Países / Belice

Derecho de autor e inteligencia artificial en Belice

Parcial. Belice contempla expresamente obras generadas por computadora sin autor humano y atribuye autoría económica a quien realizó los arreglos necesarios. No hay registro de copyright ni acto GenAI individual verificado; depósito no equivale a concesión. Cada caso exige probar originalidad, arreglos necesarios, calificación y titularidad.

Investigación abierta. Corte general del Atlas: 31 de agosto de 2026. Cobertura no significa revisión completa ni vigencia certificada.

Explorar Belice en el mapa →

Marco y alcance

Identify the exact work and prove originality, fixation where needed, the natural or corporate person that undertook arrangements necessary for that output, territorial qualification and a written chain of title; keep producer/fixation and human layers separate.

Limitaciones documentadas

No Belize judgment was located that interprets section 3(1)(i), applies the originality requirement to a no-human-author work or assigns necessary arrangements in a GenAI chain. No public exhaustive index of BZ$50 copyright deposits or public AI-disclosure field was located; deposit records may be physical, private, non-indexed or silent about AI. No registration regulations implementing section 142(2) were located in the current BELIPO inventory and published Cap. 252 orders; a direct written confirmation from BELIPO would further close the institutional gate. The Belize Court of Appeal copyright judgment located is procedural and territorial, not a merits authority on originality, attributed authorship or GenAI; the 2021 final judgment decided only contract after the parties expressly abandoned copyright issues. Negative search results are limited by English/Spanish vocabularies, search-engine indexing, OCR, access, naming variation, nonpublication and undisclosed AI use. This issue does not determine training-data legality, infringement of pre-existing works, trade marks, passing off, privacy, image/voice/personality rights, contract, consumer protection or protection outside Belize.

Registro y actos documentados

Estado
no_registry
Resumen
BELIPO ofrece depósito, no un registro de mérito. No se verificó concesión o negativa registral individual sobre outputs GenAI bajo el diseño institucional vigente.
Actos documentados

    Casos nacionales

    No hay entradas en esta colección del Atlas. Esto no demuestra que no existan casos.

    Procedimientos conocidos

    Anthony Rath and Naturalight Productions Ltd v Birdsall Voss & Associates Inc

    Nombre
    Anthony Rath and Naturalight Productions Ltd v Birdsall Voss & Associates Inc
    Cita
    Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2014
    Tribunal
    Court of Appeal of Belize
    Instancia
    national appellate — procedural and territorial remittal
    Fechas
    Decisión
    2017-05-23
    Audiencia
    2016-03-04
    Estado
    resuelto-remision-a-juicio
    Resultado
    Remisión a juicio; no declaración de subsistencia, autoría, infracción o daños.
    Resumen
    El strike-out fue erróneo: las alegaciones mostraban cuestiones litigables bajo los arts. 9 y 33 y sobre el contrato; la insuficiencia de particulars podía corregirse en case management y la compleja accesibilidad por internet requería prueba.
    Antecedentes
    Tony Rath, fotógrafo profesional, y Naturalight Productions alegaron que Birdsall Voss usó después del plazo de un año diez fotografías licenciadas mundialmente para la campaña turística Be One With Belize. Reclamaron incumplimiento contractual y, en alternativa, infracción de copyright; BVA sostuvo que la publicación se dirigió a Norteamérica y que no hubo acto relevante en Belice.
    Historia procesal
    Abel J, el 24 de octubre de 2013, declaró falta de jurisdicción respecto del copyright, tachó las pretensiones de copyright y contrato y, en alternativa, concedió summary judgment contractual. La Court of Appeal oyó el recurso el 4 de marzo de 2016 y dictó sentencia el 23 de mayo de 2017; la decisión final de 2021 resolvió sólo contrato tras abandono expreso de los demás puntos.
    Cuestión jurídica
    Determinar si las alegaciones de licencia, publicación por internet, territorialidad y titularidad eran manifiestamente insostenibles o requerían disclosure, witness statements y juicio.
    Criterio
    El strike-out fue erróneo: las alegaciones mostraban cuestiones litigables bajo los arts. 9 y 33 y sobre el contrato; la insuficiencia de particulars podía corregirse en case management y la compleja accesibilidad por internet requería prueba.
    Fundamento decisivo
    Cuando pleadings de copyright y licencia delinean una controversia litigable y la territorialidad digital depende de prueba, strike-out no es la vía para decidir el mérito.
    Límites
    Es autoridad nacional procesal y territorial sobre fotografías/licencia, no sobre originalidad, art. 3(1)(i), GenAI o registro. La sentencia final de 2021 decidió sólo contrato porque las demás cuestiones fueron abandonadas.
    Relevancia
    procedimiento-relacionado
    Referencias relacionadas
      Peso del precedente
      Binding national appellate authority on the procedural disposition; no GenAI or authorship merits holding. Integración/votación: Sosa P, Hafiz-Bertram JA and Blackman JA Unanimous: Sosa P and Blackman JA expressly concurred with the reasons and orders of Hafiz-Bertram JA
      Fuente
      Referencia
      Anthony Rath and Naturalight Productions Ltd v Birdsall Voss & Associates Inc
      Enlace
      Consultar fuente
      Autoridad
      Court of Appeal of Belize
      Tipo
      complete_primary_judicial_file
      Tipo de evidencia
      complete_primary_judicial_file
      Localizador
      paras 1, 21-25, 46, 51, 54 and 66-69; PDF pp. 1 and 28-29
      Verificación documentada
      Sí

