Dr. Metin first emphasized that EPTALEX continues to operate actively in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, which are among the countries affected by the regional developments, and that the firm’s legal services continue without interruption.

War and Commercial Contracts

In regions where war and armed conflict occur, it is often difficult to argue that commercial contracts remain completely unaffected. War does not only threaten life and property but can also directly disrupt the continuity of commercial activities and the performance of contractual obligations.

For this reason, expecting companies to fulfill their contractual obligations under the same conditions as if nothing had changed may not always be realistic in times of war.

Can War Constitute Force Majeure? What Are the Legal Consequences?

Events that occur beyond the control of the parties, that are unforeseeable, and that cannot be prevented despite all reasonable precautions may be considered force majeure. War is one of the events that may fall within this category.

However, the mere existence of war does not automatically constitute force majeure for every contract. The decisive factor is whether the war actually prevents the performance of contractual obligations arising from the contract. The duration of the conflict may also be a significant factor. If the parties are still able to perform their obligations, a force majeure claim may not arise from a legal perspective.

Notification of Force Majeure and Contractual Obligations

If war creates serious difficulties in fulfilling contractual obligations, the situation should be promptly notified to the counterparty. In many modern commercial contracts, notification by e-mail is considered sufficient, unless the contract specifically requires another form of notification.

Possible Implications for Investments and International Commercial Relations

For businesspeople with investments in the Gulf region — particularly in cities such as Dubai — these developments may raise important legal questions.

For example, in the “off-plan” real estate investment model, which is widely used in Dubai, investors undertake installment payment obligations according to a payment schedule while the project is still under construction.

If the economic effects of war significantly weaken an investor’s ability to meet payment obligations, legal options such as invoking force majeure, requesting payment deferral, or withdrawing from the contract may arise depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

For this reason, it is crucial for the business community to carefully review the force majeure and termination clauses in international contracts and closely monitor ongoing developments.

The post The War in the Middle East may Affect the Performance of Commercial Contracts appeared first on Eptalex.

Yet beneath the spectacle of glowing interfaces and algorithmic virtuosity lies an unresolved question that the art world can no longer afford to sidestep: who, if anyone, is the author of generative art?

Generative AI systems produce images by training on vast datasets of existing artworks. In doing so, they absorb the formal vocabularies, compositional habits, and stylistic signatures of countless artists. While no single work may be copied, the system learns how art “looks” by metabolizing artistic identities at scale. The result is a form of creation that feels uncannily authored, yet no individual artist is named.

Copyright law offers little guidance here. Under most legal systems, authorship depends on identifiable human intention and control over expression. Crucially, style the very thing that distinguishes one artist from another is not protected. The paradox is striking: art is inseparable from style as identity, yet style remains legally unowned. AI capitalizes on this gap, extracting and recombining artistic personality without attribution, consent, or acknowledgment. This is not plagiarism in the traditional sense, but something more diffuse and harder to see an anonymous appropriation of artistic labor and voice.

For curators and institutions, this raises questions that are not merely legal, but ethical and cultural. Museums have long treated provenance, attribution, and authorship as foundational values. We demand to know where works come from, who made them, and under what conditions. AI-generated art complicates these norms by rendering its influences invisible, flattening artistic lineages into anonymous training data.

This is where the moral rights tradition offers a more resonant framework for the art world. Rooted in European art law but deeply aligned with curatorial ethics, moral rights recognize the enduring personal bond between artist and artwork. They protect attribution, integrity, and the dignity of artistic expression not as commodities, but as expressions of identity.

The right of integrity is especially relevant in the age of machine learning. It speaks to reputational harm and to the erosion of artistic character when creative identities are endlessly remixed, abstracted, and redeployed by systems that neither recognize nor credit their sources. Even where no single work is copied, the cumulative effect can distort how an artist’s voice circulates in culture.

Moral rights remind us that artists are not just contributors to datasets or inputs into innovation pipelines. They are persons whose creative identities underpin cultural meaning. For the art world, this shifts the conversation away from narrow questions of ownership and toward broader responsibilities of representation, respect, and transparency.

What might this look like in practice? Platforms and institutions could begin by disclosing the cultural sources and artistic traditions embedded in generative systems. Curators might treat training data as a form of provenance, contextualizing AI works within the lineages they draw from. Markets could develop norms of collective or symbolic attribution that acknowledge artistic communities rather than erasing them behind claims of technological autonomy.

