely distinguishable:
In practice, two persons are material: the author of the clone, who must ensure that the work does not contain recreated protected code, and business users, who as deployers must comply with transparency obligations or avoid them by satisfying the conditions for exemptions. If Adobe or another rights holder considers that the clone contains copied protected elements, it may seek the consequences for copyright infringement arising under AutZS, while the burden of proof nevertheless lies on the party contesting protectability. In the context of AI supervision, the market surveillance authority may, upon a reasoned request, require access to the system’s source code where documentation-based checks have proved insufficient (Article 74(13) of the Regulation), and the information obtained, including source codes, is confidential (Article 78). At market level, this means that the competitive advantage of a paid software vendor will in future rest more on protected code and customer relationships than on a monopoly over functionality.
Where the management board refuses to provide information, an apartment owner may, within two weeks of receiving the refusal, or within six weeks of submitting the request if the management board has not responded within four weeks, file an application with the court in non-contentious proceedings to compel the management board to provide the information (KOKS Section 45(3)).
The legal position of a person purchasing an apartment depends primarily on the information received from the apartment association and the seller, and on which obligations transfer with the transaction involving the apartment ownership. The message of the article is that low utility costs do not reflect upcoming renovation costs; therefore, the buyer’s ability to review the association’s management and debt burden before the transaction becomes decisive. This is not so much a matter of transaction law as an issue of access to information, addressed by the Apartment Ownership and Apartment Associations Act (KOKS). Section 45(1) of the KOKS gives an apartment owner the right to obtain information from the management board regarding the association’s activities and to inspect documents, including the right to request electronic copies (Section 45(1¹)). However, the buyer acquires the status of apartment owner only later, meaning that before the transaction the buyer remains in the position of an “other person”, regulated by Section 47 of the KOKS. Section 47 grants the holder of a limited real right, such as a mortgagee, the right to obtain information on the amount of the apartment owner’s arrears in management costs and the grounds on which those arrears arose. The association’s debt position is also reflected in the apartment association’s statutory security right, the amount of which is determined on the basis of the annual report or, in the absence of such report, the management plan. The information duties of both buyer and seller derive from general contract law, but the practical recommendations in the article, namely to ask about repair history, loan obligations and debtors, correspond directly to the logic of the information provisions in the KOKS.
If the buyer is already an apartment owner, Section 45 of the KOKS applies to them in full: the management board must provide information on the association’s activities, including planned works and loan obligations, and must allow inspection of documents. The grounds for refusal by the management board are narrow: refusal is permitted only where there is reason to presume material harm to the legitimate interests of another apartment owner or a third party (Section 45(2)). If the management board refuses, the apartment owner may choose the route to be taken: require the matter to be resolved at a general meeting or apply to the court in non-contentious proceedings for an order obliging the management board to provide the information. Before acquiring ownership, the buyer cannot yet exercise these rights, which is why the article recommends putting questions to the seller and broker and seeking additional information from the association on a voluntary basis. The sources do not establish a separate disclosure obligation for the seller, but pre-contractual negotiations nevertheless require the accurate presentation of relevant circumstances. The apartment association’s own information duties towards its members are structured in the KOKS: an apartment owner must notify the association of their contact details and, where necessary, the postal address of their residence (Section 46(1)–(2)); failing this, the location of the apartment ownership is deemed to be their residence (Section 46(3)). In the context of financing upcoming major works, it is important that the apartment association’s statutory security right is reflected in the annual report or management plan; knowledge of this enables assessment of the burden associated with the transaction. If the works have been planned but not yet decided, the decision-making authority of the general meeting remains after the change of owner, meaning that the buyer, as a new member, can participate in decisions concerning both the scope of the works and the method of financing.
In practical terms, this means that a buyer who does not request prior information bears the risk that, after the transaction, monthly obligations arising from repayment of a renovation loan will be added, obligations that the buyer could not assess at the time of acquisition. If the association’s management board later refuses to provide information, the owner has a judicial safeguard under Section 45(3) of the KOKS, including an application in non-contentious proceedings to compel the management board to provide the information. The existence of debtors affects the association’s ability to collect funds and obtain financing, so delayed repairs may become more expensive over time. This is an economic rather than a direct legal consequence, but it affects decisions of the owners’ general meeting. The conditions for reconstruction and energy-efficiency grants for apartment buildings show that, in the case of major works, specialists with the relevant professional qualifications and a technical consultant must be involved, adding another component to the cost structure.
Correction. In the article, Maarin Ektermann states that “under the Copyright Act, the resale royalty rate for more expensive works decreases to 3 per cent”. This is incomplete: 3 per cent is only one tier, applicable to sale prices in the EUR 50,001–200,000 range; for still more expensive works, the rate decreases further — to a lower rate for EUR 200,001–500,000, and to 0.25 per cent of the sale price above EUR 500,000. A more precise formulation would be that the resale royalty rate decreases progressively as the sale price increases, and that in the highest price bracket it is 0.25 per cent, not 3 per cent.
