A technology company based in Santiago deploys a generative AI system to produce marketing visuals, product descriptions, and software modules. The output is commercially valuable. The question of who owns it – and whether anyone does – turns out to have no clear answer under current Chilean law. That gap is not a technicality. It is a business risk with direct consequences for licensing, investment structuring, and cross-border enforcement across the Americas.
AI-generated works in Chile sit in a legal grey zone. Intellectual property legislation ties copyright protection to human authorship, leaving purely machine-generated output without a recognised owner. The operative question is not whether AI can create, but whether enough human creative direction was applied to qualify the output for protection under Chilean law.
This analysis examines the doctrinal foundations of Chilean intellectual property law, the emerging tensions between statute and practice, competing interpretations advanced by legal specialists. Cross-border considerations for businesses operating across Latin American markets. Additionally, a forward-looking assessment of the regulatory trajectory.
Doctrinal foundations: what Chilean intellectual property law says about authorship
Chilean intellectual property legislation has its roots in a civil law tradition that centres human creativity as the essential condition for copyright protection. The concept of the author is personal and non-transferable at its origin. A legal entity may hold derived rights through assignment or employment, but the originating creative act must flow from a natural person.
This architecture creates an immediate tension when applied to AI-generated works. The Departamento de Derechos Intelectuales (Intellectual Property Department) administers copyright registration in Chile. It operates under a body of intellectual property legislation that predates generative AI by several decades. The statutory language refers consistently to human creators. There is no provision that addresses machine-generated output directly.
Practitioners in Chile note that the legislation distinguishes between works created with the assistance of a tool – a camera, a design program – and works where the tool itself generates the creative content autonomously. In the first category, protection attaches to the human who directed the tool. In the second, the doctrinal basis for protection becomes uncertain. The challenge is that modern AI systems blur this line deliberately. A user may provide a short prompt; the system generates thousands of words or complex images with minimal further human direction.
The concept of obra colectiva (collective work under Chilean intellectual property law) offers one partial avenue. Where a human editor or producer assembles and directs AI-generated components into a structured whole, that editorial layer may attract protection. The AI output itself, however, remains legally unanchored. This distinction matters for technology licensing arrangements, where the scope of what is actually licensed needs precise definition.
Software liability in Chile follows a parallel track. Under Chilean commercial and civil legislation, liability for software outputs attaches to developers and deployers rather than to the software itself. This principle, already established for conventional software, is being extended by analogy to AI systems. Algorithmic accountability – meaning the obligation to explain and justify automated decisions – is increasingly invoked in regulatory discussions, even though Chile lacks a dedicated AI accountability statute at the time of writing.
Competing interpretations and the gap between statute and practice
The absence of explicit statutory guidance has produced at least three competing interpretive positions among specialists advising clients in Chile.
The first position holds that AI-generated output is entirely unprotected. On this view, if no human made the creative choices, no copyright subsists. The output enters the public domain upon creation. Businesses relying on this position risk finding their AI-generated assets freely copyable by competitors. That is a significant lost opportunity for any firm that has invested heavily in AI-driven content production.
The second position identifies protection in the human input, however minimal. The argument is that selecting a model, drafting a prompt, and curating outputs all constitute creative acts. This interpretation extends protection to the operator of the AI system. It is the more commercially favourable reading. However, it requires careful documentation – prompt logs, curation records, version histories – to establish the degree of human direction in any dispute.
The third position focuses on contractual allocation. Under this approach, the statute is silent and the parties are free to agree on ownership through technology licensing agreements. Software-as-a-service contracts, development agreements, and platform terms of service all allocate rights by default. A business that deploys a third-party AI system without reviewing these terms may find that ownership of the output vests in the platform provider rather than the deploying business.
Courts in Chile have not yet produced a settled body of case law on AI authorship. The Corte de Apelaciones (Court of Appeals) and the Corte Suprema (Supreme Court of Chile) have addressed digital works and software in earlier decisions. Establishing that digital outputs can attract protection where human creative input is demonstrable. Those decisions are now being applied by analogy to AI-assisted works. The gap between the analogical extension and the novel facts of autonomous generation remains contested.