Art history has repeatedly expanded our understanding of authorship, from Duchamp’s readymades to conceptual art and post-internet practices. AI-generated art is simply the latest frontier. But as institutions rush to embrace its novelty, they also inherit a responsibility to ensure that innovation does not come at the cost of artistic identity.

Creativity is not only an economic function or a technical output. It is a moral and human one. How the art world chooses to frame, exhibit, and legitimize AI-generated art will shape whether future creativity continues to honor artistic identity or quietly dissolves it into data.

The post AI Art and the Integrity of Artistic Identity: Authorship, Moral Rights, and Responsibility in the Age of Generative Art appeared first on Eptalex.

Many expatriates assume that, on death, their UAE-based assets will automatically pass to their spouse or family members. From a legal perspective, that assumption is not always reliable. Succession in the UAE is governed by formal rules of law and evidence, not informal expectations, and recent legislative developments underline the importance of proactive estate planning.

From 1 January 2026, according to public announcements, a new Civil Transactions Law is expected to clarify the treatment of UAE-based financial assets where a foreigner dies and no legally identifiable heirs are established. In such circumstances, those assets may be transferred into a supervised charitable endowment and managed by the competent authority. While these developments remain subject to implementing regulations, they highlight the potential consequences of leaving succession arrangements unplanned.

A will remains the primary legal instrument linking assets to identified beneficiaries. In the absence of a valid will, establishing entitlement can be difficult, particularly where heirs reside in different jurisdictions, documentation is incomplete, or procedural requirements cannot be met promptly. In such cases, an estate may be treated as heirless in law, regardless of the deceased’s intentions.

This risk is not confined to exceptional cases. It may arise simply because no will was prepared, or because heirs are unable to act in time or satisfy evidentiary requirements. The law does not operate on assumptions or informal family understandings; it relies on legally valid and enforceable documents.

Expatriates should also be aware that different will regimes apply in the UAE. Mainland wills are subject to federal law and local court procedures, while wills registered with the DIFC or ADGM operate under separate common-law-based frameworks, each with its own scope, formalities, and enforcement considerations.

In addition to wills, UAE foundations can form part of an effective estate planning strategy. Foundations established in jurisdictions such as the DIFC or ADGM are separate legal entities that can hold and manage assets during an individual’s lifetime. Assets transferred to a properly established foundation are generally removed from the individual’s personal estate, reducing reliance on post-death succession processes and helping ensure continuity, particularly for complex or cross-border assets.

Foundations and wills are not mutually exclusive. Used together, they can provide a structured approach that combines lifetime asset management with clear post-death instructions.

For expatriates with assets in the UAE, estate planning should not be viewed as a formality. Taking advice and putting appropriate structures in place whether wills, foundations, or a combination of both  can significantly reduce uncertainty, facilitate smoother estate administration, and increase the likelihood that assets ultimately benefit the intended people or causes.

The post Planning Ahead for UAE Assets: The Importance of a Proper Will appeared first on Eptalex.

The key reforms include the law on lifting banking secrecy, the law on Bank restructuring, and a set of draft laws aimed at enhancing governance and transparency, in addition to circulars and decisions issued by the Central Bank of Lebanon, the Ministry of Justice, and regulatory bodies.

The study highlights the expected impact of these measures in supporting economic recovery and removing Lebanon from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list.

The full study is available in Arabic and English.

The post Banking Reforms in Lebanon: A Crucial Turning Point Towards Financial Recovery appeared first on Eptalex.

Dr. Metin emphasizes that this success is built on a strong foundation of legal certainty, safety, and advanced digital infrastructure. Nearly every process—from launching a business to managing legal matters—can be completed online, streamlining life and work in an unprecedented way.

He also observes that Dubai continues to attract people from every corner of the world not only for its tax advantages, but because it offers stability, freedom, and respect for the rule of law. Its diversity, harmonious coexistence, and high level of security make it a truly unique place to live and thrive.

With a fast, efficient, and technology-driven legal system where many disputes are resolved in mere months, Dubai shines as a thriving global hub of innovation, investment, and quality of life—a city that has turned the desert into a flourishing international paradise.