The income of a non-profit association may be used only to achieve the objectives set out in its articles of association, and profits may not be distributed among members (Non-profit Associations Act § 1(2)).
The association may not grant financially assessable benefits to a person who has made donations to the association during the preceding twelve months, which directly concerns the 15 percent share of the hammer price payable to the authors of donated works.
For the Estonian Artists’ Association, the auction result means that the fraud-related liability of nearly EUR 700,000 can be discharged and the balance between the association’s assets and liabilities restored ahead of schedule. The decisive issue, however, is how the EUR 2.3 million in proceeds may lawfully be used, as the association is a non-profit association whose activities are restricted by the Non-profit Associations Act. Under § 1(2) of that Act, the income of a non-profit association may be used only to achieve its statutory objectives, and profits may not be distributed among members. The plan referred to in the news report to direct the remaining proceeds toward supporting artists and the arts must therefore comply with the association’s articles of association, under which supporting artists is precisely one of the EAA’s functions. If a provision of the articles of association conflicts with the law, the law applies (Non-profit Associations Act § 1(2) and the requirement that the articles comply with law in § 3(3)). The procedure for deciding on the use of income follows from the articles of association and the competence of the general meeting, regulated by § 3(1) clause 8 of the Non-profit Associations Act.
The association’s management board will submit proposals on the use of the proceeds to the council, which is consistent with the allocation of powers among bodies under the articles of association and requires decisions to be made in accordance with the articles and in coordination with the members. In using the proceeds, the requirements applicable to associations benefiting from income tax incentives must also be taken into account: the association may not distribute its assets or income, nor grant financially assessable benefits, to its members, members of its management or supervisory bodies, or any person who has made donations to the association during the preceding twelve months. This is important in particular because both works from the association’s art collection and recent donations by artists were included in the auction, with the authors to be paid 15 percent of the hammer price. Since the authors of the donated works are persons who have made donations, payment of the 15 percent share must be assessed to determine whether it is treated as a share of sale proceeds or as a benefit granted in return for the donation. The 5 percent resale royalty payable to authors or heirs for works sold from the association’s own art collection is, according to the news report, higher than the 3 percent rate applicable to higher-value works under the Copyright Act; this is a voluntary decision by the association and is not contrary to law. The allocation of all shares payable from the sale proceeds must be documentable and consistent with the statutory objectives, because the principal activity of a non-profit association may not be the earning of income through economic activity (Non-profit Associations Act § 1(1)). According to the news report, the partial sale of the art collection was an exceptional, one-off measure; accordingly, the association cannot repeat similar sales in the future without such activity becoming its principal activity.
In practice, this is important for three groups: the association’s members and governing bodies, who are responsible for the targeted use of the proceeds; the artists and heirs, who are entitled to receive 5 or 15 percent of the hammer price; and the donors and buyers, whose interest is that the sale remains one-off and transparent. Issues relating to the fraudulent scheme, namely whether damage will be compensated and to whom, and whether a criminal offence will be established, remain unresolved on the basis of the sources, as the cited legal sources do not regulate the fraud proceedings. Direct oversight of the use of the proceeds belongs to the association’s council and members under the articles of association.
“In such cases, the person pays afterwards and proceedings are not initiated.”
“If we are unable to make contact, or there is reason to believe that it was an intentional violation, we file a report with the police.”
Leaving a filling station without paying for fuel is not a single legal scenario, but falls into distinct categories: intentional theft, embezzlement, and failure to pay due to inadvertence, each governed by different procedural rules. The central point of the news report is that, in Järva County, price increases have not led to an increase in thefts, and therefore many police reports do not result in offence proceedings. In cases of intentional fuel theft, § 200 of the Penal Code applies; subsection 1 provides for a pecuniary punishment or imprisonment for up to one year. If the act is committed by a group, by a person who has previously committed theft, embezzlement, or a related offence, or if the act is committed on a large scale, the penalty increases to imprisonment for up to three years (§ 200(2)). Refuelling by an employee using the employer’s fuel card for personal purposes is identified in the news report as an instance of embezzlement, with the sources referring to the offence under § 201 of the Penal Code. Failure to pay due to inadvertence, such as a failed payment, forgetfulness, or an assumption that a companion has paid, does not constitute a basis for proceedings where the elements of an offence are not met.
