Сopyright in Ukraine

Ukraine has a modern copyright framework built around the Law of Ukraine No. 2811-IX On Copyright and Related Rights, which came into effect from 1 January 2023. This reform modernized Ukrainian copyright law, brought it closer to EU standards and introduced more practical enforcement tools. Two years of court practice have already clarified some important points, especially on compensation, electronic evidence and interim relief. For foreign rights holders, the key question now is less about whether copyright can be enforced in Ukraine, and more about how to document infringement and choose the right enforcement route.

Enforcement: What Rights Holders Can Claim

Compensation: three practical options

One of the most important changes under the current law is the broader compensation framework. A claimant is no longer forced to prove actual financial loss in every case. Instead, the claimant may choose one of three methods of calculation:

• a fixed amount from 2 to 200 subsistence minima for able-bodied persons;
• double the remuneration that would have been payable for authorized use of the work; or
• triple that sum of remuneration where the infringement was intentional.

This is a practical advantage for rights holders. If there is a clear market licence fee and the infringement was deliberate, the double-fee or triple-fee model may be commercially attractive. If market pricing is uncertain, then the fixed-amount model offers a more predictable route.

At the same time, Ukrainian courts do not treat compensation as automatic in any amount requested by the claimant. The amount must remain effective, proportionate and dissuasive. In practice, courts look at the scale and duration of the infringement, whether it was systematic, the territorial scope of use, the conduct of the defendant and the quality of the claimant’s evidence.

How courts approach compensation

The Supreme Court of Ukraine confirmed on 17 January 2024, in case No. 308/7570/18-ц, that a claimant may recover compensation upon proof of infringement without separately proving the amount of actual damages. This is an important clarification for practical enforcement, especially where damage is difficult to quantify.

Recent court practice also shows that Ukrainian courts scrutinize the evidentiary basis for the amount claimed. Inflated claims are vulnerable to reduction where the file does not clearly show the number of infringing acts, the scope of use or the commercial scale of the infringement. In practical terms, the better the claimant documents in each act of use, the stronger the compensation claim becomes.

For foreign businesses, the message is straightforward: Ukrainian copyright litigation can produce a monetary remedy, but the result will depend heavily on pre-filing evidence collection and a realistic method of calculation.

Provisional Measures: Relief Before Final Judgment

Ukrainian procedural law permits courts to grant provisional measures before the statement of claim is filed and at any stage of the proceedings if, without such relief, effective protection of the claimant’s rights or enforcement of the future judgment may be materially hindered.

In copyright disputes, the most useful interim tools are usually prohibitions on continuing the allegedly infringing acts and, where justified, restrictions addressed to third parties in relation to the subject matter of the dispute. In online disputes, this may help to stop further dissemination of the disputed content while the case is pending.

However, the requested measure must be framed carefully. Ukrainian courts will examine proportionality and will not normally grant interim relief that effectively decides the case on the merits. For rights holders, the practical point is that provisional measures are available, but they must be tailored narrowly and supported by evidence showing urgency and risk.

Online Enforcement: Measures Against Infringing Websites

The Law of Ukraine No. 2811-IX On Copyright and Related Rights contains a specific mechanism for addressing copyright infringement committed through the Internet. In practice, this mechanism is based primarily on notices to the website owner and/or the hosting provider seeking removal of infringing content or cessation of access to it, rather than on a general stand-alone court procedure for ISP-level blocking of websites.

In addition, Ukrainian law now provides for a national list of websites that raise concerns regarding compliance with intellectual property rights. Inclusion on that list is based on an application supported by evidence of repeated infringements within the period defined by law and the applicable procedure. This tool may be relevant where a website repeatedly hosts infringing content, although it should not be equated with a court order directly blocking public access to the website.

For foreign rights holders, the practical value of these mechanisms lies in the possibility of acting even where the website operator is difficult to identify or contact directly, provided that the rights, the content in issue and the relevant website or resource are sufficiently identified and documented.

Evidentiary Standards for Online Infringement

Ukrainian procedural law expressly recognises electronic evidence, including websites, web pages, electronic messages, metadata and other digital data.

