Cyprus Approves Retroactive Seafarer Tax Exemption From 2010

Cyprus has approved legislation that exempts nonresident seafarers from contributions to the social cohesion fund, with retroactive effect from January 1, 2010. Lawmakers passed the amendment with 23 votes in favor and 19 against.

Legislative Reform Aimed At Leveling The Maritime Playing Field

The amendment applies to foreign seafarers working for Cypriot companies, including those in inland navigation who contribute to social insurance. Under previous rules, employers paid a 2% levy on wages to the social cohesion fund. The fund supports social benefits and vulnerable groups. The exemption restores a provision that existed under earlier merchant shipping legislation.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Policy Rationale And Economic Implications

Lawmakers supporting the bill said the change is not expected to reduce state revenue. They said the measure could encourage shipping companies to retain operations and headquarters in Cyprus. Supporters added that increased business activity could offset losses through higher contributions to the social insurance system.

Political Debate and Controversial Perspectives

Fotini Tsiridou, MP of Disy, and Efthimios Diplaros, MP of Disy, introduced the bill alongside Panikos Leonidou, MP of Diko, and Alekos Tryfonides, MP of Dipa. Giorgos Koukoumas, MP of Akel, said the exemption could reduce fund revenue by €600,000 to €800,000 per year. He added that the measure may shift public resources toward private companies. Concerns were also raised about potential constitutional issues and compliance with EU state aid rules. Officials from the Deputy Ministry of Shipping and the state aid control authority expressed reservations.

Balancing Competitiveness With Social Accountability

Andreas Themistokleous, independent MP, said companies had been overcharged under the previous system and required regulatory correction. Fotini Tsiridou, MP of Disy, said the amendment removes unequal treatment of nonresident seafarers.

Lawmakers said the change is part of a broader review of maritime-related policies, as Cyprus seeks to maintain its position as a shipping hub. Ongoing discussions focus on balancing business incentives with funding obligations linked to the social cohesion system.

The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties

Copyright Law Struggles To Keep Up With AI Training

by News Editor

August 24, 2026

Courts Are Still Applying Old Copyright Rules To AI

AI companies train models on enormous amounts of published material, including books, articles and academic research. Whether using that content without authors’ permission violates copyright law remains unresolved.

Much of the debate centres on fair use, which allows copyrighted material to be used without permission in certain circumstances. Courts consider factors such as the purpose of the use, how much material was involved and its impact on the original market.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Anthropic Case Sets An Important Precedent

A major case involving Anthropic and a group of authors provided one of the clearest rulings so far. Judge William Alsup found that using copyrighted books to train AI models was lawful, comparing the process to people reading and studying literature before creating something new.

Anthropic was nevertheless ordered to pay $1.5 billion in a settlement. The penalty concerned books the company had obtained from illegal online libraries rather than the AI training itself.

For AI companies, that distinction could prove significant because it separates studying copyrighted material from directly copying it.

Competition Could Be The Key Issue

A case involving Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence offers a different perspective. A court ruled that Ross could not claim fair use after using Reuters’ copyrighted material to develop a competing AI-powered legal research platform.

The decision suggests courts may be less willing to consider AI training fair use when copyrighted content is used to build a product that directly competes with the original.

For authors, an unresolved question is whether AI-generated content should be considered competition for the works used to train these models.

The Law Has Yet To Catch Up

US copyright law predates generative AI by decades, leaving courts to apply old principles to new technology. Questions also remain over copyright protection for AI-generated works. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, a court ruled that material created entirely by AI cannot receive copyright protection.

Major AI companies remain involved in copyright litigation, and different courts could reach different conclusions. For now, there is no universal rule: the legality of AI training will depend on the circumstances of each case and how courts ultimately interpret copyright and fair use.

Breaking news