Países / Vanuatu

Derecho de autor e inteligencia artificial en Vanuatu

Vanuatu: parcial. Autor es el individuo creador; no hay regla especial de obra generada por computadora. Output autónomo: no. Expresión humana original y separable: posible. Registro opcional con examen; 0 casos GenAI y 0 grants/negativas GenAI publicados localizados.

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

Explorar Vanuatu en el mapa →

Marco y alcance

La ley define author como el individuo que creó la obra y work como una creación intelectual original. Un output autónomo sin creador individual no satisface esa estructura y no existe ficción de computer-generated work ni atribución a quien hizo los arreglos necesarios. Una obra asistida puede proteger sólo expresión humana original y separable, incluidas transformación, modificación, selección o arreglo creativos. Empleo, dirección, producción audiovisual, primera fijación, publicación y registro asignan o prueban capas distintas; no sustituyen creación humana.

Limitaciones documentadas

The official judiciary portal covers judgments since 2017; pre-2017 coverage depends substantially on PacLII, whose SINO search endpoint presented a Cloudflare challenge during this review. No national case or administrative decision publicly resolves GenAI output authorship, originality, prompting, control, selection, separability or neighboring rights in synthetic sound. VanIPO maintains the statutory register of works but does not expose a public title-level search, application file, AI-use field, reasons for registration/refusal or appeal inventory. The 2021 amendment has not been incorporated into WIPO's 2018 consolidated text; current law must be reconstructed by reading both instruments. The 2021 replacement of s. 5(2)(f) (collective work) with architecture work leaves an internal drafting tension with the retained collective-work definition, duration and ownership rules; the assisted-output conclusion does not depend on collective-work status. No national judgment determines whether the received UK Copyright Act 1956 continues concurrently after the national Act commenced; neither that historical Act nor Constitution art. 95 imports the post-independence UK CDPA 1988 computer-generated-work rule. Parliament's page marks the 2025 VanIPO institutional bill 'Passed', but no Act number or commencement instrument was located in the sources reviewed; it does not alter output authorship in any event. The National AI Strategy was still being procured on 2026-08-06; the located policy statement is not legislation and focuses on governance and traditional knowledge.

Registro y actos documentados

Estado

none_located

Resumen

Desde 2021 una persona puede solicitar registro; el Registrador puede registrar o negar y sólo puede registrar una obra original, de autoría y fijada/expresada físicamente. El copyright sustantivo sigue protegido por el solo hecho de creación. No se localizó grant, negativa o recurso GenAI individualizado publicado.

Actos documentados

Casos nacionales

John v Reserve Bank of Vanuatu, Civil Case No. 742 of 2020

Nombre

John v Reserve Bank of Vanuatu, Civil Case No. 742 of 2020

Cita

Supreme Court of Vanuatu, Civil Case 742 of 2020

Tribunal

Supreme Court of Vanuatu

Instancia

primera instancia

Fechas

Decisión: 2021-09-06

Estado

resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada

Resultado

VT500,000 damages plus VT50,000 costs, payable within 21 days; enforcement conference listed for 2021-09-27.

Resumen

The claimant bore the balance-of-probabilities burden. The proposed 32,431,735-vatu multiplication had no statutory or case-law basis; no Bank profit or diminution in value was proved. A broad low-end award was appropriate.

Antecedentes

Joseph John, a well-known professional artist with a Diploma in Visual Arts, painted in 2000 a Ni-Vanuatu village gathering with a chief. The Reserve Bank bought the physical artwork soon after creation. Without John's permission, it used part of the painting to mint and issue 4,633,105 twenty-vatu coins from 2015.

Historia procesal

John filed a civil copyright claim under Act No. 42 of 2000. The Bank did not contest use and admitted liability; the proceeding reached the Supreme Court only for assessment of damages. John proposed multiplying coins by seven years; the Bank disputed that formula and proposed a low-range award.

Cuestión jurídica

What civil damages under s. 34 were proved for admitted infringement, considering material/moral prejudice and attributable profits?

