Source: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:PD-Chile
Timestamp: 2017-06-22 16:54:01
Document Index: 206408861

Matched Legal Cases: ['Artículo 10', 'Artículo 8', 'Artículo 38', 'artículo 6', 'artículo 38', 'in fine', 'artículo 88', 'artículo 11']

Template talk:PD-Chile - Wikimedia Commons
EditTemplate talk:PD-ChileType of material / Tipo de material
Copyright expires... / Derecho de autor expira...
A Published works (except 1 & 2):
70 years after death of the author, without surviving spouse, or unmarried, widows or married daughters with incapacitated for all job class*
Obras publicadas (excepto 1 & 2):
70 años desde la muerte del autor, sin cónyuge sobreviviente, ni hijas solteras, viudas o casadas con incapacidad para todo género de trabajo*
B Work published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the author is unknown (except 3):
when its first publication is older than 70 years
Obras publicadas anónimas, seudónimas o cuyo autor es desconocido (excepto 3):
C Work not published within the 50 years of its creation:
70 years following December 31 of the year in which it was created
Obras no publicada dentro de 50 años contados desde su creación:
1 Published works:
if the author died before September 16, 1962, without a surviving spouse*
2 Published works:
if the author died before November 18, 1954, without surviving spouse, or unmarried, widows or married daughters with incapacitated for all job class*
si el autor falleció antes del 18 de Noviembre de 1954, sin cónyuge sobreviviente, ni hijas solteras, viudas o casadas con incapaz para todo género de trabajo*
3 Works published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the author is unknown:
if they were first published before September 16, 1962
Obras publicadas anónimas, seudónimas o cuyo autor es desconocido:
* In opposite case, the term extends until the death of (the last one of) these survivor(s).* En caso contrario, el plazo se extiende hasta la muerte (del último) de dicho(s) sobreviviente(s).
Dominio público / Public domain
Ley Nº 17.336, sobre Propiedad Intelectual, de 2 de octubre de 1970, incluidas sus modificaciones, reconoce el dominio público como "patrimonio cultural común", de la siguiente forma:
b) La obra de autor desconocido, incluyéndose las canciones, leyendas, danzas y las expresiones del acervo flklórico;
Plazos de protección de Derecho de autor
Texto original de la Ley Nº 17.336, sobre Propiedad Intelectual, de 2 de octubre de 1970:
Ley Nº 17.336, tras la modificación de la Ley Nº 20.435, del 04 de mayo de 2010:
Artículo 10. La protección otorgada por esta ley dura por toda la vida del autor y se extiende hasta por 70 años más, contados desde la fecha de su fallecimiento.
Artículo 8º. Se presume autor de una obra, salvo prueba en contrario, a quien aparezca como tal al divulgarse aquélla, mediante indicación de su nombre, seudónimo,firma o signo que lo identifique de forma usual, o aquéla quien, según la respectiva inscripción, pertenezca el ejemplar que se registra.
Cabe destacar que las leyes anteriormente mencionadas (19.166 y 19.914) no tienen efectos retroactivos.
Derecho de autor sobre obras del Estado, municipalidades y otras personas jurídicas de derecho público
Ley Nº 17.336, texto original de 2 de octubre de 1970:
Fuente: Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile - BCN Ley Chile
What exactly...?Edit
Does "with incapable for all job class" mean? I tried to clean up some of the other roughness from xlation, but I cannot figure that one out. 68.39.174.238 03:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
In Chile, under the current civil code, an unmarried (never married to be specific, divorced are excluded) or widowed woman is considered "incapable" of supporting herself, and thus she can inherit pensions, rights and other means of public support from her parents until she marries. At that point she loses all rights to those funds. This category also includes any women, men or minors (of either sex) who have a mental or physical impediment.
Estas mezclando/confundiendo las cosas..
El sentido "incapacitated/incapable for all job class" en esta materia es equivalente a "disability to perform job duties"... Es decir, el derecho patrimonial de autor lo pueden disfrutar sus hijas en la medida que se encuentren solteras o viudas. Si llegaran a estar casadas, deben serlo con un marido incapaz de desempeñar algún trabajo o labor remunerada, de lo contrario los derechos patrimoniales sobre la obra pasan al dominio público... Saludos, --Yakoo 18:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
ExcepcionesEdit
Artículo 38.- Es lícito, sin remunerar u obtener autorización del autor, reproducir en obras de carácter cultural, científico o didáctico, fragmentos de obras ajenas protegidas, siempre que se mencionen su fuente, título y autor.
what should a "fragment" be with reference to pictures? --Gianfranco 07:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
El reglamento de la Ley Nº 17336 (Decreto Nº 1122), señala en su artículo 6 que "Se entiende por fragmento, para los efectos de lo prescrito en el artículo 38° de la ley, la reproducción de un párrafo de una obra literaria manuscrita o dactilográfica que no exceda de 10 (diez) líneas, y siempre que esto se realice con fines culturales, científicos o didácticos, debiendo mencionarse su fuente, título de la obra y nombre del autor. Se entiende con fines culturales, científicos o didácticos toda reproducción sin fines de lucro". Es decir, dicha disposición no es más que la consagración legal del derecho de cita de textos en la legislación chilena.
