Breaking news

Cyprus Tax Authorities Target Undeclared Digital Earnings

by THEFUTURE.TEAM

October 24, 2025

Cyprus is intensifying its scrutiny on undeclared income from digital channels, as a new audit reveals widespread non-compliance among roughly 300 individuals and entities—including several foreign residents. The investigation, spearheaded by advanced social media monitoring, highlights income omissions from platforms like OnlyFans, which surged in prominence during the pandemic as creators monetized their content through paid subscriptions.

Advanced Monitoring Uncovers Significant Gaps

The Cyprus Tax Department’s sophisticated analytical tools uncovered numerous cases where both local and foreign earners failed to report revenue. Instances of income reaching up to €500,000 have been detected, underscoring a critical gap in fiscal reporting as digital transactions continue to grow.

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

Diverse Professional Sectors Under Scrutiny

The audit did not solely target digital creators; it also extended to diverse sectors including beauticians, taxi drivers, hairdressers, travel agents, and small business owners. Notably, over 50 taxi operators were found to have undeclared income surpassing €100,000—often processed via electronic payments—highlighting a broader trend of non-compliance across various service-driven industries.

EU Directives and Enhanced Transparency Measures

The enforcement framework has been bolstered by EU Directive 2011/16/EU (DAC7), which mandates that digital platforms, since July 2021, submit comprehensive user data—such as identities, tax residences, and annual incomes—directly to national tax authorities. This system, supplemented by the One Stop Shop (OSS) VAT mechanism, is instrumental in closing regulatory loopholes and ensuring cross-border financial transparency.

Expanding Focus to a Broad Range of Digital Platforms

Beyond OnlyFans, authorities are extending their audits to include income generated from YouTube, Twitch, Instagram, and other online marketplaces. By correlating bank records with online activity and spending patterns, regulators are keenly focused on individuals whose lifestyles do not match their reported incomes, ensuring equitable tax compliance across traditional and digital domains.

Implications for the Evolving Online Economy

While OnlyFans is primarily recognized for adult content, its platform also serves a wide range of professionals including musicians, fitness trainers, and artists. This comprehensive local investigation into digital earnings underscores the principle that all income—whether digital or traditional—must be declared under Cypriot law. With formal notices set to be dispatched, and the threat of backdated taxation, fines, and even criminal proceedings looming over persistent offenders, the tax department aims to safeguard fiscal integrity in an increasingly digital economic landscape.

The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties

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.