To read the full article, please click here.

The post Is Dubai Today the City Where Every Stone and Soil is Made of Gold? appeared first on Eptalex.

To read the full article, click here.

The post Invest in the Future: Saudi Arabia’s Tax Reforms Pave the Way for Global Growth appeared first on Eptalex.

In a landmark ruling on 12/8/2025, the Beirut Criminal Court held Byblos Bank liable for breach of trust under Article 670 of the Penal Code, after it ‘unjustifiably’ refused in 2019 to transfer one million euros belonging to its client to a Swiss account.

In commentary on the said judgment, our Counsel, President Elias Chikhani, defined the crime of breach of trust and analyzed the bank’s actions in order to demonstrate the extent to which it fulfills the elements of the said crime.

To read the full article, please click here.

The post Landmark Ruling: Lebanese Bank Convicted of Breach of Trust in €1 Million Transfer Dispute appeared first on Eptalex.

A recent example is the dispute between Studio Ghibli and OpenAI, which began when users started generating anime-style versions of their photos using ChatGPT, mimicking the distinctive Ghibli aesthetic. Currently, a similar problem involves the Midjourney platform, where users are creating images that include characters copyrighted by Disney, Marvel and Universal.

Disney, Marvel and Universal have a long and respected legacy of creating works that have entertained and inspired global audiences for decades. They are behind some of the most iconic, valuable, and enduring copyrighted works across film, television, literature, consumer products, and theme parks. To respond to this unauthorized use, Disney, Marvel, Universal, and other companies (the “Plaintiffs”) have filed a lawsuit in California against Midjourney.

I – Legal Grounds for the Lawsuit

The lawsuit is based on two main points: direct infringement and secondary infringement.

1. Direct Copyright Infringement

Subject to the Copyright Act, particularly 17 U.S. Code § 106, copyright owners have the exclusive right to reproduce, publicly display, distribute, and create derivative works based on their protected content.

According to the lawsuit, Midjourney unlawfully infringed on the Plaintiffs’ rights mentioned in the article above, in two ways:

• First, during the development and training of its image service;
• Second, in the image outputs it generates for subscribers.

Each unauthorized use is claimed to be a separate and distinct violation. Midjourney is accused of purposely using the Plaintiffs’ intellectual property to attract users and profit by offering them countless unauthorized copies and derivative versions of protected works through a three steps’ process:

• Collection: Midjourney gathered large volumes of online content using automated tools like bots, scrapers, and web crawlers.
• Cleaning and Reformatting: The collected content was filtered and reformatted into a common technical structure fit for AI training creating new copies in the process.
• Training: The reformatted data, including protected works owned by the Plaintiffs, was used to train the AI model. Although the internal details of the process remain undisclosed, the Plaintiffs allege that the copyrighted content was stored in the system in a way that allows the AI to reproduce, display, and share derivatives of their works without authorization violating their exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.

In comparison, Lebanon, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia also protect copyrights through national laws that give similar rights to what is found in 17 U.S. Code § 106. These countries are signatories of the Berne Convention that sets international minimum standards for copyright protection and applies across all 181 member countries.

In Lebanon, Law No. 75/1999, Article 15, gives authors exclusive rights to control the reproduction, adaptation, distribution, importation, public performance, and communication of their work, protecting against any unauthorized use or modification in any form.

In the UAE, Federal Decree-Law No. 38 of 2021, Article 7, gives authors, their successors, or the copyright holder exclusive rights to reproduce, broadcast, publicly share, modify, lease, and publish the work.

In Saudi Arabia, the Copyright Law issued by Royal Decree No. M/41 in 2003 and amended in 2018, Article 9, grants authors or their designee exclusive rights to print, publish, record, translate, quote, alter, redistribute, communicate to the public, and materially exploit the work, including commercial lease. Financial rights are also granted to performers, composers, producers, and broadcasting organizations as per implementing regulations.

2. Secondary Copyright Infringement

Even if Midjourney claims that its users are the ones creating the infringing content, the Plaintiffs argue that Midjourney is still liable. This is because the platform had full control over the training data and chose to include copyrighted works without authorization, despite having the ability to exclude them.

