Case premises (illustrative)
A digital studio in Chișină developed for a local client a set of illustrations, micro-animations, and a UI kit for a national campaign. A verbal agreement referred to "rights for the campaign," without a written assignment or exclusive license clause. Six months later, the client reused the assets in a separate SaaS product; the studio demanded cessation and damages.
This scenario is illustrative — it does not represent a real published case file — but reflects frequent patterns in Moldovan practice.
Copyright: existence and ownership
Under Law No. 139/2010, protection for an eligible work arises upon creation, without mandatory formalities. The initial owner is generally the author (natural person) or the employer in works made for hire — if law and the employment contract clearly provide so.
In B2B relations with sole traders or LLCs:
- absent written assignment, economic rights typically remain with the author;
- the client may hold only an implied, narrow license for the original purpose.
Idea versus expression
Courts distinguish:
| Protected (expression) | Not protected (idea) |
|---|---|
| Concrete illustrations, PSD layers, palette and composition | Generic concept "minimal medical style" |
| Animation with specific keyframes and timing | "We want something dynamic for 3 seconds" |
| UI components with custom spacing and iconography | General trend "glassmorphism" |
The studio focused arguments on source files, dated exports, and Git history — not the abstract campaign concept.
Evidence in litigation
Elements that mattered in the studio's strategy (model):
- contracts and emails with the initial brief limited to the campaign;
- invoices and bank transfers labeled "graphic creation campaign X";
- optional deposit of works at AGEPI before the dispute;
- version logs and EXIF metadata where relevant.
Without an evidence chain, even a solid right is hard to enforce quickly.
Good-faith third party
The client invoked purchasing a package from a subcontractor. The studio showed that:
- the subcontractor held no sublicensing rights;
- the client did not require IP warranties on acceptance (standard in procurement).
The debate shifted toward contractual liability between client and supplier, not automatic exoneration through "we did not know."
Lessons for studios and clients
- Written contract before the first draft — object, territory, term, exclusivity, derivative rights.
- Explicit assignment or license by exploitation type (online, SaaS, print, OOH).
- Deposit and archiving — proof of creation date.
- IP warranty clause for clients who resell or embed in software products.
- Preliminary mediation — often faster than full merits in early-stage relationships.
Conclusion
Copyright disputes around digital studios in Chișină turn on the scope of the license granted and creation evidence, not on whether copyright exists at all. Investment in clear contracts outweighs the cost of uncertain proceedings.
The materials above are for informational purposes only and do not constitute personalized legal advice. For specific situations, consult a lawyer or an AGEPI-authorized intellectual property advisor.