Copyright protection in Kazakhstan is often described through a familiar formula: copyright arises automatically when a qualifying work is created; the author enjoys personal non-property and economic rights; those rights may be transferred or licensed; and infringement may give rise to civil remedies.
That description is correct, but it does not fully describe the way copyright disputes actually operate in Kazakhstan.
The difficult questions usually arise elsewhere:
- How does a claimant prove authorship?
- How does a company establish its chain of title?
- What happens when the alleged infringement exists only on a website, Instagram account, Telegram channel or marketplace?
- Is an ordinary screenshot sufficient?
- When should a claimant involve a notary?
- What exactly does a Kazakh notarial protocol prove?
- Does a notarised website inspection establish authorship, or merely establish what was visible online at a particular time?
- How are courts distinguishing copying of protected expression from the use of a general idea?
- What weight should be given to a copyright-registration certificate?
- How are the courts dealing with design disputes in which common cultural or functional elements overlap?
- Does “open access” to material on the internet create a copyright exception?
- How should a lawyer calculate and plead statutory compensation?
- What happens where a case begins in an Almaty district court and eventually reaches the Kazakh civil Cassation Court?
These questions make Kazakhstan’s copyright regime particularly interesting for practitioners.
The legal framework consists principally of the Civil Code, the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Copyright and Related Rights”, procedural legislation, legislation concerning notarial activity and applicable international treaties. The Copyright Law expressly provides that a ratified international treaty prevails where it establishes rules different from the national legislation.
The Supreme Court’s normative resolution “On Application by Courts of Certain Norms of Legislation on Protection of Copyright and Related Rights”, originally adopted on 25 December 2007, remains an important interpretive instrument. It has been amended several times, including through the Supreme Court’s normative resolution of 28 November 2024.
The practical lesson is that copyright protection in Kazakhstan should be understood as a combination of substantive copyright law, contract law, procedural evidence law, notarial evidence preservation and judicial methodology.
The Kazakh Copyright Framework: More Than One Statute
The Copyright Law expressly provides that copyright legislation consists of the Civil Code, the Copyright Law itself and other regulatory legal acts adopted in accordance with them.
This makes the Civil Code particularly important.
The Civil Code contains provisions dealing with:
- copyright objects;
- authorship;
- personal non-property rights;
- exclusive rights;
- transfer of rights;
- licensing;
- contracts;
- remedies;
- the relationship between ownership of a physical object and intellectual-property rights.
The Copyright Law then supplies the specialised copyright regime.
Procedural questions may additionally be governed by the Civil Procedure Code, while evidence preservation before litigation can engage the Law on Notaries and the rules governing notarial acts.
A copyright lawyer should therefore avoid treating the Copyright Law as a self-contained code.
A single dispute can involve four distinct legal layers:
Copyright entitlement
Who owns the protected work?
Substantive infringement
What did the defendant do?
Evidence
How can the claimant prove what happened?
Procedure
How should that evidence be preserved and presented?
The fourth layer is particularly important in digital copyright litigation.
What Exactly Is Protected Under Kazakh Law?
Kazakh law protects works of science, literature and art that are the result of creative activity, regardless of purpose, content, merit or form of expression. Protection extends to published and unpublished works existing in an objective form.
The statutory examples include:
- literary works;
- dramatic and musical-dramatic works;
- scenarios;
- choreographic works;
- musical works;
- audiovisual works;
- paintings;
- sculptures;
- drawings;
- works of decorative and applied art;
- architecture, urban planning and landscape-design works;
- photographs;
- maps;
- plans;
- illustrations;
- software;
- derivative works; and
- composite works such as collections, encyclopedias and databases where the statutory requirements are satisfied.
The breadth of this list means that a modern corporate copyright audit should go well beyond books and photographs.
A company may have copyright assets in:
- advertising copy;
- websites;
- software;
- presentations;
- training materials;
- product photography;
- architectural designs;
- graphic identity;
- videos;
- animations;
- databases;
- social-media content.
The Idea–Expression Boundary
One of the most important provisions in Kazakhstan is the express exclusion of ideas, concepts, principles, methods, systems, processes, discoveries and facts from copyright protection.
This distinction is not merely theoretical.
It is often the difference between winning and losing a copyright case.
Consider a clothing designer who creates a collection based on traditional Kazakh clothing.
Another designer subsequently produces clothing incorporating:
- similar national motifs;
- a similar silhouette;
- a similar type of skirt;
- familiar decorative elements.
The fact that the second collection evokes the same concept does not automatically establish infringement.
The lawyer must identify the specific expressive elements that allegedly have been copied.
This approach was recently illustrated by the Kazakh civil Cassation Court in a case arising from the Almaty courts.
In its 14 May 2026 judgment, the Cassation Court considered a dispute concerning designs of a “belt-skirt” and tiered skirt. The claimant had obtained state-register certificates and presented a specialist’s opinion identifying partial reproduction. Nevertheless, the courts found that the similarities were attributable to common clothing-design elements and the use of a general fashion idea rather than copying the claimant’s protected work. The Cassation Court upheld the Almaty district and appellate decisions.
The court expressly distinguished:
- the protected overall creative work;
- individual construction or fashion elements;
- common design techniques; and
- the general idea.
It held that individual construction decisions, styles and design techniques did not themselves receive independent copyright protection, and that the claimant had not established reproduction of the protected work itself.
This is one of the most useful recent examples of how the abstract idea/expression distinction is being operationalised in Kazakhstan.
Copyright in Parts of Works
Kazakh law also recognises that a part of a work, including its title or character names, may itself constitute an object of copyright where it possesses the required characteristics and can be used independently.
This creates a more sophisticated infringement analysis.
The claimant should not simply ask:
“Did the defendant copy the whole work?”
The better question is:
“Did the defendant appropriate a legally protected part of the claimant’s work?”