Additionally, Midjourney has the technical capability to monitor and regulate user prompts and could block prompts likely to generate infringing outputs. The Plaintiffs note that Midjourney already blocks content related to hate speech, nudity, violence, and disrespectful images of public figures demonstrating that the platform has the tools to limit misuse.

II– Can Midjourney Claim “Fair Use”?

The Copyright Act, in section 17 U.S.C. § 107 outlines the fair use doctrine, which permits limited use of copyrighted works without permission for certain purposes such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.

Courts consider the following four factors to determine fair use:

1. The purpose and character of the use including whether it is for commercial or nonprofit educational purposes;
2. The nature of the copyrighted work;
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used; and
4. The effect of the use on the market value of the original work.

While it is ultimately for the court to decide whether Midjourney’s actions qualify as fair use, based on the allegations and context, the case appears to be outside the scope of what the fair use doctrine is meant to allow. Midjourney operates a commercial platform with four levels of paid subscriptions ranging between 10$ and 120$ per month, where subscribers can directly generate, reproduce, and publicly display further copies of the copyrighted works. The Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works are highly creative, original, and very valuable. It is also alleged that Midjourney used large amounts of these works, possibly even entire pieces, as training data. All these factors strongly weigh against a fair use defense.

It is important to note that neither Lebanon, nor the UAE, or Saudi Arabia apply the “fair use” doctrine as prescribed in Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act. Instead, these jurisdictions adhere to the Berne Convention which permits the adoption of limited exceptions to the protection of literary and artistic works under strict conditions, known as the three-step test: such allowed reproduction must (1) occur in certain special cases, (2) not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work, and (3) not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.

Conclusion

This lawsuit could play a key role in shaping the future of AI-generated images. The outcome may set a legal precedent that defines what AI platforms can and cannot do with existing creative content. More importantly, it may finally address the widespread infringement artists and creators are facing in the age of generative AI.
Human art is in real danger due to the misuse of artificial intelligence and this case may be a critical step toward protecting creativity and restoring legal accountability in the digital age.

The post The Legal Battle Over AI-Generated Art and Intellectual Property Rights appeared first on Eptalex.

For employers, flexible work offers a practical response to rising operational costs.

For workers, especially those with caregiving responsibilities such as women, it presents accessible job opportunities and a better work-life balance.

For governments, these models offer adaptable solutions to tackle unemployment and reduce the burden of implementing rigid, outdated employment systems.

Globally, labor standards have evolved to reflect these trends. The International Labor Organization (ILO) has consistently emphasized the need to extend legal protection to informal and non-traditional forms of work.

Although a full overhaul of the Lebanese Labor Law (“LLL”) remains challenging in the current climate, the targeted updates to the LLL enacted on 9 May 2025 offer a pragmatic approach.

Expanded definitions of Employer and Worker

The new amendments of 9 May 2025 impact Articles 1, 2, and 12 of the LLL enacted in 1946.

The first amendment concerns article 1 of the LLL, which defines the employer as any natural or legal person who employs a worker under a written or verbal employment contract, in exchange for a wage. That wage could be paid in cash, in kind, or as a share of the profits.

This definition extends legal protection to a wider range of employment relationships.

Article 2 redefines the worker as any man, woman, or minor working for a wage, whether full-time, part-time, or seasonal, in person or remotely, and even when using their own equipment.

This redefinition expands legal protection to workers in flexible and remote arrangements, including those using their own tools.

Modernizing the concept of the Employment Contract

The third amendment updates article 12 of the LLL, which previously followed a traditional definition of the employment contract. The new version no longer considers the place where the work is performed, meaning that a contract is still legally considered an “employment contract” even if the work is done remotely.

The amendments adopted under the remaining articles of the amending law have added new sections to Article 12 of the LLL that include:

• Compressed work schedules are allowed if both parties agree, as long as weekly working hours do not exceed 48 and daily rest periods remain in place.

• Part-time work is officially defined as working more than one-third but less than two-thirds of a full-time schedule. Part-time contracts can be verbal or written but must define the job, hours, and wage details. They are not to be confused with temporary reductions in hours due to economic or emergency reasons. Part-time workers get priority for full-time roles if they qualify and a vacancy exists.

Employers can request overtime from part-time workers if agreed with them, with a limit of 10% of the part-time schedule agreed upon with the part-time worker unless the latter agrees otherwise. Overtime is paid at a premium rate of 50% over the regular rate.

