Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Honduras

This talk page may have a limited number of watchers. Issues concerning the copyright rules of Honduras 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.

Update needed related to FOP?

According to Template:FoP-Honduras there is FOP. We need to update this page or the template. --MGA73 (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: you know anything? Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Graffiti Berta Tegucigalpa.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: WIPO, which usually fairly accurate, says here the relevant law is Decree No. 4-99-E, as amended by Decree No. 16-2006. It gives the text here, which says "ARTÍCULO 52.¹⁸

• Es lícita, para uso personal, la reproducción de una obra de arte expuesta permanentemente en las calles, plazas u otros lugares públicos, por medio de un arte diverso al empleado para la elaboración del original. Respecto de los ediϐicios, dicha facultad se limita a la fachada exterior.

[Footnote: 18 Reformado por el Artículo 54 de la Ley de Implementación del Tratado de Libre Comercio, República Dominicana, Centroamérica , Estados Unidos]

Roughly translated:

• It is lawful, for personal use, to reproduce a work of art permanently exhibited in the streets, squares or other public places, by means of an art other than the one used for the creation of the original. With regard to buildings, this power is limited to the exterior façade

[Footnote: 18 Amended by Article 54 of the Implementation Law of the Free Trade Agreement, Dominican Republic, Central America, United States]

The template points to a translated version of Decree No. 4-99-E, Article 52 here, with different wording:

• The reproduction of a work of art permanently exhibited in the streets, squares or other public places, by means of an art other than that used for the elaboration of the original, is legal. Regarding buildings, this power is limited to the exterior façade.

Kes47 points to a version of DECRETO No. 4-99-E here which says

• Es lícita la reproducción de una obra de arte expuesta permanentemente en las calles, plazas u otros lugares públicos, por medio de un arte diverso al empleado para la elaboración del original. Respecto de los edificios, dicha facultad se limita a la fachada exterior.

This seems to be the original version of Decree 4-99, which did not have the para uso personal qualifier. Possibly the qualifier was added as part of the free trade agreement with the United States to be consistent with US law, as it is. See COM:FOP US. My guess is that the WIPO version is the correct one. Not sure how to verify that, but I think it would be the safe assumption. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Aymatth2. I still can't access the second link (the one with the "personal use"). I wonder if the words was added in "16-2006". Perhaps Kes47 knows more? --MGA73 (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, at first I considered the SICE version to be the right one (also beacause is the version in a goverment entity website), but its page has the same text since 2003; so now I see they're both not updated. Plus, I found a 2020 writing by an Honduran expert that also mentions the "personal use" limitation. These and the WIPO page seem to be the only sources on the internet regarding that law, but I thing is clear enough that WIPO version must be the correct one. -Kes⁴⁷ [REPORT AN ERROR] 21:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

WIPO is a United Nations agency that acts as a clearing house for members of the Berne convention to exchange information on IP-related laws and agreements. It relies on the member states to provide updates, which they usually do promptly because the responsible ministry wants to tell the rest of the world what its new rules are. The ministries should also update their own websites, but that may take longer. In this case I think the WIPO version is the most recent one. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• @MGA73, Kes47, and Aymatth2: Fyi, I nominated that template for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FoP-Honduras. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Aymatth2@Kes47@Liuxinyu970226@MGA73 in terms of the amendment, yes. Same cases for the restrictions added to FoP rules of Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. See also "Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/11#FOP guatemala is all wrong, part 2". Tho Asclepias in that VPC thread questioned whether CAFTA-DR mandated restriction of FoP even to architectural works, considering the U.S. providing suitable FoP for architectural works. But even then, U.S. architectural FoP is not without its detractors from a minority group of U.S. architects and scholars, some of whom claim that the original intents of the U.S. FoP as given by the U.S. HoR's Committee Report (souvenir photos by tourists and images to be used in scholarly books) are not meant to be for purpose of making profit ("non-commercial"), though photographers' groups hold that it is a commercial-friendly exception; see w:en:Freedom of panorama#United States (sections "rationale" and "Concerns and criticism"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The CAFTA-DR does not seem to forbid FoP exceptions or to negate the right of countries to use article 9(2) of the Berne Convention. The US has FoP for buildings, critics notwithstanding. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Asclepias it's kinda subject for debate outside the realms of Commons website, about the intervention of the CAFTA-DR treaty in restricting FoP even for architecture – as claimed by these four Central American countries (Guatemala and Honduras included) – even if both the U.S. and the Dominican Republic themselves have liberal FoP not restricting commercial uses of architecture (and outdoor public art for Dom. Rep.).

In the case of Guatemala, Decreto 11-2006 made substantial revisions to their copyright law and claimed that it was made to conform to the said treaty. The section of particular concern here is Article 91 (in original language with emphasis):

Artículo 91. Se reforma la literal d) del artículo 64 del Decreto Número 33-98 del Congreso de la República, Ley de Derecho de Autor y Derechos Conexos y sus reformas, el cual queda así:
"d) La reproducción para uso personal de una obra de arte expuesta en forma permanente en lugares públicos o en la fachada exterior de edificios, ejecutada por medio de un arte que sea distinto al empleado para la elaboración del original, siempre que se indique el nombre del autor, si se conociere, así como el titulo de la obra, si lo tiene, y el lugar donde se encuentra."

In the case of Honduras (as discussed here on the talk page of CRT/Honduras), substantial revisions to their copyright law was conducted through the Ley de Implementación del Tratado de Libre Comercio, Repúblika Dominicana, Centroaméricana, Estados Unidos'. Of particular concern here is Article 54. Again, with emphasis, here is the concerned provision:

ARTÍCULO 54.- Reformar en la Ley del Derecho de Autor y de los Derechos Conexos contenida en el Decreto No.4-99-E del 02 de diciembre de 1999, los Artículos: 22 párrafo segundo; 23; 39 párrafo primero; 45 numerales 2) y 3); 46 numeral 1); 47; 52; 63; 64; 66; 113; 118; 120; 121 numeral 1); 173; 174 numeral 5); enunciado del 177 y el numeral 2), los que en adelante se leerán así:...

Artículo 52, Es lícita, para uso personal, la reproducción de una obra de arte expuesta permanentemente en las calles, plazas u otros lugares públicos, por medio de un arte diverso al empleado para la elaboración del original. Respecto de los edificios, dicha facultad se limita a la fachada exterior.

Even if CAFTA-DR did not mandate restrictions to copyright exceptions and limitations, the actions made by these four countries imply that there is an implicit involvement of the treaty to modify some limitations and exceptions (restricting FoP is one of these), with the aim of "eliminating any possibility of contradiction that may create confusion and legal uncertainty for economic agents and investment" (as claimed by the second paragraph in the Honduran decree radically revising their copyright law to implement the wishes of the CAFTA-DR treaty). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)