That distinction can be important for:
- excerpts;
- titles;
- characters;
- graphic elements;
- short literary passages;
- portions of software;
- components of audiovisual works.
Works Excluded from Copyright Protection
Kazakhstan excludes certain categories from copyright protection, including:
- official documents and official translations;
- state symbols and signs;
- works of folklore;
- reports on events and facts of an informational nature;
- other categories established by law.
The precise wording of Article 8 has recently been amended by legislation adopted on 9 January 2026, with a delayed effective date.
That timing is important.
A legal opinion should distinguish between:
date of adoption
date of publication
date of entry into force
transitional application
This is an increasingly important feature of Kazakhstan’s intellectual-property legislation because several recent amendments contain delayed effective dates.
Authorship and Ownership Are Different Questions
The Copyright Law defines an author as the individual who created the work. Copyright itself consists of personal non-property and property rights.
That means:
Author ≠necessarily current economic right holder.
A photographer may be the author.
A company may subsequently acquire economic rights.
A publisher may receive a licence.
A distributor may receive a limited right of exploitation.
A collective management organisation may administer particular rights.
These relationships should be analysed separately.
The Chain of Title
For commercial litigation, the most useful ownership model is:
Creator
↓
Creation of work
↓
Initial rights
↓
Employment / commission / assignment
↓
Current right holder
↓
Licence / sublicense
↓
Defendant’s use
Every significant transfer should be documented.
The evidence may include:
- employment agreements;
- commissioning contracts;
- assignments;
- licences;
- acceptance certificates;
- invoices;
- correspondence;
- source files;
- delivery records;
- registration information.
The absence of a link in this chain can be more damaging than the absence of evidence concerning similarity.
A claimant can have an obviously copied photograph and still encounter difficulty if it cannot establish why the claimant is entitled to sue.
Copyright Registration in Kazakhstan
Copyright arises from creation.
The law expressly provides that neither registration nor other special formalities are required for copyright to arise or be exercised.
At the same time, Kazakhstan provides a State Register mechanism through which information concerning rights in copyright-protected works can be entered.
The purpose is evidentiary and identification-oriented rather than constitutive.
This distinction has been expressly recognised in recent judicial practice.
In the 2026 clothing-design case, the claimant had obtained state-register certificates in April 2025. The Cassation Court nevertheless treated the existence of registration as evidence of identification and fixation, not as conclusive proof that the defendant had infringed the claimant’s rights.
This is an important practical point:
Registration can strengthen a copyright case, but it does not replace proof of infringement.
The Physical Object Is Not the Copyright
Kazakhstan expressly separates copyright from ownership of the physical object in which the work is embodied. The transfer of ownership of a material object does not ordinarily transfer copyright in the work embodied in it.
This matters for:
- paintings;
- photographs;
- manuscripts;
- sculptures;
- architectural models;
- design prototypes;
- original drawings.
A purchaser may own the physical object while another person retains copyright.
Contracts should therefore identify separately:
ownership of the physical deliverable
and
ownership or licensing of the intellectual-property rights.
Economic Rights: Identify the Defendant’s Actual Act
Copyright litigation becomes much clearer when the alleged infringement is expressed as a specific act.
The relevant conduct may involve:
- reproduction;
- distribution;
- public display;
- public performance;
- broadcasting;
- communication to the public;
- translation;
- adaptation;
- other forms of exploitation.
The phrase “copied our work” should therefore be treated as the beginning of the legal analysis, not the conclusion.
A strong pleading should identify:
the work
→ the protected element
→ the defendant’s act
→ the corresponding economic right
→ the evidence of that act
Copyright Exceptions and the Kazakhstan “Open Access” Problem
Article 21 of the Copyright Law contains a specific exception concerning works of architecture, photography and fine art permanently located in places open to free public access. Such works may, within the statutory conditions, be reproduced or communicated without the author’s consent or remuneration where the work is not the main object and is not used for commercial purposes.
This provision is particularly important for media and internet disputes.
A recurring defence is:
“The photograph was publicly available on the internet, therefore it could be used.”
That proposition is too broad.
The statutory language concerns works permanently located in a place open to free public access. It should not automatically be transformed into a general rule that all content found online is free to reproduce.
An important regional comparison
Here is an interesting Kazakhstan-specific point.
The wording of this particular exception is not actually unique to Kazakhstan. Similar exceptions exist in Russia, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. Russia’s Article 1276, for example, contains a closely comparable rule concerning photographic, architectural and fine-art works permanently located in public places. Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan also contain substantially similar provisions.
The genuinely useful local issue is therefore not to claim that Kazakhstan has invented this exception.
It is to examine how Kazakh courts apply it to internet publication and news reporting.
That is a much stronger Information Gain proposition.
The Almaty Photograph Litigation: Open Internet Access Is Not a Simple Defence
Recent disputes in Almaty illustrate the difficulty.
In litigation involving photographs published by an online media outlet, the defendant relied on Article 21 and argued that the photographs were available from open internet sources, were used to illustrate informational material and were not used commercially.
The dispute produced significant procedural developments, including appellate intervention concerning the first-instance decision. Public reporting on the litigation demonstrates that Article 21 is being actively litigated as a defence in Kazakh courts rather than treated as an automatic internet-use exemption.
The practical lesson for counsel is therefore:
“Open internet access” should never be pleaded as a standalone copyright defence. The lawyer should identify the exact statutory exception and demonstrate that every statutory condition is satisfied.
Local Procedural Reality: Digital Evidence in Kazakhstan
This is one of the most important sections for a practitioner-oriented article.
Kazakh civil procedure expressly recognises electronic evidence.
The Civil Procedure Code provides mechanisms for securing evidence and recognises electronic documents or electronically certified copies as evidence. It also provides that evidence may be secured before litigation through the procedures established by notarial legislation.
The critical procedural question for internet copyright disputes is therefore not:
“Are screenshots legal?”
It is:
“How reliably can the claimant establish what was available online, where it was located, when it was available, and how the evidence was preserved?”