      Anthony Rath and Naturalight Productions Ltd v Birdsall Voss & Associates Inc; related tourism-board claim

      Nombre
      Anthony Rath and Naturalight Productions Ltd v Birdsall Voss & Associates Inc; related tourism-board claim
      Cita
      Supreme Court of Belize, Consolidated Claims Nos. 456 of 2011 and 26 of 2013
      Tribunal
      Supreme Court of Belize
      Instancia
      national first instance — interlocutory strike-out
      Fechas
      Decisión
      2013-10-24
      Audiencia
      2013-07-26
      Estado
      reversed-2017
      Resultado
      Reversed; no surviving merits proposition on copyrightability or authorship.
      Resumen
      The court declared no jurisdiction over the copyright portions, struck the copyright and contract claims, alternatively granted summary judgment on contract, dismissed BVA from the case and awarded costs.
      Antecedentes
      The dispute concerned at least five and ultimately ten photographs used in the Be One With Belize campaign under a one-year licence. Claimants alleged continued print and internet use; BVA disputed any actionable use in Belize and the corporate claimant's pleaded title.
      Historia procesal
      On an application before disclosure and witness statements, Abel J addressed jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, strike-out and summary judgment. The companion claim against BTB/BHA later settled in 2014; the BVA disposition was appealed.
      Cuestión jurídica
      Whether Belize courts had jurisdiction over the pleaded acts and whether the copyright and contract claims were so defective that they should be struck out or summarily dismissed.
      Criterio
      The court declared no jurisdiction over the copyright portions, struck the copyright and contract claims, alternatively granted summary judgment on contract, dismissed BVA from the case and awarded costs.
      Fundamento decisivo
      The disposition depended on deficient territorial pleadings and the court's construction of the expired licence; it was not a finding on originality or authorship.
      Límites
      Reversed interlocutory decision, non-GenAI, no art. 3(1)(i) analysis. Its references to computer-generated works supported a territorial-technology discussion and are not an authorship holding.
      Relevancia
      procedimiento-relacionado
      Referencias relacionadas
        Peso del precedente
        Reversed first-instance interlocutory disposition. Integración/votación: Courtney A Abel J (Ag), single judge Single-judge decision; no panel vote.
        Fuente
        Referencia
        Anthony Rath and Naturalight Productions Ltd v Birdsall Voss & Associates Inc; related tourism-board claim
        Enlace
        Consultar fuente
        Autoridad
        Supreme Court of Belize
        Tipo
        complete_primary_judicial_file
        Tipo de evidencia
        complete_primary_judicial_file
        Localizador
        paras 1-18, 61-81; disposition para 81
        Verificación documentada
        Sí