Criterio

Fundamento decisivo

Section 34(3) permits but does not compel consideration of material/moral prejudice and infringer profit. The work had significance and John depended on art sales, but evidence of actual loss/profit was absent and use on currency might enhance reputation.

Límites

Authorship, originality and subsistence were not litigated; the Bank admitted liability. The judgment does not address AI, computer generation, registration, prompts, producer status or separable human contributions.

Relevancia

doctrina-general

Referencias relacionadas

Peso del precedente

National Supreme Court first-instance judgment; persuasive/first-instance weight on s. 34 damages, not a holding on the present AI-authorship issue. Integración/votación: Justice Dudley Aru, single judge; no vote.

Fuente

Referencia: John v Reserve Bank of Vanuatu, Civil Case No. 742 of 2020
Enlace: Consultar fuente
Autoridad: Supreme Court of Vanuatu
Tipo: national_doctrine_general_ordinary_human_authorship_not_genai
Fecha de comprobación: 2026-08-30
Localizador: metadata; paras. 1-3 (facts/posture), 7-12 (rule/reasoning), 13-14 (orders)
Verificación documentada: Sí

John v Reserve Bank of Vanuatu, Civil Appeal No. 3209 of 2021

Nombre

John v Reserve Bank of Vanuatu, Civil Appeal No. 3209 of 2021

Cita

Court of Appeal of Vanuatu, Civil Appeal 3209 of 2021

Tribunal

Court of Appeal of Vanuatu

Instancia

apelación

Fechas

Decisión: 2021-11-19

Estado

resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada

Resultado

Appeal dismissed; appellant ordered to pay respondent's costs fixed at VT40,000.

Resumen

The painting was an artistic work, John its author/owner and the coin an infringing copy. Actual economic loss, Bank profit and actual prejudice to honour/reputation were unproved; a nominal/presumed injury could exist for unattributed rearrangement, but the broad-brush VT500,000 award disclosed no error and was generous.

Antecedentes

The Court described John's 2000 painting of a paramount chief addressing about fifty villagers. The twenty-vatu coin copied six human figures, reduced them and reversed the woman-and-child image without mutilating them; no author name appeared. The Bank circulated 4,633,105 coins in 2015-2021.

Historia procesal

The Bank filed no defence below, default judgment entered and the trial proceeded on damages, producing a VT500,000 award. John appealed as too low, alleging failure to assess economic and moral harm; the Bank resisted. The Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence and s. 34 assessment.

Cuestión jurídica

Did the trial judge err by awarding only VT500,000 and failing properly to value economic and moral-right prejudice?

Criterio

Fundamento decisivo

Sections 8, 9 and 34 distinguish economic and moral rights/remedies. Respectful use did not prove actual reputational prejudice, yet unattributed use and rearrangement could presumptively cause some harm and distress. The evidentiary record did not justify appellate interference.

Límites

The court assumed an undisputed human-created painting and did not test originality, registration, AI or autonomous creation. UK cases Carton Illustrators v Coleman and Clarke v Associated Newspapers were used only as persuasive analogies on presumed moral/reputational injury, not authorship.

Relevancia

doctrina-general

Referencias relacionadas

Peso del precedente

National final appellate judgment and strongest located national application of Act No. 42; binding/appellate weight on the issues decided, but only general-doctrine context for AI authorship. Integración/votación: Unanimous institutional judgment; Chief Justice Vincent Lunabek and Justices John von Doussa, Raynor Asher, Oliver Saksak, Gustaaf Andrée Wiltens and Viran Molisa Trief. The judgment does not publish separate votes or dissents.

Fuente

Referencia: John v Reserve Bank of Vanuatu, Civil Appeal No. 3209 of 2021
Enlace: Consultar fuente
Autoridad: Court of Appeal of Vanuatu
Tipo: national_appellate_doctrine_general_ordinary_human_authorship_not_genai
Fecha de comprobación: 2026-08-30
Localizador: metadata; paras. 1-5 (facts/posture), 6-8 (Act), 9-11 (decision below), 12-15 (analysis), 16-17 (orders)
Verificación documentada: Sí