Switching from full-time to part-time is allowed for employees who wish to pursue their studies (for up to 2 years) and for mothers’ post-maternity leave (for up to 1 year), if agreed between the parties in writing.

• Seasonal work is now clearly defined as time-limited (up to 6 months) and treated as a fixed-term contract.

• Remote work is defined as work done from outside the employer’s premises, with the same legal standing as on-site work.

• Equal protection is granted to part-time, seasonal, and remote workers; including union rights, safety, and anti-discrimination.

• Entitlements (like leave and social security) are granted proportionally based on hours worked.

• Employers must keep records of all employment types, hours, and conditions, accessible to the Labor Ministry’s investigators.

Implementation and Social Security Obligations

Further implementation details for inspection and social security coverage will be set by future government decrees.

This point raises important questions regarding the practical implementation of these new amendments within the framework of the National Social Security Fund (“NSSF”) and the Ministry of Labor.

For these authorities, all employees mentioned by these amendments to the LLL, such as part-time, seasonal, and remote workers, are now fully subject to the amended LLL, with all its associated obligations and benefits.

Consequently, they also fall under the scope of the Social Security Law, and employers are required to register them with the NSSF, allowing them to access the full range of social security benefits provided by law.

Are these new rights and protections a minor adjustment, or the beginning of real labor reform in Lebanon?

The post Reforming the 1946 Lebanese Labor Law: A Step Towards Flexibility and Inclusion appeared first on Eptalex.

While you may wonder whether it was an issue of plagiarism of another award or academic work without quoting the authors, or a copy paste of parties’ submissions, the reality is that the Singapore Court of Appeal revealed in fact the dangers of repeated appointments of the same arbitrator in several cases involving one of the parties without the other.

Indeed, after reviewing the reasoning of the Court justifying its annulment of the arbitral award which “copy pasted” nearly 47% of two other awards, it turns out that one of the arbitrators of the challenged award had been involved in two previous related arbitration cases involving one of the parties: he ended up “copy pasting” half of the previous awards he had himself authored (so no plagiarism was at stake), although the other party to the challenged award was not a party in the other arbitrations, and several “copy pasted” arguments and authorities were not discussed by the parties or brought to their attention in the challenged award, affecting the parties’ right to a fair trial and their rights of defense. Moreover, the challenged award even “copy pasted” sections that were not applicable to the case which was subject to other rules of arbitration than the previous ones.

Consequently, the “copy pasted” award was deemed by the Singapore Court of Appeal to reveal a prejudgment by the arbitrator of certain issues, based on information which was not brought to both parties’ attention or discussion, which were all reasons to consider the award as contrary to the integrity of the decision-making process and the right of the parties to a fair trial, and therefore annulled.

This Court of Appeal’s decision brings to light the disadvantages of repeat appointments of the same arbitrator in multiple cases involving one of the parties to the arbitration without the other.

Although it may be very useful – in terms of cost efficiency and time saving – to have the same arbitrator involved in related arbitration cases, the key element in any repeated appointment of the same arbitrator in multiple cases involving one of the parties is to preserve the integrity of every case and the other party’s right to a fair trial which will surely be compromised if there are asymmetries in the information available to each party, particularly because of the confidential nature of the arbitral proceedings.

In summary, there is no blanket prohibition of “copy pasting” in the decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal[2] and its true impact is to pinpoint the best practices when the same arbitrator and only one of the parties are involved in several related arbitration cases, specifically:

• Ensuring that all parties have access to the same information that may be relied upon in the award;
• Avoiding situations that may compromise (or appear to compromise) the arbitrators’ duty to be impartial and unbiased;
• Preserving the parties’ right of defense by ensuring that the parties were invited to discuss all arguments and references used by the arbitral tribunal in the award; and
• A general obligation of transparency of the arbitrators towards all the parties.

[1] E.g. https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/indian-arbitrators-behind-copied-and-pasted-award-come-light

[2] In fact, to copy paste the parties’ allegations and arguments in the sections of the award related to the parties’ allegations or the background of the dispute is quite common in arbitral proceedings, and the arbitrators often request a Word version of the parties’ submissions in the interest of time saving.

The post Arbitral Awards- To copy paste or not to copy paste: that is NOT the question appeared first on Eptalex.