Court-Based Securing of Evidence
The Civil Procedure Code allows parties who have reason to believe that necessary evidence may later become impossible or difficult to present to request its securing.
The court may secure evidence through mechanisms including:
- witness examination;
- expert examination;
- inspection of evidence at its location;
- judicial instructions;
- other procedural measures.
The Code therefore gives lawyers a procedural route for evidence that is at risk of disappearing.
This is highly relevant to internet content because:
- websites can be edited;
- Instagram posts can be deleted;
- Telegram posts can disappear;
- marketplace listings can be removed;
- accounts can be renamed;
- domains can change;
- content can be replaced.
Notarial Securing of Digital Evidence
Kazakhstan’s notarial legislation is unusually useful for copyright practitioners.
Article 98 of the Law on Notaries allows a notary, at the request of an interested person, to secure evidence necessary for a potential court or other proceeding where there are grounds to believe that presenting the evidence later will become impossible or difficult. The notary cannot ordinarily secure evidence for a matter already pending before a court or another competent authority.
Article 99 expressly authorises the notary, for purposes of evidence preservation, to:
- question persons;
- inspect material evidence;
- inspect written evidence;
- inspect electronic evidence;
- and, where necessary, appoint an expert examination.
This gives Kazakhstan a particularly practical pre-litigation mechanism for online infringement.
What a Website Inspection Protocol Should Contain
The notarial rules provide that an inspection of written or material evidence results in a protocol identifying, among other matters:
- the date and place of inspection;
- the person conducting it;
- participating persons;
- relevant statements and circumstances;
- the results of the inspection.
The protocol is signed and retained in the notarial archival system.
For internet evidence, a lawyer should go further than simply asking a notary to “take screenshots.”
The instruction should aim to establish a reproducible evidentiary record.
At minimum, counsel should consider identifying:
- the complete URL;
- the domain;
- the relevant webpage;
- the date and exact time of inspection;
- the route used to reach the page;
- whether login credentials were required;
- the relevant account or profile;
- the visible author/account name;
- publication date where displayed;
- accompanying text;
- hyperlinks;
- images;
- video;
- comments where legally relevant;
- the surrounding page context.
For social media, the exact username and platform should also be recorded.
For online marketplaces, the product page, seller identity, listing number and other identifiers should be captured.
Why a Screenshot Alone Is Often a Weak Evidence Strategy
A screenshot establishes what appears in the screenshot.
It may not independently establish:
- who controlled the account;
- when the content was first uploaded;
- whether the page was subsequently altered;
- whether the image came from the claimant;
- whether the defendant created the content independently;
- whether the screenshot was complete;
- whether the displayed account actually belongs to the defendant.
The stronger approach is therefore to combine several categories of evidence.
For example:
Screenshot
notarial inspection protocol
URL
account identification
original work
metadata
ownership documentation
commercial evidence
This creates an evidentiary chain rather than a single isolated image.
Electronic Notarisation: An Important Distinction
Kazakhstan already recognises electronic notarial documents.
The Law on Notaries permits a notary, at the request of the applicant, to perform a notarial act by issuing a notarial document in electronic form. An electronic notarial document can be certified using the notary’s electronic digital signature, while the applicant’s electronic document can be signed using the applicable electronic-signature mechanism.
This should not, however, be confused with a general statement that all notarial acts can currently be performed remotely.
A major amendment adopted on 8 July 2026 introduces a framework for remote notarial acts through the digital-government portal, subject to exclusions and implementing rules. The amendment is not immediately effective; it provides for entry into force after a specified period following official publication.
Accordingly, as of 20 August 2026, counsel should distinguish carefully between:
electronic form of a notarial document
and
remote performance of the underlying notarial act.
That distinction is particularly important when advising clients on urgent online evidence preservation.
The Notary’s Protocol Is Not a Certificate of Truth
A critical litigation point is frequently misunderstood.
A notarial inspection protocol can establish that the notary observed particular information at a particular time.
It does not necessarily prove every proposition that a claimant wants the court to infer from that information.
For example, a protocol showing that a photograph appeared on an Instagram account can help establish:
The photograph was visible on that account at the time of inspection.
It does not automatically establish:
The defendant created the photograph.
Nor does it necessarily establish:
The claimant owns copyright in the photograph.
Nor:
The defendant was the person controlling the account.
These propositions require additional evidence.
This is one of the most important distinctions in digital copyright litigation.
The Evidence Chain for an Online Copyright Claim
A strong digital copyright case should ideally have four separate evidentiary layers.
The claimant’s work
Evidence showing the original work, creation and authorship.
The claimant’s rights
Evidence showing ownership or authority to enforce.
The defendant’s use
Evidence showing what appeared online.
The connection
Evidence connecting the online use to the defendant.
This can be represented as:
Original work
→ author/right holder
→ defendant’s online use
→ defendant’s control/access
→ commercial exploitation
A notarial protocol is particularly powerful in the third layer.
It should not be expected to prove all five.
The Role of Electronic Documents and Digital Signatures
Kazakhstan’s broader digital framework also recognises electronic documents where their authenticity, ownership and immutability are appropriately confirmed by electronic digital signatures. The Digital Code, adopted in 2025, contains specific provisions concerning electronic documents and digital data.
For copyright practitioners, this creates a broader evidentiary ecosystem.
Potential evidence may include:
- electronically signed contracts;
- digital registration records;
- repository histories;
- electronically signed delivery documents;
- digital correspondence;
- electronic notarial documents;
- platform records.
The practical objective is to create evidence whose provenance can be explained.
The 2022 Notarial Methodological Recommendations
The Republican Notarial Chamber has also issued methodological recommendations on evidence preservation.
The recommendations describe evidence preservation as an urgent mechanism for fixing and preserving information that may otherwise become difficult or impossible to obtain. They expressly contemplate the use of technical means, including photographs and video, when fixing evidence.
