Países / Bolivia

Derecho de autor e inteligencia artificial en Bolivia

La Ley 1322 y la Decisión Andina exigen autor persona natural/física: no existe una vía demostrada para una salida autónoma de IA.

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

Explorar Bolivia en el mapa →

Marco y alcance

El artículo 8 de la Ley 1322 y el artículo 3 de la Decisión 351 reservan la autoría a persona natural/física, mientras el DS 23907 exige que la obra sea fruto del ingenio humano. El Auto Supremo 810/2024 confirmó en aplicación nacional esos gates y el carácter no constitutivo del registro. Titularidad derivada, programa, plataforma, prompts, inversión o pago no sustituyen creación de la expresión final. Una capa humana sólo protege escritura, ilustración, edición, transformación o selección/disposición originales que sean trazables y probadas.

Limitaciones documentadas

No se localizó decisión boliviana sobre GenAI ni umbral de prompt, iteración o retoque. La revisión de 42 gacetas SENAPI produjo 63 menciones de inteligencia artificial y cinco candidatos cercanos, pero ninguno reveló depósito generado por IA, examen o alcance aceptado. El buscador TSJ presentó fallas técnicas y el archivo público tiene huecos, por lo que el cero registral no es absoluto.

Registro y actos documentados

Estado
none_located
Resumen
Cuarenta y dos gacetas y cuatro búsquedas oficiales no identificaron acto individual con output GenAI revelado. Los títulos sobre IA, prompts o asistentes fueron excluidos porque no prueban el proceso ni el alcance registrado.
Actos documentados

    Casos nacionales

    Auto Supremo 810/2024

    Nombre
    Auto Supremo 810/2024
    Cita
    O-4-21-S
    Tribunal
    Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, Sala Civil
    Instancia
    última instancia
    Fechas
    Decisión
    2024-07-22
    Estado
    resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
    Resultado
    Cassation appeal declared INFUNDADO; Auto de Vista 181/2024 remained in place; costs and litigation expenses imposed on appellants under CPC art. 223.V.2.
    Resumen
    The Sala Civil rejected the cassation appeal. It found no demonstrated individual or exclusive authorship in the name and no error under Ley 1322 arts. 8–9; the mark/name issues did not support the requested prohibition.
    Antecedentes
    Two Oruro musical associations disputed use of the expressions Unión Pagador, Unión Pagador de Oruro and Poderosa Unión Pagador Fundadores. Demetrio Cleofé Choque Mamani asserted personal authorship of the name, while the institutional claim invoked signs and a registered mark. The record showed prior proposals and deliberation among associates rather than exclusive individual authorship.
    Historia procesal
    Accumulation ordered 2016-11-22 and ratified 2017-03-08.,Auto de Vista 23/2018 of 2018-02-16 reversed an initial incompetence/arbitration ruling and allowed the civil case to proceed.,Trial judgment 02/2020 of 2020-01-13 denied the relevant claims.,Auto de Vista 239/2020 of 2020-11-20 confirmed; TSJ requested TJCA interpretation, producing 97-IP-2021 on 2021-08-25.,Auto Supremo 177/2024 of 2024-03-12 annulled Auto de Vista 239/2020 for appellate incongruence and ordered a new merits ruling.,Auto de Vista 181/2024 of 2024-04-24 again confirmed the trial judgment with costs.,Auto Supremo 810/2024 of 2024-07-22 declared the second cassation appeal unfounded, with costs.
    Cuestión jurídica
    Whether the claimant proved individual/exclusive authorship and a protectable basis in the group name, and whether use of the competing denomination/sign infringed claimed rights.
    Criterio
    The Sala Civil rejected the cassation appeal. It found no demonstrated individual or exclusive authorship in the name and no error under Ley 1322 arts. 8–9; the mark/name issues did not support the requested prohibition.
    Fundamento decisivo
    The court treated authorship as a natural-person and evidentiary question. On the actual record, the expression emerged from collective discussion and earlier proposals, so the claimant did not prove the exclusive individual authorship asserted. The separate signs analysis applied Decision 486 and priority/use principles.
    Límites
    No generative-AI system, prompt, autonomous output or AI-assisted editing was before the court.,The court's language that recognition belongs to SENAPI arose in a mixed name/mark dispute and must not displace Ley 1322 art. 2 or R.A. 021/2016 art. 6, which make copyright independent of registration.,Trademark/personality registrations in the record are not copyright registrations.
    Relevancia
    autoria-output
    Referencias relacionadas
    • BOL/as-177-2024
    • BOL/tjca-97-ip-2021
    Peso del precedente
    Direct national apex civil merits authority on the pleaded authorship/proof question, but not an AI or general registration decision. Integración/votación: Relator: Magistrado Juan Carlos Berrios Albizu. The official excerpt and public mirror do not publish a complete panel list, vote tally or dissent; none is inferred.
    Fuente
    Referencia
    Auto Supremo 810/2024
    Enlace
    Consultar fuente
    Autoridad
    Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, Sala Civil
    Tipo
    official judicial synthesis
    Tipo de evidencia
    official judicial synthesis
    Localizador
    printed pp. 40–42
    Verificación documentada
    Sí