        Tony Rath and Naturalight Productions v Birdsall, Voss & Associates Inc

        Nombre
        Tony Rath and Naturalight Productions v Birdsall, Voss & Associates Inc
        Cita
        Supreme Court of Belize, Claim No. 456 of 2011
        Tribunal
        Supreme Court of Belize
        Instancia
        national first instance — final contract judgment
        Fechas
        Decisión
        2021-09-24
        Estado
        resolved-contract-only
        Resultado
        Final contract loss; copyright issues abandoned and not reached.
        Resumen
        The alleged use occurred after the agreement had been discharged; no accrued contractual cause existed before completion, and the court would not imply survival of the separate-licence term.
        Antecedentes
        The one-year worldwide exclusive licence covered five layered photographic images for print advertising. BVA admitted post-expiry use; a later proposed two-year usage extension was tendered, paid and rejected. Claimants pursued breach of the 2009 agreement.
        Historia procesal
        Following the 2017 remittal, the parties expressly agreed that only breach, discharge/survival, proposed extension, mitigation and quantum remained. Paragraph 7 says all other issues were expressly abandoned, so the court did not decide the alternative copyright claim.
        Cuestión jurídica
        Whether post-expiry use breached a contractual term requiring a separately negotiated licence and whether that term or an accrued right survived expiry.
        Criterio
        The alleged use occurred after the agreement had been discharged; no accrued contractual cause existed before completion, and the court would not imply survival of the separate-licence term.
        Fundamento decisivo
        A post-expiry contractual restriction will not be implied to survive without accrued rights or necessity for business efficacy; this is contract doctrine, not a copyrightability rule.
        Límites
        Non-GenAI; no decision on copyright subsistence, originality, authorship, ownership, infringement, art. 3(1)(i) or registration. It cannot be reported as a copyright denial on the merits.
        Relevancia
        procedimiento-relacionado
        Referencias relacionadas
          Peso del precedente
          First-instance national authority on contract survival; not a copyright merits precedent. Integración/votación: Sonya Young J, single judge Single-judge judgment; no panel vote.
          Fuente
          Referencia
          Tony Rath and Naturalight Productions v Birdsall, Voss & Associates Inc
          Enlace
          Consultar fuente
          Autoridad
          Supreme Court of Belize
          Tipo
          complete_primary_judicial_file
          Tipo de evidencia
          complete_primary_judicial_file
          Localizador
          paras 1-7, 27-62; disposition p. 18
          Verificación documentada
          Sí

          Autoridades reportadas

          No hay entradas en esta colección del Atlas. Esto no demuestra que no existan casos.

          Referencias extranjeras comparadas

          THJ Systems Ltd v Sheridan

          Nombre
          THJ Systems Ltd v Sheridan
          Cita
          [2023] EWCA Civ 1354
          Tribunal
          Court of Appeal of England and Wales
          Instancia
          foreign appellate — persuasive only
          Fechas
          Decisión
          2023-11-20
          Audiencia
          2023-11-07
          Estado
          resolved-foreign-persuasive
          Resultado
          Narrow foreign copyright and infringement ruling.
          Resumen
          Copyright subsisted narrowly in the pleaded risk and price charts because the developer made the creative visual-layout choices; the declaration was limited accordingly, and two admitted post-termination uses infringed.
          Antecedentes
          A developer's OptionNET Explorer software generated risk and price charts populated with market data and user selections. The dispute concerned ownership and infringement after termination of business licences.
          Historia procesal
          The High Court declared that GUI, software-generated displays and logo were artistic works authored by the developer but dismissed infringement. Both sides appealed.
          Cuestión jurídica
          Whether particular risk and price charts were artistic works/original intellectual creations, who authored them under UK s. 9(3), and whether two admitted post-termination uses infringed.
          Criterio
          Copyright subsisted narrowly in the pleaded risk and price charts because the developer made the creative visual-layout choices; the declaration was limited accordingly, and two admitted post-termination uses infringed.
          Fundamento decisivo
          Under UK law, attribution and originality of software outputs depend on work-specific human expressive choices and the pleaded work, not on software generation alone.
          Límites
          English, non-binding, deterministic trading software, substantial identified developer choices, and not a foundation-model GenAI case. It is not Belize jurisprudence and must never be counted as local.
          Relevancia
          comparado-persuasivo
          Referencias relacionadas
          • GBR/thj
          Peso del precedente
          Foreign appellate persuasive authority only. Integración/votación: Moylan LJ, Asplin LJ and Arnold LJ Unanimous; Asplin LJ and Moylan LJ agreed with Arnold LJ.
          Fuente
          Referencia
          THJ Systems Ltd v Sheridan
          Enlace
          Consultar fuente
          Autoridad
          Court of Appeal of England and Wales
          Tipo
          complete_primary_judicial_web_text
          Tipo de evidencia
          complete_primary_judicial_web_text
          Localizador
          paras 1-10, 15-23 and operative authorship/originality/infringement analysis
          Verificación documentada
          Sí

          Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd

          Nombre
          Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd
          Cita
          [2007] EWCA Civ 219
          Tribunal
          Court of Appeal of England and Wales
          Instancia
          foreign appellate — persuasive only
          Fechas
          Decisión
          2007-03-14
          Estado
          resolved-foreign-persuasive
          Resultado
          Foreign non-infringement ruling with object-separation analysis.
          Resumen
          Individual stored frames could be graphic works, but a moving sequence did not create an additional graphic work; general ideas and output similarities did not show copying of code, architecture or substantial expression.
          Antecedentes
          Competing pool-video games shared ideas and gameplay features. Nova claimed artistic and software copyright in individual frames, sequences and program output.
          Historia procesal
          After Kitchin J rejected substantial copying, Nova appealed; the Court of Appeal reviewed identification of artistic works, static frames, software expression and abstract ideas.
          Cuestión jurídica
          Whether a dynamic series of computer-generated frames was itself an additional artistic work and whether output similarities established copying of software or artwork.
          Criterio
          Individual stored frames could be graphic works, but a moving sequence did not create an additional graphic work; general ideas and output similarities did not show copying of code, architecture or substantial expression.
          Fundamento decisivo
          Separate the program, individual graphic frames, sequence and abstract ideas; output similarity alone is insufficient to prove copying of software expression.
          Límites
          English, non-binding, pre-GenAI video-game software; not authority that a Belize user or developer necessarily made necessary arrangements for a modern model output.
          Relevancia
          comparado-persuasivo
          Referencias relacionadas
            Peso del precedente
            Foreign appellate persuasive authority only. Integración/votación: Jacob LJ, Lloyd LJ and Sir Andrew Morritt C Unanimous appellate disposition.
            Fuente
            Referencia
            Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd
            Enlace
            Consultar fuente
            Autoridad
            Court of Appeal of England and Wales
            Tipo
            complete_primary_judicial_web_text
            Tipo de evidencia
            complete_primary_judicial_web_text
            Localizador
            paras 9-16, 27-42
            Verificación documentada
            Sí

            Referencias de contexto

            No hay entradas en esta colección del Atlas. Esto no demuestra que no existan casos.

            Doctrina supranacional

            No hay entradas en esta colección del Atlas. Esto no demuestra que no existan casos.

            Fuentes de la ficha

            Alcance de la confianza documental

            high for the official 2020 statutory text, the explicit no-human-author definition, attributed authorship, special term, moral-right exclusions, BELIPO's deposit-only service and the complete 2013-2017-2021 Rath procedural history; medium for applying originality and necessary arrangements to modern GenAI because no Belize decision has adjudicated those questions

            Regla sobre obras generadas por computadora

            cgw
            Sí
            Disposición
            Copyright Act, Cap. 252, ss. 3(1)(i) y 10(4)
            effective
            2000-08-21
            Alcance
            Para una obra literaria, dramática, musical o artística generada por computadora sin autor humano, autor es quien emprendió los arreglos necesarios para crearla; s. 10(4) fija cincuenta años desde el fin del año de realización. La atribución exige originalidad y demás requisitos de subsistencia y no identifica automáticamente al usuario, proveedor o desarrollador de GenAI.
            Fuente
            Referencia
            Copyright Act, Chapter 252, Revised Edition 2020
            Enlace
            Consultar fuente
            Autoridad
            Government of Belize / Belize Intellectual Property Office
            Tipo
            legislación nacional primaria consolidada
            Localizador
            s. 3(1), author, párr. (i), y computer-generated work; s. 10(4), plazo
            Verificación documentada
            Sí
            commencement source
            Referencia
            Copyright Act (Commencement) Order, 77 of 2000
            Enlace
            Consultar fuente
            Autoridad
            Government of Belize; Revised Edition 2003 of subsidiary laws
            Tipo
            orden nacional de entrada en vigor
            Localizador
            cl. 2: Act No. 12 of 2000 appointed to come into force on 21 August 2000
            Verificación documentada
            Sí

            Búsquedas y límites de los resultados sin casos

            verified absence
            Sí
            Fecha de búsqueda
            2026-08-31
            Búsquedas
            14
            vocabularies
            • official statute/computer-generated work
            • authoritative current-law metadata
            • current amendments
            • official registration/deposit design
            • official subsidiary legislation
            • English GenAI administrative outcome
            • Spanish GenAI administrative outcome
            • administrative rulings index
            • national copyright case law
            • national case chronology by docket and parties
            • national decision corpus and copyright statute phrase
            • national GenAI case law/platform names
            • general English GenAI doctrine
            • comparative necessary-arrangements authority
            Nota
            No se localizó una decisión nacional de fondo que resolviera originalidad, autoría o subsistencia de un output GenAI o de una obra computer-generated bajo el art. 3(1)(i). La línea Rath contiene tres decisiones procesales o contractuales y ninguna alcanza ese mérito. El cero se limita a las fuentes públicas, idiomas, términos y restricciones documentados.
            Alcance
            Casos o actos individualizados relevantes para autoría/copyright de output GenAI en fuentes públicas accesibles. No prueba inexistencia de expedientes no publicados, privados o no indexados.

            Cronología documentada

            Enlaces a expedientes individuales