The Colombian entertainment industry has seen a surge in high-profile media transactions driven by the expansion of streaming services, global co-productions, and the rising value of IP across the audiovisual and music sectors. One of the most notable developments was the production and release of a major Spanish-language series adapted from a Nobel Prize-winning Colombian literary work, filmed entirely in the country. This landmark project reinforced Colombia’s capacity to handle large-scale international productions and showcased the government’s continued commitment to fostering a competitive legal and logistical environment.

In parallel, music catalogue acquisitions and sync licensing deals gained momentum, particularly involving urban and Latin pop repertoire originating from Medellín. These transactions underscore the country’s growing relevance in global music publishing, driven by the international appeal of Colombian artists and genres. Legal professionals have been instrumental in structuring these deals, ensuring territorial protection, rights attribution, and fiscal optimisation under Colombia’s evolving IP and tax frameworks.

Long-form scripted series for global streaming platforms continue to lead in business volume, particularly those shot in Colombia under co-production or service models. Demand for localised Spanish-language content is at an all-time high, positioning Colombia as a key production base in the region.

The music industry – especially live performances and tour production – has also experienced significant growth. Medellín stands out as a creative epicentre for urban music, leading to a spike in concert organisation, sponsorship deals, and audiovisual content tied to live events.

Additionally, branded content, immersive experiences, and digital formats such as podcasts and virtual concerts are gaining traction. These shifts require multidisciplinary legal advice, ranging from clearance of IP rights to tax compliance and regulatory review of advertising integration.

Long-form scripted series for global streaming platforms continue to lead in business volume, particularly those shot in Colombia under co-production or service models. Demand for localised Spanish-language content is at an all-time high, positioning Colombia as a key production base in the region.

Cross-border structuring, hybrid financing schemes, and IP-centric strategies increasingly characterise deal-making in Colombia. Parties are placing more emphasis on exclusivity scopes, streaming windows, and back-end participation formulas, especially in audiovisual and music deals involving platforms.

The use of international arbitration clauses, local labour compliance addenda, and co-ownership models for IP assets has become more common. Furthermore, producers and distributors are seeking more flexible tax structures to take advantage of Colombia’s investment incentives, including the CINA (Audiovisual Investment Certificates) and FDC (Colombia Film Fund) schemes, while ensuring legal security in multi-jurisdictional operations.

In parallel, the standardisation of contracts for new formats, such as AI-generated content or FAST channels, is evolving, with parties proactively including moral rights waivers, data usage policies, and performer image rights protections in template agreements.

Back-end participation structures in Colombia have become increasingly sophisticated, particularly in deals involving international co-productions or platform-driven content. The most common models include net profit participation, milestone-based bonuses tied to performance metrics (such as views, awards, or festival selections), and tiered royalty structures for talent and co-producers.

There has also been a rise in back-end equity-like arrangements, where local producers retain partial ownership of IP and share in international sales revenues after cost recoupment. These models are often reinforced by revenue waterfalls and audit rights, especially when local funding incentives (such as CINA or FDC) are part of the financing structure.

Net Profits

Disputes often arise around the definition and calculation of “net profits,” especially when deductions lack transparency or are inconsistently reported by distributors or platforms. Issues such as unapproved expenses, cross-collateralisation of revenues from multiple projects, or delayed accounting statements are frequent friction points.

Another common trigger is the lack of audit rights or access to detailed financial reporting, particularly in cases where rights are assigned to third parties or sublicensed across jurisdictions. The ambiguity of contract language – especially regarding recoupment order, expense caps, or sales commissions – often leads to prolonged disagreements. Legal practitioners in Colombia increasingly recommend more precise drafting, independent audit clauses, and dispute resolution mechanisms tied to royalty verification to mitigate these risks.

In Colombia, the decline in traditional box office revenue and the dominance of digital consumption have led to the adoption of hybrid and non-traditional financing models.

Platform Investment

Where local producers secure partial funding through early interest or soft commitments from streaming platforms, often contingent on talent or script milestones.

Private Equity and Branded Content

Companies are increasingly co-financing productions as part of brand storytelling or ESG positioning, integrating product placement and corporate messaging into the creative.

CINA-Backed Financing Instruments

Some productions are using anticipated CINA credits as collateral for bridge loans or pre-sales, creating a quasi-bond structure that attracts private investors.

These mechanisms respond to the shift toward multi-platform distribution and non-linear monetisation, and require a nuanced understanding of IP rights, tax planning, and investor protections.

Successfully navigating international co-productions requires both legal fluency and cultural agility. Colombian counsel often act as strategic translators between legal systems, ensuring that local norms, such as non-waivable moral rights, strict labour and tax rules, and public funding conditions, are harmonised with foreign contractual standards.

A key tool is the official Co-Production Manual issued by Proimágenes Colombia, which provides a roadmap for aligning treaty-based and non-treaty productions, helping define chain of title, IP ownership, and revenue sharing in a multi-jurisdictional context.