    Sentencia 05 / SE/0005/2018

    Nombre
    Sentencia 05 / SE/0005/2018
    Cita
    082/2015-CA
    Tribunal
    Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, Sala Contenciosa, Contenciosa Administrativa, Social y Administrativa Primera
    Instancia
    única instancia judicial
    Fechas
    Decisión
    2018-01-25
    Estado
    resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
    Resultado
    Contencioso-administrative action declared IMPROBADA; hierarchical SENAPI decision remained subsistent; administrative record returned. No damages or copyright certificate was granted or denied.
    Resumen
    The court declared Danone's action unproven and left DGE/OPO/J-252/2014 in force. It accepted that applied art may in principle be copyrightable but found the asserted route and proof insufficient to defeat the mark application on this record.
    Antecedentes
    Danone opposed registration of PIL CALCIFEM, alleging pre-existing copyright in the product appearance, labels, packaging and advertising of DENSIA and CALCI+, plus unfair competition. It relied on design work and a Morillas Brand Design contract, but SENAPI found the asserted priority/title and admissible proof insufficient for the opposition.
    Historia procesal
    SENAPI R.A. 631/2013 of 2013-12-17 rejected the opposition.,R.A. DPI/OPO/REV-057/2014 of 2014-03-13 rejected revocation and confirmed.,R.A. DGE/OPO/J-252/2014 of 2014-08-01 rejected the hierarchical appeal and confirmed.,TSJ admitted judicial review on 2015-06-17; proceedings were suspended for TJCA 110-IP-2016, decided 2016-10-18.,Sentencia 05 of 2018-01-25 decided the action in a single instance.
    Cuestión jurídica
    Whether the hierarchical SENAPI resolution unlawfully allowed the applied-for mark despite Danone's alleged prior copyrights under Decision 486 art. 136(f), and whether the application evidenced unfair competition.
    Criterio
    The court declared Danone's action unproven and left DGE/OPO/J-252/2014 in force. It accepted that applied art may in principle be copyrightable but found the asserted route and proof insufficient to defeat the mark application on this record.
    Fundamento decisivo
    Copyright is not a super-right overriding the distinct trademark regime. A claimant invoking copyright against a mark must prove the right, title/priority and relevant conflict with adequate evidence. The court separated potential applied-art copyright from the industrial-property registration at issue.
    Límites
    It does not hold that labels, packaging or applied art are categorically outside copyright; the court recognized possible copyrightability in principle.,It does not decide AI authorship or an individual copyright-registration application.,Its discussion of registration and priority is tied to a trademark opposition and evidentiary record.
    Relevancia
    doctrina-general
    Referencias relacionadas
      Peso del precedente
      National apex administrative-review judgment; strong for category and proof discipline, limited on substantive originality and unrelated to GenAI. Integración/votación: Relator María Cristina Díaz Sosa; signed by Díaz Sosa and Esteban Miranda Terán; no separate opinion or vote tally published.
      Fuente
      Referencia
      Sentencia 05 / SE/0005/2018
      Enlace
      Consultar fuente
      Autoridad
      Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, Sala Contenciosa, Contenciosa Administrativa, Social y Administrativa Primera
      Tipo
      official judicial compilation, full decision read
      Tipo de evidencia
      official judicial compilation, full decision read
      Localizador
      printed pp. 39–47, especially pp. 44–47 and IX POR TANTO
      Verificación documentada
      Sí

