Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Chile

This talk page may have a limited number of watchers. Issues concerning the copyright rules of Chile may get more attention if a notice of the discussion here is given at a general page like Commons:Village pump/Copyright or Commons talk:Freedom of panorama.

2017 amendment?

@Aymatth2: I'm afraid that we need to update this entire CRT in the following weeks, because I found this on WIPO Lex: Law No. 17.336 on Intellectual Property (as amended up to Law No. 21045 of November 3, 2017) (as of now, in Spanish only), I wonder if situations are changed or not, to which we currently lists its 2014 version. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• I have updated it to the 2017 revision. No significant changes, but I am uncertain about whether FoP for buildings is really allowed. Publication of photographs of architectural works seems to be limited to newspapers, magazines and books and texts intended for education. That is, they could not be used in advertisements. Drawings are ok. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Status of postage stamps

Anyone know what the copyright status of postage stamps from this country is? I assume it is normal term but it's not really clear from the guideline. Adamant1 (talk) 14:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

TOO

I will be bold and remove the current TOO info as it is misleading, per the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:AbcdinLogo.svg. Bedivere (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Churches and FOP

Anyone know if FOP in this country applies to images taken inside of churches or not? Or really building interiors to begin with? Adamant1 (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think yes. "Public places" comprises anything that is publicly accessible. That seems to be the original intention of the legislator, based on the legitimate history of the law available on the National Congress Library. The current Article 71 F originates in the former Article 44, which had basically the same text. During the discussion of Law 20435, which modified the Chilean copyright law, a modification was proposed in the sense of requiring newspapers, magazines and editorials (in general) to pay for the use of the photographs and drawings originated from the works of architecture, monuments, statues, and art works adorning squares, avenues and public places, which is free and not subject to payment, thus making an exception. Then Minister of Culture said that "if one person exposes an own work in a public space, that work turns into a public object, and so it is considered that all reproductions and publications made from those works, such as photographs, postals or drawings cannot be subject to payment". The proposal was rejected and did not become part of the final law. [1]. In the end, as long as it's not the actual original work in a public space but a photograph, drawing or other kind of reproduction, it is safe to use here. Bedivere (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I think you might have misunderstood what I was asking though. What I mean is can someone take a picture of say a statue inside of church that is otherwise copyrighted and safely upload it to Commons due to the "public" nature of a church or are churches not public places for purposes of the law? (Tangential but related, it would probably be worth figuring out the where the line is with other places like train stations, malls, Etc. Etc.). --Adamant1 (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I understood that. I think that based on the law and the history of the law it refers liberally to public places, including these you mention. It is not explicit in the law itself but you can extract the meaning out of the history of the law (that's what courts usually do anyway). Public places as in places publicly accessible to the public. Bedivere (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bedivere I hope you are also aware of a new proposal to restrict Chilean FoP, see Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/04#Proposal affecting FoP Chile for the context and the ensuing debate on FoP policy of Commons. Any restriction to liberal commercial uses will certainly affect Commons' ability to host commercially-licensed images of contemporary Chilean architecture and public art. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @JWilz12345 thanks for letting me know of the discussion. The Ley Balmes does not seem to be moving forward and I doubt it will be enacted anytime soon, not at least during the current government, so for the time being all is fine. Bedivere (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)