Saludos, --Yakoo 20:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (Ojalá me disculpes por haberte respondido en español ;)
Administrative sourceEdit
Comparison between art. 88 and art. 11 would seem to exclude that materials produced by the state (or its offices) should directly fall into the public domain, unless they were expropriated by the state (and when the law doesn't specifically acknowledge a right about them to anyone). Maybe this point should be examined in depth, given that there are several images of administrative provenance after 1962. How do we have to consider them? --Gianfranco 07:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
El artículo 88 lo que señala que es el titular del derecho de autor de toda obra producida por un funcionario público (del Estado, municipalidades, y otras personas jurídicas de derecho público), en el desempeño de sus funciones, es la respectiva institución pública.
Mientras el artículo 11 letra e) establece que ante una eventual expropiación de una obra (una especie de adquisición o compra compulsiva, pero con derecho a indemnización, que se hace respecto de bienes pertenecientes a particulares o entes privados), tales obras pasan al dominio público, salvo que la ley que autoriza tal expropiación especifique un beneficiario...
Ahora bien, aunque no hay norma expresa sobre la duración de la protección de las obras cuyo titular de derecho de autor es el Estado, las municipalidades, etc. , se interpreta regularmente (en base a ciertas normas del Código Civil) que ese plazo es el que la ley establece a partir de la muerte del autor publicación (70 años, sin perjuicio de los casos excepcionales de 50 años arriba mencionados), por cuanto las personas jurídicas "no mueren" ;)
Saludos, --Yakoo 20:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (Nuevamente espero que me disculpes por haberte respondido en español...)
Any progress on sorting this out? On the English Wikipedia we have one image that looks like it would fall into this category of PD if it really is PD. See w:Image talk:Augusto Pinochet Main.jpg and the associated Ifd. John Vandenberg 02:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
All the images produced by the State have copyright and only fall into PD 70 years after they were published (because the institutions don't die) with the exception of the images that have already fell to the PD when the term was 50 years. In the case of the photo of Pinochet was produced by the Presidency of the Republic near 1973-5 so it isn't in PD. --B1mbo 03:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This is really a chaos. Let's go back to the law 17.336 (of 28 august 1970) and it's later modifications: Art. 88 (The state, the city governments, the official corporations, the autonomous institutions belonging to the state and the rest of the government entities will be the titulars of the copyrights with respect to all works produced by their employees while in the exercise of their employments); Art. 11 (It belongs to the public domain: (e) All works "expropiated" (taken over via legal process and payment) by the state unless the law indicates a specific beneficiary. The works on the public domain can be used by anybody, as long as the ownership and integrity of the work is acknowledged.) Let's not forget Art. 9: (When a work is in the public domain, whoever adapts it, translates it or transforms it will have all legal rights over his version but will not be able to oppose the use of the original work for the production of a different version by others.) So, in other words, all work produced by public employees in their work as such or paid by with government money (official portraits fall under this category) are per se in the public domain, and can be used without restrictions except the need to acknowledge the source. Also, by implication, all works "owned" by the state fall immediately under public domain and can be used freely under the rules of Art. 9 --Melromero 07:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course, "the works on the public domain can be used by anybody"... the point is that you forgot the first part: The state (...) and the rest of the government entities will be the titulars of the copyrights. The case of PD applies only to expropiated works, not to everywork done by the State or their employees. --B1mbo 18:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten that part. Once the The state (...) and the rest of the government entities will be the titulars of the copyrights then the image enters ipso facto the PD. The expropiated works case is only included as an example, but the norm is once in the state's hands, unless the law establishes a different owner for the copyright (different from the state that is) then the work enters the PD and is completely free. --Melromero 03:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Where it says that when a work is in the hands of the government is in the public domain? --B1mbo 06:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
An expropiation is just one of the means for the government to acquire "full" ownership (in this case over a copyright) over an asset. Now, If you read carefully the sentence in the law, the law-maker is fully assuming that by "expropiating" a copyright (in other words, acquiring full ownership over said copyright) the effect would be that said copyright would belong to the public domain (Art. 11) with the sole exception that it opens the door for the expropiation law to allocate otherwise. In other words, the law-maker is assuming that all copyrights that are property of the government are ipso facto in the PD, and is just including the possibility for an exception to the general rule. If it wasn't like that, then the expropiation wouldn't make sense, since the government would not acquire full ownership over the asset (as is intended by any expropiation, and the reason why there's a legal process and payment behind) and it would produce two different classes of government properties: those over which they have full rights and those over which they only have partial rights, and that's clearly nonsense. And by the way, the picture we're talking about was taken in 1981. --Melromero 05:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful if there was some external legal opinion that we could read to see that this is the case. Are you aware of any Chilean caselaw regarding works produced by the government. Or perhaps you know of another website that is hosting works of the government under the belief that these works are PD ? John Vandenberg 06:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a second serious legal opinion would be most welcome, though in my mind there's no doubt that any and all works whose copyright is in the hands of the Chilean State are in the PD. We also must not forget that the same law mentioned ad nauseam before states in its Art 38: It is legal to reproduce in works of a cultural, scientific or didactic nature, and without payment or authorization from the author, fragments of copyrighted works as long as the source, name of the work and of the author are mentioned. Since we are debating about works produced in Chile and about Chile or Chileans, I don't really understand the reason behind this controversy. --Melromero 06:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Mel, you're just assuming that because the expropiated works are in the PD, all the other works are in PD and it's clearly not the case. For example, the images of the notes are copyrighted by the Banco Central de Chile (part of the State) as you can see here:
Can be reproduced the images of a note? What laws regulate this?