This is particularly relevant to online copyright disputes.
A lawyer should therefore approach a notarial website inspection as a forensic evidence-preservation exercise, not as a routine screenshot service.
The Timing Problem: Preserve Before Filing
Kazakhstan’s procedural framework creates an important practical sequencing rule.
Where a case is already before a court, evidence preservation falls within the procedural framework of the court.
Before litigation, the notarial evidence-preservation mechanism may be available.
Consequently:
Discover infringement
↓
Preserve digital evidence
↓
Establish ownership
↓
Assess the legal claim
↓
Send demand / negotiate
↓
Commence litigation
is usually safer than:
Discover infringement
↓
Immediately file claim
↓
Attempt to preserve evidence later
The distinction can become decisive when the defendant deletes the material.
Case Law and the Supreme Court’s November 2024 Resolution
The Supreme Court’s copyright normative resolution dates from 25 December 2007.
The current version reflects amendments made over time, including the 28 November 2024 normative resolution No. 4.
There is an important technical point here.
The November 2024 resolution was not a wholesale replacement of Kazakhstan’s copyright jurisprudence. In the Russian-language text, the amendment principally records that changes were made to the Kazakh-language version of the copyright normative resolution.
The resolution entered into force on the date of first official publication, with the relevant publication recorded on 25 December 2024.
Therefore, an article should not claim that November 2024 introduced a new substantive copyright precedent unless a particular provision is separately identified.
The better statement is:
The November 2024 Supreme Court amendment confirms the continuing status of the copyright normative resolution as part of the interpretive framework applied by Kazakh courts, while recent decisions demonstrate how its underlying principles are being applied to modern disputes.
That is more precise.
How the Supreme Court Framework Appears in Recent Almaty Litigation
The 14 May 2026 Cassation Court decision is particularly valuable because it shows the methodology in an actual dispute originating in Almaty.
The case passed through:
- District Court No. 2 of the Auezov District of Almaty;
- Almaty City Court;
- Civil Cassation Court.
The claimant alleged infringement of copyright in clothing designs.
The lower courts and Cassation Court did not treat the claimant’s registration certificates as conclusive.
Instead, they considered:
- the existence of the claimant’s works;
- the registration evidence;
- the specialist opinion;
- the similarities between the designs;
- the prevalence of particular design elements;
- the nature of the national clothing element;
- whether the defendant had reproduced the claimant’s protected work.
The Cassation Court concluded that the evidence showed only partial similarity in individual elements and that the relevant similarities were attributable to common design features and a general fashion idea.
This illustrates an important judicial methodology:
Kazakh courts can separate the protected creative whole from individual commonplace elements.
That is considerably more useful to practitioners than merely stating that “ideas are not protected.”
A Recent Astana Photograph Case
Another useful example comes from Astana.
In June 2025, the Astana civil court system reported a case involving a photograph used by a publishing company without the photographer’s permission and without attribution.
The court found infringement and ordered restoration of the author’s rights through mandatory attribution when the material was published on the publisher’s internet resource. It also awarded compensation of KZT 369,200.
The defendant reportedly acknowledged publication but argued that the use was a one-time occurrence.
The case is useful because it demonstrates that a seemingly modest digital act—one photograph on an online publication—can produce both:
- a personal-rights remedy concerning attribution; and
- monetary compensation.
The case also illustrates why “one-time use” should not be assumed to eliminate copyright liability.
Compensation in Practice: The 100-MCI Pattern
One of the distinctive practical features of Kazakh copyright litigation is the use of statutory compensation mechanisms.
The statutory framework provides for monetary compensation among the available remedies, and recent cases demonstrate the practical significance of the 100-MCI floor.
The Astana photograph case resulted in compensation of KZT 369,200, corresponding to 100 MCI at the relevant 2025 rate.
This creates an important practical point for litigators.
The question is not always:
“Can the claimant prove a precise amount of lost profit?”
A statutory compensation route can make the economics of relatively small infringements materially different.
However, counsel should carefully distinguish:
- damages;
- unlawfully obtained income;
- statutory compensation;
- and other remedies.
They should not be presented as interchangeable concepts.
The Almaty Media Photograph Litigation and Procedural Risk
Almaty litigation also demonstrates another important point: a copyright dispute can turn on procedure before the court reaches the most interesting substantive question.
In the 2024 litigation concerning photographs used by Matrica.kz, the defendant argued that the images were obtained from open internet sources and invoked Article 21. The case involved a first-instance judgment followed by appellate proceedings in the Almaty City Court, with the appellate court setting aside the earlier decision on procedural grounds.
This illustrates why a copyright lawyer should never focus exclusively on substantive entitlement.
A case may be lost or returned because of:
- improper procedural handling;
- inadequate evidence;
- incorrect formulation of the claim;
- insufficient reasoning;
- defective evidence preservation.
For online copyright litigation, procedural preparation is therefore part of substantive strategy.
What the Recent Almaty Design Case Adds to Copyright Law
The 2026 Cassation Court decision is especially valuable because it shows what does not amount to infringement.
The court effectively rejected the proposition that:
similar appearance = copyright infringement.
Instead, it required evidence of reproduction of the protected work itself.
This creates a useful comparison between two categories:
| Potentially protected | Potentially unprotected |
|---|---|
| Original creative combination | General idea |
| Original arrangement | Common design element |
| Individual creative expression | Functional construction |
| Original visual composition | Traditional/cultural motif as such |
| Creative overall work | Common fashion technique |
The table should not be treated as an automatic legal test. The decisive question remains whether the relevant element satisfies the statutory requirements for protection and whether the defendant reproduced protected expression.
Kazakhstan’s Statutory Quirks: What Is Actually Distinctive?
A lawyer writing for an international audience should be cautious here.
Not every feature of Kazakh copyright law is unique.
For example, the exception for works permanently located in public places has close counterparts in Russia, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.
