Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Honduras

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)