In online copyright disputes, claimants commonly rely on screenshots, captures of web pages, domain registration information and other technical materials to document the availability of infringing content on a particular website or account. But such materials are not automatically sufficient in every case. Their evidentiary value depends on whether the claimant can show the source of the content, the relevant date, the link to the respondent and, where necessary, the authenticity and integrity of the electronic evidence.

In practice, courts assess screenshots and similar materials in unison with the rest of the file rather than in isolation. Metadata may also support a claimant’s case, especially in relation to the origin and technical history of a file, but its value depends on how the data was preserved, produced and linked to the facts in dispute.

Procedural Update: Limitation Periods

Ukraine has been under martial law since 24 February 2022. During that period, the running of civil limitation periods was suspended by legislation. The relevant rule was removed by Law of Ukraine No. 4434-IX, which came into force on 4 September 2025. As a result, limitation periods are running again.

For copyright claims, this point is important in practice. Potential claims that arose before the restoration of limitation periods should now be reviewed without delay. Foreign rights holders who postponed enforcement in wartime should reassess their limitation position promptly.

EU Alignment: What Businesses Should Watch

Ukraine’s EU accession process remains the main driver of future legislative change in the field of copyright. Further alignment with the EU copyright acquis should therefore be expected, including in digital-use scenarios.

From a business perspective, the most important area to watch is future implementation in Ukraine of the EU approach reflected in Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright in the Digital Single Market. Once Ukrainian legislation moves in that direction, the issues most likely to affect businesses will include platform liability for user-uploaded content, text and data mining exceptions, neighboring rights for press publishers, and enhanced remuneration and transparency rules in author contracts.

Even before formal legislative change is completed, businesses using content in Ukraine should already review their existing licensing models, platform terms, commissioning structures and author agreements. EU-driven reform is clearly on the horizon, and contract adaptation usually takes longer than businesses expect.

Artificial Intelligence and Copyright

Ukrainian law now addresses computer-generated output separately from traditional copyright. Where an object is generated by a computer program without direct human creative involvement, the law provides for a special sui generis proprietary right rather than ordinary copyright protection.

At the same time, Ukrainian law does not yet contain a general text and data mining exception comparable to the EU model. That means the use of copyright-protected works for AI training may create legal risk under ordinary copyright rules, depending on what material is used and how it is reproduced.

For businesses using AI tools in the Ukrainian market, the practical focus should therefore be on two issues: the provenance of the training data and the relationship between the output and protected source material. Until Ukrainian law is further aligned with the EU digital copyright framework, this remains an area of real legal uncertainty and should be assessed conservatively.

Copyright Registration: Why It Still Matters

Copyright in Ukraine arises automatically upon creation and does not depend on registration. However, voluntary registration with the Ukrainian National Office for Intellectual Property and Innovations remains useful in practice as an evidentiary tool.

For foreign rights holders, registration may be particularly valuable where ownership could in future be disputed. For example, in relation to commissioned works, software, employee-created works or chains of title involving several entities. It is not a condition of protection, but it can strengthen the claimant’s evidentiary position for a relatively low cost.

Key Takeaways for Foreign Businesses

• Compensation is now more practical. Ukrainian law offers three alternative methods for calculating compensation, which gives claimants more flexibility than under the previous framework.
• Evidence remains decisive. The amount ultimately recovered depends heavily on how clearly the claimant documents the infringing acts, their duration, scale and commercial context.
• Interim relief is available, but it must be framed narrowly. Courts may grant provisional measures, including orders aimed at stopping ongoing infringing activity, where urgency and proportionality are properly shown.
• Internet enforcement should be approached realistically. Ukrainian law provides notice-based tools and a mechanism connected with a national list of problematic websites, but this should not be overstated as a universal court-blocking regime.
• Limitation periods are running again. Rights holders with older claims should immediately review timing.
• EU-driven reform is coming. Businesses active in digital content, publishing, licensing and platforms should begin checking whether their contracts and compliance models would withstand the next round of legislative change.
• AI remains a live-risk area. In the absence of a Ukrainian text and data mining exception, training and output questions should still be analysed cautiously.
• Registration is not mandatory, but it can still be worthwhile. For commercially significant works, and especially software and commissioned content, registration may strengthen the evidentiary position in any future dispute.