Practitioners in Chile increasingly report that registration applications for AI-assisted works are scrutinised more closely than conventional applications. The Departamento de Derechos Intelectuales has not published formal guidance on the point, which means each application is assessed on its individual facts. This inconsistency creates procedural risk for businesses seeking to build a defensible IP portfolio around AI-generated content.
For a tailored strategy on intellectual property protection for AI-generated assets in Chile, reach out to our intellectual property practice in Chile.
Cross-border dimensions: implications for Americas clients
Chile operates within a network of international intellectual property treaties, including the Berne Convention and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. These instruments establish minimum standards but do not require member states to extend protection to non-human creators. Each jurisdiction retains discretion on authorship criteria.
For businesses operating across Latin American markets, the divergence between jurisdictions is a material compliance concern. A work that qualifies for protection in one country may have no protected status in a neighbouring market. The practical consequence is that a regional IP strategy built around AI-generated content must account for jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction analysis rather than assuming harmonised treatment.
The comparison with the United States is instructive for Americas-facing clients. The US Copyright Office has taken a position that human authorship is required, but has shown willingness to register works where AI was used as a tool under significant human direction. That position informs expectations among US-headquartered businesses investing in Chilean operations. A detailed comparative perspective is available in our analysis of AI-generated works and intellectual property in the United States.
Within Chile's immediate neighbourhood, Brazil and Argentina are each developing their own legislative responses to AI-generated works. Brazil's approach emphasises software liability and digital services regulation. Argentina has engaged in a legislative process examining AI accountability. None of these frameworks is yet settled. However, their trajectory matters for any multinational considering where to register, hold, and enforce AI-related IP rights across the region.
AI Act compliance discussions originating in Europe are also influencing Chilean regulatory thinking. Chilean regulators and legislators have observed the EU's approach to risk-based AI regulation with interest. While Chile has not adopted AI Act-equivalent legislation, the concepts – algorithmic accountability, mandatory documentation of high-risk AI systems, transparency obligations – are entering domestic policy debates. Businesses deploying AI systems in Chile that also operate in the EU should build compliance documentation that satisfies both regimes, even where Chilean law does not yet require it.
Technology licensing structures across the Americas also require careful attention. Where a Chilean entity licences AI-generated content to affiliates in other jurisdictions, the scope of rights licensed depends on the law of the originating jurisdiction. If Chilean law does not recognise those rights as subsisting, there is nothing to licence. The downstream effect on affiliate operations, valuation of IP assets, and cross-border tax structuring can be substantial.
Digital services deployed across multiple jurisdictions face an additional layer of complexity. Terms of service for AI platforms often contain choice-of-law clauses that designate US or EU law as governing. Chilean users and operators may find that Chilean intellectual property law applies to the underlying works while platform contractual terms apply to the exploitation rights. Resolving that tension requires analysis of both bodies of law simultaneously.
Strategic recommendations for international businesses operating in Chile
Given the unsettled state of Chilean intellectual property law in this area, businesses should approach AI-generated works through a risk-stratified strategy rather than assuming either full protection or no protection.
The first priority is documentation. Every AI-generated work intended for commercial use should be accompanied by contemporaneous records of human creative direction. This includes prompt design, selection criteria, editorial review, and curation decisions. These records may become the determinative evidence in any future registration dispute or infringement proceeding before the Corte Suprema or the Corte de Apelaciones.
The second priority is contractual clarity. Technology licensing agreements for AI platforms should be reviewed against Chilean law before deployment. Default ownership clauses in platform terms of service vary significantly. A Chilean business that deploys a third-party model and generates commercially valuable output without reviewing those terms may discover that ownership of the output is contested or assigned to the platform operator.
The third priority is jurisdictional structuring. For businesses with flexibility in their corporate structure, the choice of jurisdiction for IP ownership may determine whether robust protection is available. Holding AI-generated IP in a jurisdiction with clearer authorship rules – while licensing into Chile – can preserve value even where Chilean protection is uncertain. This is an area where cross-border legal coordination is essential.
