Copyright arises at creation. But in a dispute, the burden is on you to prove when you created it. Here are the methods that hold up in court under Swiss and EU law, and the ones that don't.
Under the Berne Convention, copyright arises automatically at the moment of creation. No registration, no formality required. But this automatic right creates a practical problem: there is no public record of when you created something. When a dispute arises, the burden falls on you to prove creation date, and the methods you used to document that date determine whether your claim holds up in court.
1. Qualified Electronic Timestamp (eIDAS Art. 41)
Under eIDAS Art. 41(2), a qualified electronic timestamp has a legal presumption of the accuracy of the date and time it indicates and the integrity of the data to which it is bound. The timestamp is generated by a QTSP listed on the EU Trusted List, synchronized to a trusted time source under RFC 3161, and cryptographically bound to a hash of the document. No one can alter the document content without invalidating the timestamp.
Swiss Trust Layer applies a qualified electronic timestamp at the moment of sealing, anchored by a QTSP under RFC 3161. The signed document carries the timestamp in its PDF metadata and can be verified at validate.swisstrustlayer.com. Notarial Certification
A notary can certify the date of creation by witnessing the signing of a document that includes a hash or description of the work. This is legally reliable but expensive and geographically constrained.
3. Depositing With a Collecting Society
Organizations such as SUISA (music) or ProLitteris (text and image authors) in Switzerland accept deposits of creative works with date evidence. These provide independent third-party confirmation of creation date for specific creative categories.
In Swiss and EU IP disputes, courts look for independent evidence from a trusted third party that cannot have been manipulated by the claimant. A qualified electronic timestamp from an EUTL-listed QTSP satisfies this standard. Self-generated evidence does not.
For context on why automatic copyright is no longer sufficient, see the linked post.
Protect your work with Swiss Trust Layer AG
Seal your intellectual property with a court-proof e-Seal backed by Swisscom Trust Services.
Book a Free Demo
What Happens If You Lose Every Password: Recovery Tied to You, Not a Login
Any service can send a reset email. None of them help once you have lost that email too, along with the phone, the password manager and every backup code. ESCROW Storage is bound to your passport-verified identity, so getting your sealed files back does not depend on any credential you still hold: you can retrieve them in person.
Cloud Storage Isn't Custody: What Identity-Verified Escrow in Switzerland Actually Changes
Dropbox, Google Drive, a shared company folder: all of them grant access to whoever holds the login, not to whoever is entitled to the file. Identity-verified escrow works differently. Recovery is tied to a KYC-verified person, held in Switzerland, independent of any cloud provider.
Where the AI Copyright Cases Actually Stand, and What None of Them Decide for You
Four cases get lumped together as "the AI copyright cases." They are not one case, and none of them has ruled on whether training a model on your work without permission is infringement. Here is where Andersen, NYT v. OpenAI, Getty v. Stability, and Bartz v. Anthropic actually stand, and what creators can prove regardless of how or when any of them lands.
The Moment Before an Engineer Walks Out the Door Is the Moment That Matters
IP risk does not start with a resignation letter. It concentrates in the weeks before, in private repos, personal emails, and unmerged branches nobody flagged as company records. Sealing source code, design docs, and prototypes as routine work, not just at launches, is what keeps a startup's ownership provable regardless of who leaves when.
OpenAI, Google and Nvidia Back Content Credentials. That Still Isn't Evidence in Court
Content Credentials now ship from ChatGPT images, from professional cameras and soon from Chrome itself. That makes provenance readable at scale. It does not make a manifest something a court presumes to be accurate about who made a work and when.