The choice of procedure depends on whether the requirement of intent is satisfied: the police distinguish between a mistake and intentionally leaving without payment on precisely that basis. In cases of intentional theft, the consequences include not only a pecuniary punishment or imprisonment, but also confiscation of property: the court confiscates the substance or object that was the direct object of the offence (§ 83(3)), property obtained through the offence (§ 83¹(1)), and may apply extended confiscation on the basis of the nature of the offence and the discrepancy between lawful income and assets (§ 83²(1)). If the fuel has been mixed with other property or transferred, confiscation is replaced by recovery of the corresponding value (§ 84), and confiscated property becomes state property (§ 85(1)). In smaller-scale cases, confiscation may also be ordered by an extra-judicial body by ruling, where the direct object of the misdemeanour has been seized and its lawful possessor could not be identified; the ruling must include a confiscation decision where this falls within the competence of the extra-judicial body. For the filling station, this means that where the customer’s details are known, the matter is first resolved voluntarily, and a report is filed with the police only if contact cannot be established or there is suspicion of intent. The police recommendation to refrain from refuelling before payment is a preventive measure, since the rules in force do not impose an advance-payment obligation on filling stations.
In practice, the principal risk concerns intentional thefts committed using licence plates: these may entail imprisonment for up to three years, confiscation of the fuel, and, where possible, extended confiscation of all property. Inadvertent customers who pay afterwards remain unsanctioned, making video surveillance and the identification of customer data decisive for filling stations in distinguishing mistake from crime. For employers, it is important that misuse of a fuel card is treated as embezzlement rather than as an act directed against the filling station. Monitoring point: according to the news report, 20 fuel thefts had been registered by mid-September 2026, so it is advisable to monitor year-end statistics and any further police proposal to move to advance payment only.
“In view of the gravity and nature of the identified violations, and the repeated and systematic breach by the head of the institution of obligations arising from the employment contract and the law, continuation of the employment relationship with T. Stolfat was not possible.”
“The city will file a criminal complaint concerning the incident with the competent authority, which will provide a legal assessment of the circumstances.”
For Tatjana Stolfat, dismissal means the termination of her employment relationship as head of the institution and, at the same time, exposure to criminal-law assessment, as the city has announced that it will file a criminal complaint. The factual basis of the news is that violations identified during an inspection, such as the use of official vehicles and maintaining the care home waiting list in a notebook, formally served as grounds for dismissal. Legally, two separate issues are to be resolved: first, whether the dismissal of the head complied with the procedure laid down in the institution’s statutes, in respect of which § 6 clause 6 of the Local Government Organisation Act provides for the procedure for appointing and dismissing the head; second, whether public resources were used contrary to the requirements of § 34 subsection 1^1 of the Local Government Organisation Act, namely purposeful, prudent and economical use of assets, and the prohibition in § 3 subsection 1 clause 3 of the Anti-Corruption Act on the corrupt use of public resources. Third, where financial loss is at issue, the provisions of the Local Government Unit Financial Management Act concerning requirements applicable to assets may also apply, including § 55, which lists instances of breaches of requirements applicable to assets and liabilities. The mayor has left the assessment of the existence and extent of any loss to the competent authorities, meaning that the decisive stage still lies ahead.
The city government’s position is based on repeated and systematic breaches, identified as a result of the inspection, of obligations arising from the employment contract and the law; in any challenge to the dismissal, the burden of proving this rests with the city district. Section 6 clause 9 of the Local Government Organisation Act also provides that the institution’s statutes must set out the procedure for supervising management and the performance of duties, meaning that the inspection by the Social Welfare Department constitutes such a prescribed supervisory measure. Where circumstances indicate the misuse of public resources, the prohibitions in § 3 subsection 1 clauses 1-5 of the Anti-Corruption Act, including the prohibition on receiving corrupt income, may apply to an official as defined in § 2 of that Act. If loss is established, the city may bring a claim for damages; the requirement in § 34 subsection 1^1 of the Local Government Organisation Act to ensure prudent use of assets provides the basis for this. Section 55 of the Local Government Unit Financial Management Act treats as breaches of requirements, among other things, cases where a unit has failed to comply with the requirements established in § 37 subsection 1 when placing assets, or with the conditions in § 38 subsections 1-4 when assuming obligations. Stolfat contests the dismissal, referring to its political nature; the resolution of such a dispute will turn on the procedure laid down in the statutes and the law, and on the legal basis for dismissing the head of the institution, which no source leaves undefined. Under § 33 subsection 1 of the Local Government Organisation Act, every person has the right to apply to the council or government for the amendment or repeal of legislation if their rights have been unlawfully restricted by it, but this applies to legislation, not to termination of employment. The sources contain no case law, and therefore no judicial treatment of similar disputes can be presented here.
In practical terms, three further steps are important: the criminal complaint proceedings before the competent authority, the possible submission of a damages claim, and the selection of a new head through a public competition.