The fourth priority is monitoring legislative developments. Chile's parliament has engaged with digital services regulation and data protection reform in recent years. AI-specific legislation is a foreseeable development within a medium-term horizon. Businesses that track these developments and participate in public consultation processes are better positioned to influence outcomes and plan compliance measures in advance.
Applying the quality differentiator of linked procedures: if an AI-generated work is found to infringe the copyright of a human author whose work was used in training data. The matter shifts from registration and ownership analysis to infringement defence. a procedurally and strategically distinct challenge. The trigger indicator is typically a cease-and-desist letter or a formal complaint filed with the Departamento de Derechos Intelectuales. Businesses should have a response protocol in place before that moment arrives.
To explore legal options for protecting AI-generated assets and managing technology licensing risk in Chile, schedule a consultation at our AI and technology law practice in Chile.
Outlook: regulatory trajectory and what to monitor
Chile's intellectual property system is a mature civil law regime that has adapted, over time, to digital works, software, and database protection. The pattern of adaptation suggests that AI-generated works will eventually receive explicit statutory treatment. The question is timing, and the form that treatment will take.
Three regulatory trajectories are plausible. The first is a minimalist amendment that confirms existing doctrine: only human-authored works qualify for protection, and AI output is categorised as unprotected material or public domain content. This approach would provide clarity but would disadvantage Chilean businesses investing in AI-driven creative industries.
The second trajectory introduces a sui generis (a distinct category of rights tailored to AI-generated works) protection regime, similar to the EU's database rights model. This would extend a time-limited, weaker form of protection to AI-generated output held by a qualifying human or legal entity. It resolves the ownership gap without conferring full copyright. Several Latin American jurisdictions are examining variants of this approach.
The third trajectory ties AI protection to algorithmic accountability requirements. Under this model, protection is conditional on the deploying entity meeting documentation, transparency, and risk-management standards. This aligns with the direction of EU-influenced AI Act compliance frameworks and would reward businesses that have already built robust internal governance processes.
For practitioners advising international clients, the most prudent assumption is that the current uncertainty will persist for several years. Businesses that treat this period as an opportunity to build strong documentation habits, negotiate clear contractual terms, and design defensible IP structures will be better placed than those who wait for statutory clarity before acting. The lost opportunity is not in the future legislation – it is in the unprotected assets being generated today.
Frequently asked questions
Q: Can an AI system be registered as an author of a creative work in Chile?
A: No. Under Chilean intellectual property legislation, authorship requires a natural person. An AI system cannot hold rights or be named as an author in any registration. Ownership of AI-generated output is attributed to the human or legal entity that deployed the system, subject to contractual arrangements and the degree of human creative input.
Q: How long does it typically take to register an AI-assisted work with the Chilean copyright registry?
A: Registration with the Departamento de Derechos Intelectuales typically takes several weeks from the date of submission, assuming the application is complete. The process involves filing a formal declaration identifying the human author or rights holder, accompanied by supporting documentation. Works with ambiguous authorship chains may face additional scrutiny and delays.
Q: Is it a common misconception that copyright protection is automatic for AI-generated output in Chile?
A: Yes. A widespread misconception is that generating output through an AI tool automatically confers copyright on the operator. In practice, Chilean intellectual property law ties protection to human creative expression. Where AI contributes the dominant creative element and human direction is minimal, protection may be denied or significantly weakened. Engaging a lawyer in Chile with cross-border experience in digital services and intellectual property is the most effective way to assess the risk before commercial deployment.
About Ferraz & Whitmore
Ferraz & Whitmore is an international law firm based in Lisbon, advising business clients across 46 jurisdictions. Our team combines Portuguese civil law expertise with English common law tradition to deliver cross-border legal solutions in AI and technology law, intellectual property protection, and technology licensing across the Americas and beyond. We advise technology companies, multinational investors, and in-house legal teams on AI-generated works, algorithmic accountability, software liability, and digital services regulation – including the intersection of Chilean law with evolving international standards. As an international law firm in Chile and across Latin America, we work with clients who need results-oriented counsel that spans multiple legal systems. The firm's Americas practice includes practitioners with experience in cross-border IP disputes, commercial litigation, and investment structuring across civil law jurisdictions. To discuss your situation regarding AI-generated works or intellectual property strategy in Chile, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.