      Procedimientos conocidos

      Auto Supremo 177/2024

      Nombre
      Auto Supremo 177/2024
      Cita
      O-4-21-S
      Tribunal
      Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, Sala Civil
      Instancia
      última instancia
      Fechas
      Decisión
      2024-03-12
      Estado
      resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
      Resultado
      ANULA; new appellate ruling ordered; no merits remedy.
      Resumen
      The TSJ found external incongruence (citra petita), annulled Auto de Vista 239/2020 back to the draw, and ordered a new appellate merits ruling without addressing the substantive copyright/sign claims.
      Antecedentes
      The same Oruro musical-association dispute later decided in Auto Supremo 810/2024 reached the TSJ after Auto de Vista 239/2020 confirmed the 2020 trial judgment.
      Historia procesal
      On the first cassation, Auto Supremo 177/2024 reviewed whether the appellate court had answered the material grievances. It did not reach the copyright/sign merits and remanded for a new appellate ruling, which became Auto de Vista 181/2024 and led to Auto Supremo 810/2024.
      Cuestión jurídica
      Whether Auto de Vista 239/2020 omitted material appellate grievances.
      Criterio
      The TSJ found external incongruence (citra petita), annulled Auto de Vista 239/2020 back to the draw, and ordered a new appellate merits ruling without addressing the substantive copyright/sign claims.
      Fundamento decisivo
      A second-instance court must answer the material appellate grievances; omission creates external incongruence requiring annulment rather than a merits ruling by the cassation court.
      Límites
      This is a procedural ruling in the Unión Pagador chain. It does not establish authorship, originality, infringement, registration effect or a GenAI rule.
      Relevancia
      doctrina-general
      Referencias relacionadas
      • BOL/as-810-2024
      • BOL/tjca-97-ip-2021
      Peso del precedente
      National apex procedural authority, linked to but not counted as a separate merits criterion. Integración/votación: Relator José Antonio Revilla Martínez; complete panel/vote tally not published in retained mirror.
      Fuente
      Referencia
      Auto Supremo 177/2024
      Enlace
      Consultar fuente
      Autoridad
      Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, Sala Civil
      Tipo
      full-text mirror of official source
      Tipo de evidencia
      full-text mirror of official source
      Localizador
      Considerando IV and POR TANTO; source identifies official Génesis record 84479
      Verificación documentada
      Sí

      National process 257/2019 (origin 17/2016)

      Nombre
      National process 257/2019 (origin 17/2016)
      Cita
      National process 257/2019 (origin 17/2016)
      Tribunal
      Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, Sala Contenciosa, Contenciosa Administrativa, Social y Administrativa Segunda
      Instancia
      tribunal nacional — proceso judicial pendiente de desenlace localizado
      Fechas
      Reportado
      2024-07-10
      Estado
      pendiente-sin-sentencia-localizada
      Resultado
      National result, winner and remedy remain pending in this corpus.
      Resumen
      No national holding located. The only verified adjudicative document is the supranational interpretation that the national court was required to apply.
      Antecedentes
      BDP disputed protection and attribution of registered literary compilations credited to Jaime Guillermo Dunn de Ávila, including originality of selection/disposition, declarative registration and employment attribution.
      Historia procesal
      The national process 257/2019, originating in file 17/2016, requested TJCA interpretation. The TJCA issued 292-IP-2021 on 2024-07-10. No later national merits judgment was located in the recorded public searches.
      Cuestión jurídica
      Protectability and scope of registered literary compilations, effects of declarative registration, and whether employee-created works were attributable to BDP.
      Criterio
      No national holding located. The only verified adjudicative document is the supranational interpretation that the national court was required to apply.
      Fundamento decisivo
      No national ratio can be stated without the later judgment; TJCA 292-IP-2021 supplies only the interpretive legal framework.
      Límites
      Existence and subject matter of the national process are verified through the TJCA file, but no Bolivian disposition, finality, coram or relief is inferred.
      Relevancia
      administrativo
      Referencias relacionadas
        Peso del precedente
        Known national proceeding with outcome not located; not a merits criterion. Integración/votación: National coram and vote not published in the located materials.
        Fuente
        Referencia
        National process 257/2019 (origin 17/2016)
        Enlace
        Consultar fuente
        Autoridad
        Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, Sala Contenciosa, Contenciosa Administrativa, Social y Administrativa Segunda
        Tipo
        open national outcome linked to TJCA 292-IP-2021; not promoted to a national merits decision
        Localizador
        background, disputed issues and decision
        Verificación documentada
        Sí