Likewise, automatic copyright protection, the idea/expression distinction and separate moral rights are familiar features of many copyright systems.
The more valuable approach is to identify Kazakhstan-specific combinations of rules and their practical consequences.
The Kazakhstan-Specific Combination of Automatic Protection and a State Register
Kazakhstan combines:
automatic copyright from creation
with
a State Register mechanism for recording rights information.
Article 9 expressly says registration is unnecessary for copyright to arise, while also permitting the author or copyright holder to enter information concerning rights into the State Register.
This produces a two-level strategy:
Legal protection
exists automatically.
Evidentiary reinforcement
can be obtained through registration and other documentation.
The 2026 Almaty design case demonstrates the distinction particularly clearly: registration existed, but the claimant still had to prove infringement.
The Kazakhstan-Specific Contract Defaults
Kazakhstan’s Copyright Law contains particularly useful drafting rules concerning authors’ contracts.
The contract should specify:
- methods of use;
- duration;
- territory;
- remuneration and/or its calculation;
- payment terms and other conditions.
Several default rules are especially important.
If the contract does not specify the territory, the transferred right is limited to Kazakhstan.
Rights not directly transferred under the agreement are deemed not transferred.
Rights concerning methods of use unknown at the time of the contract cannot be the subject of the authors’ agreement.
The law also provides a specific rule concerning agreements involving periodicals, which may be concluded orally.
These provisions deserve prominent treatment in international contracts.
A foreign company may assume that a broad assignment clause automatically covers worldwide and future forms of exploitation.
A Kazakh-law analysis should test that assumption against the statutory requirements.
The Kazakhstan-Specific Architecture and Design Rule
Another particularly useful statutory feature is the treatment of architecture, urban planning and landscape-design projects.
The Copyright Law provides that exclusive rights to use such projects also include their practical implementation.
This makes Kazakhstan’s copyright analysis especially relevant to:
- architectural projects;
- urban planning;
- landscape architecture;
- design projects.
The distinction between a protected project and its practical implementation can become commercially significant in construction disputes.
The Kazakhstan-Specific Digital Terminology
The Copyright Law itself contains digital-era terminology.
It defines:
- availability to the public;
- internet resources;
- records;
- digital copies of phonograms;
- software;
- derivative works.
An “internet resource” is defined as a digital resource in textual, graphic, audiovisual or other form, hosted on a hardware/software system and having a unique network address and/or domain name and operating on the internet.
This is useful because the statute is not limited to an analogue understanding of copyright exploitation.
Kazakhstan Compared with Neighbouring Jurisdictions
For an international reader, three comparisons are particularly useful.
Public-place photographs
Kazakhstan, Russia, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan all have closely related exceptions concerning works permanently located in publicly accessible places.
Therefore, the distinctive Kazakhstan question is not whether such an exception exists.
It is how Kazakh courts interpret its conditions in the context of online news and commercial publication.
Evidence preservation
Kazakhstan has a particularly formalised notarial mechanism allowing a notary to inspect electronic evidence before litigation. Article 99 expressly refers to inspection of electronic evidence.
This makes pre-litigation notarial evidence preservation a particularly important part of Kazakh litigation strategy.
State registration
Kazakhstan explicitly combines automatic copyright protection with the possibility of recording rights information in a State Register.
Again, the important point is not that registration creates copyright—it does not—but that Kazakhstan gives practitioners a formal evidentiary tool alongside automatic protection.
Moral Rights and Perpetual Protection
Kazakh law gives personal non-property rights an unusually important practical role.
The statutory framework recognises rights including:
- authorship;
- author’s name;
- publication;
- withdrawal;
- integrity of the work.
The Supreme Court’s copyright normative framework also emphasises that personal non-property rights cannot simply be treated as ordinary transferable economic rights.
For businesses, this means that an assignment agreement should not simply say:
“All rights are transferred.”
It should separately address:
- attribution;
- pseudonym/anonymity;
- modifications;
- adaptations;
- editing;
- publication decisions.
Digital Evidence: A Recommended Kazakhstan Litigation Protocol
For online infringement, counsel should consider adopting the following protocol.
Immediate preservation
Capture the infringing page before contacting the defendant.
Full URL
Record the exact URL rather than merely the domain.
Timestamp
Record the precise date and time.
Account identification
Record username, profile URL and displayed account information.
Context
Preserve surrounding text, captions, comments and links where relevant.
Original file
Preserve the claimant’s original file and editable/source version.
Metadata
Preserve available creation and modification information.
Notarial inspection
Where the evidence is commercially significant or likely to disappear, consider pre-litigation notarial securing.
Technical evidence
Where authorship, modification or source is disputed, consider whether specialist or expert evidence is required.
Defendant connection
Collect evidence connecting the account, website or marketplace listing to the defendant.
Commercial evidence
Preserve evidence of sales, advertising, prices and other exploitation.
This protocol creates a much stronger evidentiary architecture than simply printing a screenshot.
What a Notarial Protocol Can Prove
A notarial protocol may be used to establish facts concerning what the notary inspected.
For example:
On 20 August at 14:35, the notary accessed the specified URL and observed a photograph displayed on the identified webpage.
That is a strong proposition.
But it should not automatically be expanded into:
The defendant is the author.
or:
The claimant owns the copyright.
or:
The defendant copied the claimant.
Those are different propositions requiring different evidence.
This distinction should be explicitly explained to clients.
What a Notarial Protocol Cannot Safely Prove by Itself
A protocol should not be treated as an all-purpose copyright certificate.
It ordinarily does not, by itself, resolve:
Authorship
Who created the work?
Title
Who owns the economic rights?
Originality
Is the work sufficiently creative?
Causation
Did the defendant actually copy it?
Account ownership
Who controls the online account?
Independent creation
Could the defendant have created the work independently?
Exception
Does Article 21 or another exception apply?
The protocol is one component of the evidentiary chain.