Banco Central de Chile is the owner of the intellectual property of the designs of the bills and coins in current circulation acording to the inscription N° 115.594 of the Department of Intelectual Property. Because of that, it is totally forbidden the publication or reproduction, in any way, of the bills produced by this bank according its legal function and it's infraction would be penalized with the stipulated sanctions in the article 78 and the next ones of the Law N° 17.336.
If the works of the State are in PD, why Banco Central say this? why they sued BancoEstado when they showed images of bills in an ad last month? --B1mbo 23:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I can think of several legal reasons without knowing the details about the suit. It stands to common sense that bills (and probably coins) do not fall under the purview of the law 17.336, no matter what it says in their website: if it were so, then counterfeiting would be perfectly legal, which is clearly nonsense. Again, Art 38 states: It is legal to reproduce in works of a cultural, scientific or didactic nature, and without payment or authorization from the author, fragments of copyrighted works as long as the source, name of the work and of the author are mentioned. A bill is neither cultural, scientific or didactic, the way a picture of a historical person or event is. I see no contradiction in this example. --Melromero 00:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Art. 38 is just the legal frame for "Fair use"... not "Public Domain". --B1mbo 16:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Un par de obervaciones: que las obras estatales (creadas por funcionarios públicos en el desempeño de sus funciones) estén en el dominio público es, en derecho comparado, más bien una situación excepcional (no se presenta en la mayoría de los países)... El art 38, en principio, parece ser "fair use, pero el reglamento de la misma ley lo reduce a un simple "derecho de cita" (párrafos de texto de 10 líneas) :S
La opinión (interpretación) de Melromero es totalmente errónea, B1mbo ha explicado correctamente en inglés lo mismo que señalé arriba... Sólo un par de acotaciones: a) cuando la ley habla de "titular de derecho de autor" se refiere al titular del "derecho patrimonial", y es este el que expira cuando una obra pasa al "domino público", no puediendo existir un "titular de derecho de autor" sobre una obra que ya está en el dominio público; b) la ley llama "patrimonio cultural común" al dominio público y señala sus casos en el art. 11; c) Melromero, al parecer, parte del supuesto que toda propiedad del Estado es un "bien nacional de uso público" o "bien público", siendo que el Estado (Fisco) puede tener y posee bienes como cualquier persona jurídica privada, "bienes ficales"...
En fin, nuestra ley (Ley Nº 17336 y sus modificaciones posteriores) es de las más "proteccionistas" que existen en el mundo (no equilibra el dominio público con el derecho patrimonial de autor, ni contempla formas de uso legítimo que sí existen en otros países)
Saludos, --Yakoo 22:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I have read everything above, and I'm still mystified as to when items produced by the state go into public domain. This is relevant, for example, in Category:Money of Chile (which currently has numerous copyright violations in it).
He leído lo todo arriba, y todavía estoy perplejo sobre cuando las obras producidas por el estado estén en el dominio público. Esto es importante, por ejemplo, en Category:Money of Chile (que actualmente tiene numerosas violaciones de los derecho de autor). Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
This needs to be cleaned upEdit
The 2010 amendments have changed the term of protection in Chile to a straight 70 years after the author's death, and 70 years after publication in works for hire. Depending on whether or not it was retrospective, some newer works already in the public domain may still be there or they may be re-copyrighted. It's time to figure this out and simplify the template. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
It says above: "Cabe destacar que las leyes anteriormente mencionadas (19.166 y 19.914) no tienen efectos retroactivos." - translation "It is worth pointing out that the laws mentioned above do not apply retroactively." Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:PD-Chile&oldid=93151470"
Return to "PD-Chile" page.
Last edited on 23 March 2013, at 18:02