        Autoridades reportadas

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

        Referencias extranjeras comparadas

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

        Referencias de contexto

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

        Doctrina supranacional

        TJCA 97-IP-2021

        Nombre
        TJCA 97-IP-2021
        Cita
        TJCA 97-IP-2021
        Tribunal
        Tribunal de Justicia de la Comunidad Andina
        Instancia
        tribunal supranacional
        Fechas
        Decisión
        2021-08-25
        Estado
        resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
        Resultado
        Interpretation consigned for mandatory application by the referring court; TJCA did not decide national facts or grant relief.
        Resumen
        A work must be a reproducible/divulgable original expression; the result must come from human creative talent, independent of merit or complexity, and protection attaches to expression rather than ideas.
        Antecedentes
        The Bolivian Sala Civil asked whether UNIÓN PAGADOR DE ORURO was copyrightable and about alleged infringement of a mixed mark.
        Historia procesal
        The request arose in national docket O-4-21-S before the Sala Civil. The interpretation preceded Auto Supremo 177/2024 and the later merits Auto Supremo 810/2024.
        Cuestión jurídica
        Object of copyright protection and written work; separate mark-infringement issues.
        Criterio
        A work must be a reproducible/divulgable original expression; the result must come from human creative talent, independent of merit or complexity, and protection attaches to expression rather than ideas.
        Fundamento decisivo
        Originality requires a human creative result embodied in reproducible or divulgable expression; protection does not extend to ideas, methods or unexpressed content.
        Límites
        Supranational interpretation, not a Bolivian judgment and not a GenAI case; national facts and remedies remained for the referring court.
        Relevancia
        doctrina-general
        Referencias relacionadas
        • BOL/as-177-2024
        • BOL/as-810-2024
        Peso del precedente
        Binding Andean interpretive authority for the referring national proceeding, kept outside the count of Bolivian cases. Integración/votación: Approved by Gustavo García Brito, Luis Rafael Vergara Quintero, Hernán Rodrigo Romero Zambrano and Hugo R. Gómez Apac in Acta 19-J-TJCA-2021; no vote breakdown or dissent published.
        Fuente
        Referencia
        TJCA 97-IP-2021
        Enlace
        Consultar fuente
        Autoridad
        Tribunal de Justicia de la Comunidad Andina
        Tipo
        supranational preliminary interpretation requested by a Bolivian court; non-GenAI
        Localizador
        §§1.1–1.6; disposition and certification
        Verificación documentada
        Sí

        TJCA 292-IP-2021

        Nombre
        TJCA 292-IP-2021
        Cita
        TJCA 292-IP-2021
        Tribunal
        Tribunal de Justicia de la Comunidad Andina
        Instancia
        tribunal supranacional
        Fechas
        Decisión
        2024-07-10
        Estado
        resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
        Resultado
        Interpretation consigned; national court must apply it and determine facts. No national winner or remedy is supplied.
        Resumen
        Protection of a compilation lies in original selection or disposition, not in underlying content. A merely chronological judicial compilation may lack creativity; synthesis, summaries, presentation, correlation or disagreement can be creative. Registration is declarative and rebuttable.
        Antecedentes
        BDP challenged SENAPI-related protection of literary works registered to Jaime Guillermo Dunn de Ávila, disputing compilation originality, registration effects and employment attribution.
        Historia procesal
        The interpretation was requested in Bolivian national process 257/2019, originating in file 17/2016. The later national disposition was not located.
        Cuestión jurídica
        Originality of compilations; author/title; declarative registration.
        Criterio
        Protection of a compilation lies in original selection or disposition, not in underlying content. A merely chronological judicial compilation may lack creativity; synthesis, summaries, presentation, correlation or disagreement can be creative. Registration is declarative and rebuttable.
        Fundamento decisivo
        A compilation protects only original selection or disposition; chronology alone may fail, while synthesis, summaries, presentation or correlation may embody creativity. Registration is declarative and rebuttable.
        Límites
        No national outcome, GenAI issue or machine-authorship holding; employee attribution and originality remained fact dependent.
        Relevancia
        administrativo
        Referencias relacionadas
          Peso del precedente
          Binding Andean interpretive authority for the referring Bolivian proceeding, not a national merits decision. Integración/votación: Approved in Acta 14-J-TJCA-2024 and signed by participating magistrates Sandra Catalina Charris Rebellón, Rogelio Mayta Mayta and Íñigo Salvador Crespo; no vote breakdown or dissent published.
          Fuente
          Referencia
          TJCA 292-IP-2021
          Enlace
          Consultar fuente
          Autoridad
          Tribunal de Justicia de la Comunidad Andina
          Tipo
          supranational preliminary interpretation requested by a Bolivian court; non-GenAI
          Localizador
          §§1.1–1.12, answers 2.1–2.3, decision and signatures
          Verificación documentada
          Sí