Electronic Notarial Records and the Notarial Digital System
Kazakhstan’s notarial system has become increasingly digitised.
The Law on Notaries provides for a unified notarial digital system and an electronic repository.
The notarial procedural rules also provide for registration of notarial acts in the electronic register and electronic handling of notarial documents.
For lawyers, this means that the evidentiary question is increasingly not simply:
“Do we have a paper protocol?”
but:
“Can the authenticity and provenance of the electronic notarial record be verified?”
This is an important advantage in digital litigation.
AI and Copyright Under Kazakhstan’s Existing Framework
Artificial intelligence introduces questions that Kazakhstan’s legislation has not yet completely resolved through a dedicated AI copyright regime.
The correct approach is therefore to apply existing principles cautiously.
The key question is human creative contribution.
Consider:
Prompt only
A person enters a short prompt and accepts the output.
Selection
A person generates many outputs and makes a creative selection.
Arrangement
A person combines multiple AI outputs with original material.
Editing
A person substantially modifies the AI output.
Human creation assisted by AI
AI functions as a tool within a larger human creative process.
These situations should not automatically receive identical legal treatment.
AI Training and Copyright
AI training should be analysed through individual acts rather than through the broad phrase “AI training.”
The relevant questions may include:
- Was a protected work reproduced?
- Was a copy stored?
- Was material extracted?
- Was a dataset created?
- Was the material lawfully accessed?
- Did a contractual restriction apply?
- Was an exception available?
- What happened to the material after processing?
The fact that a work was publicly accessible online does not itself answer all of these questions.
Copyright in Software
Software is expressly recognised as a copyright object in Kazakhstan, including source text and object code.
Software disputes should therefore be approached through both legal and technical evidence.
A company should preserve:
- source code;
- object code;
- repository history;
- commits;
- documentation;
- developer agreements;
- third-party components;
- open-source licences.
A software infringement case may ultimately turn on version history rather than visual similarity.
Open-Source Software
Open source does not mean copyright-free.
Copyright generally provides the legal mechanism through which the relevant licence permissions are granted.
A corporate compliance programme should therefore identify:
- component;
- copyright holder;
- applicable licence;
- permitted uses;
- attribution requirements;
- distribution conditions;
- source-code obligations.
The legal question should be:
What licence applied and was it complied with?
rather than simply:
“Was the software open source?”
Collective Management
Collective rights management is an important part of Kazakhstan’s copyright framework.
The law regulates organisations managing rights collectively, and recent amendments adopted in November 2025 further modify terminology and aspects of the framework.
In royalty disputes, counsel should therefore verify:
- the organisation’s authority;
- repertoire;
- mandate;
- licence;
- tariff;
- collection basis;
- distribution mechanism.
A claimant should be able to explain not merely that it is represented by a collective management organisation, but which rights the organisation is entitled to administer in the particular dispute.
International Copyright Protection
Kazakhstan’s Copyright Law has specific rules concerning its territorial scope and the treatment of foreign works, while international treaties ratified by Kazakhstan may alter the applicable protection.
For cross-border online infringement, counsel should examine:
- author nationality;
- place of publication;
- place of exploitation;
- defendant’s location;
- target market;
- applicable treaty;
- contractual governing law;
- jurisdiction;
- enforceability of judgment.
The internet does not eliminate these questions.
It multiplies them.
Recent Legislative Changes and Why Effective Dates Matter
Kazakhstan’s copyright regime is presently in a period of continuing legislative adjustment.
The Copyright Law reflects amendments adopted in 2025 and 2026, including changes to terminology, collective management, copyright objects and excluded works. Several of those amendments have delayed effective dates.
For example, the January 2026 amendment to Article 8 concerning excluded works has a delayed commencement mechanism.
The 2025 amendment also contains provisions whose effective dates extend into 2027.
This means that every legal memorandum should ideally include an:
“Applicable law as of the date of the relevant act”
section.
That is particularly important for continuing online infringements that began under one version of the legislation and continued after amendments took effect.
A Copyright Litigation Matrix for Kazakhstan
A useful way to prepare a claim is to build the following matrix:
| Issue | Question | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Copyright object | What is protected? | Original work |
| Creativity | What is original? | Drafts, analysis, expert evidence |
| Authorship | Who created it? | Metadata, drafts, correspondence |
| Ownership | Who owns rights? | Assignment/licence/employment documents |
| Registration | Is there a state-record entry? | Certificate/registry information |
| Infringement | What did defendant do? | Website, social media, marketplace evidence |
| Digital existence | When was it online? | Notarial protocol, screenshots, platform records |
| Defendant identity | Who controls the account? | Corporate records, account details, transaction data |
| Permission | Was there a licence? | Contract, correspondence |
| Exception | Does a statutory limitation apply? | Evidence of purpose and circumstances |
| Damages/compensation | What financial remedy is sought? | Financial evidence/statutory basis |
| Continuing infringement | Is the conduct ongoing? | Fresh inspection |
| Remedy | What outcome is required? | Pleading and supporting evidence |
This approach prevents the common mistake of trying to use one piece of evidence to prove every element of the case.
The First Twenty-Four Hours After Online Infringement
For a Kazakhstan-based right holder, the first day can be decisive.
Preserve the webpage
Do not assume it will still exist tomorrow.
Preserve the original
Locate the earliest available version of the claimant’s work.
Record the URL
Do not rely on a screenshot without its location.
Record the account
Capture username, profile and other identifying information.
Consider notarial evidence preservation
Where the infringement is significant or likely to disappear, consider the statutory notarial mechanism before commencing litigation.
Establish ownership
Locate the employment, commissioning or assignment documents.
Preserve metadata
Keep the original file rather than relying only on exported copies.
Document commercial use
Preserve prices, advertisements, product listings and sales information.
Identify the defendant
Establish the connection between the online account and the legal person or individual.