          TJCA 295-IP-2019

          Nombre
          TJCA 295-IP-2019
          Cita
          TJCA 295-IP-2019
          Tribunal
          Tribunal de Justicia de la Comunidad Andina
          Instancia
          tribunal supranacional
          Fechas
          Decisión
          2019-12-13
          Estado
          resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
          Resultado
          Interpretive answers issued to the Peruvian referring court; no Bolivian fact or remedy decided.
          Resumen
          Originality requires independent individual and creative expression bearing the author's imprint; generic/common expression is not protected.
          Antecedentes
          A Peruvian referring matter required the TJCA to explain the Andean originality standard; it did not arise from Bolivian facts.
          Historia procesal
          Preliminary interpretation issued on a Peruvian reference and retained only as regional doctrine applicable across the Andean regime.
          Cuestión jurídica
          What originality requires under Decision 351 and whether generic or common expression can be protected.
          Criterio
          Originality requires independent individual and creative expression bearing the author's imprint; generic/common expression is not protected.
          Fundamento decisivo
          The protected form must embody independent individual creativity and the author's imprint; common expression does not satisfy that standard.
          Límites
          Peruvian reference; no Bolivia facts and no AI.
          Relevancia
          autoria-output
          Referencias relacionadas
            Peso del precedente
            Andean regional interpretive authority only; excluded from the Bolivian national-case count. Integración/votación: Complete vote breakdown not stated in the retained public extraction; no dissent is inferred.
            Fuente
            Referencia
            TJCA 295-IP-2019
            Enlace
            Consultar fuente
            Autoridad
            Tribunal de Justicia de la Comunidad Andina
            Tipo
            regional general originality authority inherited but wrongly counted as Bolivian national jurisprudence
            Localizador
            section E.2, pp. 4–5
            Verificación documentada
            Sí

            TJCA 713-IP-2018

            Nombre
            TJCA 713-IP-2018
            Cita
            TJCA 713-IP-2018
            Tribunal
            Tribunal de Justicia de la Comunidad Andina
            Instancia
            tribunal supranacional
            Fechas
            Decisión
            2019-10-23
            Estado
            resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
            Resultado
            Interpretive answers issued to the Colombian referring court; no Bolivian fact or remedy decided.
            Resumen
            Editorial layout may be protected when original; detailed external instructions may constrain personal imprint, while creative freedom may support it.
            Antecedentes
            A Colombian referring dispute concerned whether editorial layout could embody original expression when external instructions constrained design choices.
            Historia procesal
            Preliminary interpretation issued on a Colombian reference and retained only as regional analogy under Decision 351.
            Cuestión jurídica
            When editorial layout reflects sufficient creative freedom and personal imprint to qualify as an original work.
            Criterio
            Editorial layout may be protected when original; detailed external instructions may constrain personal imprint, while creative freedom may support it.
            Fundamento decisivo
            Protection turns on expressive choices and creative freedom actually exercised, not merely on carrying out detailed external instructions.
            Límites
            Colombian reference; no Bolivia facts and no AI; not a prompt doctrine.
            Relevancia
            autoria-output
            Referencias relacionadas
              Peso del precedente
              Andean regional analogical authority only; excluded from the Bolivian national-case count. Integración/votación: Complete vote breakdown not stated in the retained public extraction; no dissent is inferred.
              Fuente
              Referencia
              TJCA 713-IP-2018
              Enlace
              Consultar fuente
              Autoridad
              Tribunal de Justicia de la Comunidad Andina
              Tipo
              regional analogical authority inherited but wrongly counted as Bolivian national jurisprudence
              Localizador
              713-IP-2018 §§2.1–2.4 and response 4.3
              Verificación documentada
              Sí

              Fuentes de la ficha

              Alcance de la confianza documental

              alta autónoma / media asistida

              Enlaces a expedientes individuales