Decide on the remedy
Determine whether the client wants:
- removal;
- cessation;
- attribution;
- recognition;
- compensation;
- damages;
- or several remedies together.
A Claimant’s Digital Evidence Package
For significant online infringement, counsel should consider submitting a package containing:
The original work
Creation evidence
Ownership documents
State-register documentation, where applicable
Notarial website/social-media inspection protocol
Screenshots
URLs
Metadata
Platform/account evidence
Commercial evidence
Comparison of works
Expert or specialist opinion where necessary
Correspondence with the defendant
The objective is to make it easy for the court to reconstruct the chronology.
A Defendant’s Digital Evidence Strategy
Defendants should not assume that a notarial protocol ends the evidentiary debate.
A defendant can examine:
- whether the URL is correctly identified;
- whether the inspected account belongs to the defendant;
- whether the protocol accurately describes the content;
- whether the claimant owns the work;
- whether the work itself is protected;
- whether the defendant independently created the material;
- whether the allegedly copied elements are commonplace;
- whether an exception applies;
- whether the claimant’s evidence establishes the relevant act of exploitation.
The 2026 Almaty design decision illustrates the importance of this last point: similarity in individual elements did not establish reproduction of the protected work.
Why “Expert Evidence” Should Not Be Used as a Substitute for Legal Analysis
Experts and specialists can be useful for:
- technical comparison;
- software analysis;
- image analysis;
- metadata;
- digital evidence;
- similarity assessment.
But the ultimate legal question remains for the court.
A specialist may identify similarities.
The court must determine whether those similarities amount to appropriation of protected expression.
The 2026 Almaty design case illustrates precisely this distinction: the specialist’s conclusion identified partial reproduction, but the courts assessed whether the identified elements were legally protected and whether the evidence established copying of the claimant’s protected work.
Copyright and Contract Should Be Pleaded Separately
A dispute may simultaneously involve:
Copyright infringement
and
contractual breach.
For example, a licensee may be authorised to use a photograph in one campaign but use it in another.
The contract determines the scope of permission.
Copyright law determines the underlying exclusive rights.
The lawyer should therefore avoid collapsing both issues into one allegation.
This is especially important where the defendant is a former contractor, employee, licensee or business partner.
Licensing Under Kazakhstan Law
The author’s contract should identify:
- methods of use;
- term;
- territory;
- remuneration;
- payment terms;
- other material conditions.
Kazakhstan’s statutory defaults make precise drafting particularly important.
If territory is not specified, the relevant right is limited to Kazakhstan.
Rights not expressly transferred are treated as not transferred.
Unknown methods of use cannot simply be assumed to have been assigned.
For digital businesses, this means that “all rights, worldwide, in any form whatsoever” should not be treated as a substitute for careful drafting.
The agreement should identify the exploitation methods that matter commercially.
Copyright in Advertising Agencies and Freelancers
A creative agency relationship can involve several independent layers of rights.
For example:
Agency
may create the campaign.
Photographer
may own rights in photographs.
Composer
may own music rights.
Actor
may have related or other rights.
Stock provider
may provide material under a limited licence.
Client
may pay the agency.
Payment to the agency does not automatically eliminate every third-party rights issue.
A rights audit should therefore work backwards from the final campaign to every material component.
Copyright and Trademarks
A copied logo or brand asset may implicate both copyright and trademark law.
A website clone may involve:
- copyright;
- trademark;
- unfair competition;
- business-name issues.
The lawyer should identify the legal right that best corresponds to the harm.
Copyright is not always the strongest weapon.
Copyright and Domain Names
A domain name and the content hosted through it should be analysed separately.
The domain may raise trademark or other commercial issues.
The website may contain:
- protected text;
- photographs;
- graphics;
- software;
- audiovisual material.
The lawyer should identify the relevant protected object rather than treating the domain itself as synonymous with copyright.
Copyright in Databases
A database can contain unprotected facts.
The relevant copyright question may concern the creative selection or arrangement of those facts.
The distinction is important in disputes involving:
- catalogues;
- directories;
- product databases;
- research compilations;
- commercial listings.
The lawyer should separate:
ownership of the data
from
protection of the creative compilation.
Copyright in Photography
Photography is one of the most litigation-active categories of copyright in Kazakhstan.
The recent Astana case demonstrates that even a single online photograph can generate:
- recognition/restoration of attribution rights;
- compensation;
- litigation costs;
- an enforceable court order.
Photographers and businesses should therefore preserve:
- RAW files;
- original JPEGs;
- metadata;
- publication records;
- commissioning documents;
- licences;
- invoices;
- source files.
The strongest photography claim is usually not simply:
“I took this photograph.”
It is:
“I created this photograph on this date, here is the original file and its history, here is the evidence of my rights, and here is the defendant’s use of the same work.”
Copyright in Corporate Training
Training programmes can combine multiple copyright objects.
A single course may contain:
- original written material;
- slides;
- diagrams;
- videos;
- photographs;
- music;
- software;
- third-party quotations.
The company may own the course while lacking rights in one or more components.
A corporate rights audit should therefore be conducted at the component level.
Copyright in Architectural and Design Projects
Kazakhstan’s express treatment of practical implementation of architectural, urban-planning and landscape projects deserves attention.
For architects and developers, the contractual question should therefore include not merely:
“Who owns the drawings?”
but:
“What rights exist in the project, and what rights govern its practical implementation?”
This can become particularly significant when the architect and developer have different expectations about later construction, modification or reuse.
Collective Management and Royalties
Where individual licensing is impractical, collective rights management may become commercially significant.
A lawyer should determine:
- which right is being administered;
- which repertoire is covered;
- whether the organisation has authority;
- how the tariff is calculated;
- what evidence supports the amount;
- how royalties are distributed.
Recent amendments to the Copyright Law have also altered terminology concerning collective rights-management organisations, making it particularly important to work from the current statutory text rather than outdated terminology.
International Copyright and Kazakhstan
For foreign right holders, Kazakhstan’s system should be analysed together with applicable international treaties.
The Copyright Law expressly gives international treaties precedence where their rules differ from national legislation.
A foreign claimant should therefore identify:
- treaty basis;
- nationality;
- publication;
- territorial connection;
- applicable term;
- enforcement mechanism.
For a Kazakh author enforcing rights abroad, the analysis reverses.
The author may have copyright protection in Kazakhstan but need separate procedural enforcement in the foreign jurisdiction.
What Kazakh Businesses Should Audit
A corporate copyright audit should ask:
Who created each important work?
Where is the original?
Who owns the economic rights?
Where is the assignment?
Are freelancer contracts adequate?
Are employee-created works documented?
Are licences sufficiently specific?
Does the licence cover online use?
Does it cover modification?
Does it cover foreign territories?
Are third-party materials documented?
Are source files preserved?
Is there a digital evidence-preservation protocol?
Does the company know which notary to approach when urgent online evidence must be secured?
The final question is particularly important.
Evidence preservation should be part of the company’s copyright compliance programme rather than an emergency measure invented after litigation begins.
A Kazakhstan Copyright Decision Tree
The most useful litigation methodology can be reduced to the following sequence.
Is there a work?
↓
Is it a copyright-protected expression?
↓
Who is the author?
↓
Who owns the relevant economic rights?
↓
What exactly did the defendant use?
↓
Which economic or personal right corresponds to that use?
↓
Was the use authorised?
↓
Does a statutory exception apply?
↓
What evidence establishes each element?
↓
Is the evidence likely to disappear?
↓
Should it be secured through the court or a notary?
↓
What remedy achieves the client’s objective?
This final evidence-preservation question is what differentiates a genuinely Kazakhstan-focused litigation strategy from a generic copyright article.
Common Misconceptions
“Copyright must be registered.”
No.
Copyright arises upon creation. Registration is not a constitutive requirement.
“A copyright certificate proves infringement.”
No.
It may help establish identification or rights, but infringement must still be proved.
“A screenshot proves the entire case.”
No.
A screenshot can establish what appeared on a screen. It does not necessarily establish authorship, ownership, copying or account control.
“A notarial protocol proves authorship.”
Not necessarily.
It primarily records the evidence inspected.
“Everything online is free to use.”
No.
Public availability is not a general copyright exception.
“The November 2024 Supreme Court resolution created a new copyright law.”
No.
The November 2024 normative resolution amended the existing Supreme Court normative framework; the Russian-language text of the copyright resolution was not substantively rewritten by that amendment.
“Similarity proves infringement.”
No.
The 2026 Cassation Court decision arising from Almaty demonstrates that similarities may result from common elements or a general idea rather than reproduction of a protected work.
“Paying the creator means the company owns everything.”
Not necessarily.
The contractual chain of rights must be examined.
The Kazakhstan Copyright Evidence Model
For sophisticated practice, the strongest model is:
Layer One — The Work
Original file, manuscript, photograph, code, design or other work.
Layer Two — Creation
Drafts, metadata, correspondence and chronology.
Layer Three — Title
Employment agreement, assignment, licence or other rights documentation.
Layer Four — Registration
State-register information where strategically useful.
Layer Five — Infringement
Website, social-media, marketplace or physical-use evidence.
Layer Six — Preservation
Notarial protocol, court-secured evidence and technical preservation.
Layer Seven — Attribution
Evidence connecting the defendant to the use.
Layer Eight — Remedy
Evidence supporting the precise relief sought.
This architecture is particularly useful because it prevents one of the most common errors in copyright litigation:
asking one document to prove too much.
Copyright Protection in Kazakhstan Is an Evidence Problem as Much as a Rights Problem
Kazakhstan provides a substantial copyright framework.
Copyright arises automatically.
Ideas and facts are distinguished from protected expression.
Authors receive personal non-property and economic rights.
Economic rights can be transferred and licensed.
Registration can provide an additional evidentiary mechanism.
Courts have powers to protect copyright.
And Kazakhstan provides a particularly useful notarial mechanism for securing electronic evidence before litigation.
But the practical question is not simply whether a right exists.
The more important question is whether the claimant can prove the entire chain:
protected work
→ author
→ ownership
→ scope of rights
→ defendant’s use
→ absence of permission
→ absence of applicable exception
→ reliable digital evidence
→ connection to defendant
→ appropriate remedy
Recent judicial practice illustrates this clearly.
The 2026 civil Cassation Court decision arising from Almaty demonstrates that registration does not establish infringement and that courts will distinguish protected creative expression from common design elements and general ideas.
The 2025 Astana photograph case demonstrates that online publication of a photograph without proper attribution can result in both restoration of the author’s rights and monetary compensation.
Almaty litigation concerning photographs demonstrates that the statutory public-access exception can become a serious substantive issue in internet-media disputes, while also showing that procedural errors can materially affect the outcome.
The November 2024 Supreme Court development should be understood accurately: it maintained and updated the normative interpretive framework for copyright cases rather than introducing an entirely new substantive copyright regime.
Perhaps the most important practical lesson is therefore this:
In a modern Kazakh copyright dispute, the lawyer is not merely proving that something was copied. The lawyer is constructing an evidentiary chain capable of showing what the protected work was, who owned it, what appeared online, when it appeared, who controlled it, what legal right was implicated, and why the defendant’s use was unlawful.
That makes digital evidence preservation a substantive part of copyright strategy.
For online infringement, the best time to think about evidence is before the claim is filed. A properly prepared notarial inspection, combined with the original work, rights documentation, metadata and evidence connecting the online account to the defendant, can transform an otherwise fragile screenshot into a coherent evidentiary record.
And that is where Kazakhstan’s copyright system becomes particularly interesting for practitioners: the decisive advantage often lies not in possessing the strongest copyright theory, but in preserving the strongest proof of that theory before the digital evidence disappears.