To mitigate cultural friction, contracts increasingly incorporate pre-negotiation protocols, designate bilingual legal teams, and include governing law and arbitration clauses tailored to the commercial reality of both parties. Moreover, local attorneys advise on talent expectations, working conditions, and artistic contributions to ensure compliance with Colombian norms while respecting the creative and financial practices of the international partner.

Ultimately, the success of these structures relies not only on legal drafting but on building trust and clarity early on, particularly when aligning disbursement schedules, recognition of creative roles, and distribution expectations across jurisdictions.

Since the pandemic, risk allocation clauses in large-scale production agreements in Colombia have become significantly more robust and forward-looking. Force majeure provisions have evolved beyond traditional language to explicitly address public health emergencies, political unrest, and global supply chain disruptions.

Producers now negotiate more granular insurance coverage, including epidemic-specific riders and business interruption clauses tailored to audiovisual workflows. Completion bonds have also gained relevance, especially in co-productions involving foreign investment or public funds such as FDC or CINA.

There is a heightened focus on responsibility for production shutdowns, crew safety protocols, and the legal consequences of rescheduling or relocating shoots. Contracts often include detailed clauses on contingency reserves, milestone-based disbursements, and flexible delivery timelines, aiming to protect against reputational and financial loss for all parties.

Moreover, streamers and broadcasters increasingly require pandemic resilience assessments as part of greenlighting processes, and regulators have clarified the applicability of labour and tax obligations even in disrupted production cycles.

This shift has made legal advice on risk-sharing, insurance enforceability, and renegotiation pathways essential to deal-making in the post-pandemic entertainment economy.

While Colombian unions operate under different legal and organisational frameworks compared to U.S. guilds, the ripple effects of the SAG-AFTRA and WGA strikes have been tangible. The increased global awareness of issues such as residuals in streaming, AI usage, and creative ownership has led local artists and their representatives to renegotiate terms with greater leverage and specificity.

Colombian writers and actors – especially those working on platform-backed content – are demanding clearer clauses around digital royalties, credit attribution, and AI protections. Producers and distributors are adjusting templates to include limitations on synthetic likenesses, disclosures around data training for AI models, and updated moral rights acknowledgements.

Additionally, contracts for international co-productions now often reference compliance with foreign guild terms, especially when involving dual-jurisdiction talent. Legal advisors are incorporating contingency clauses to mitigate the impact of future global strikes on local schedules and deliverables.

These developments are slowly recalibrating the balance of power, strengthening professional protections in a market where labour regulation in entertainment has traditionally been less robust than in union-heavy jurisdictions.

The wave of international strikes has prompted a recalibration of power in the entertainment ecosystem, even in jurisdictions like Colombia, where union density is lower. Over time, this is likely to result in a more assertive stance from local talent, particularly in negotiations with global platforms and producers operating under international standards.

Writers, directors, and performers are increasingly aware of their market value in globalised content pipelines. This awareness is driving demands for fairer terms related to digital distribution, residuals, and creative control. Legal advisors are seeing a shift toward contractual parity mechanisms, such as audit rights, data transparency, and early negotiation of performance-based bonuses.

For studios and production companies, this means adapting to a more balanced and consultative production model, especially in co-productions where stricter labour standards may already bind international partners. The emphasis is shifting from unilateral control to shared accountability on issues like AI usage, royalty tracking, and credit attribution.

Over time, this new balance will foster more sustainable working relationships, reduce disputes, and improve the perceived legitimacy of content financing models in the eyes of talent and the public alike.

In Colombia, traditional unions and guilds have historically focused on television, film, and theatre professionals. However, the rise of digital-native creators (such as podcasters, YouTubers, and streamers) has exposed regulatory and representational gaps in the current legal and labour framework.

One of the main challenges is that many of these creators operate as independent contractors, falling outside the scope of traditional labour protections. This makes it difficult for them to access collective bargaining mechanisms or benefits typically negotiated by unions, such as minimum compensation, attribution rights, or dispute resolution support.

As these creators begin to participate in branded content, licensing deals, and co-productions with traditional media companies, friction has emerged over rights allocation, revenue sharing, and creative control. There is also growing debate over the use of music, visual assets, and other IP-protected material without clear licensing structures, which brings these creators into tension with rights holders and collective management organisations (CMOs).

Although there is not yet a dedicated union for digital content creators in Colombia, new initiatives are emerging – often through informal collectives or industry associations – aimed at educating creators on IP, contract negotiation, and monetisation models, while also advocating for regulatory reforms.

This evolving dynamic signals a need for inclusive legal strategies that bridge traditional guild protections with the realities of a decentralised, platform-driven creative economy.

Colombia’s robust system of tax incentives has been instrumental in transforming the country into a regional hub for audiovisual production. Two primary mechanisms – the Colombia Film Fund (FFC) and the CINA – have significantly increased both domestic and international productions.

The FFC, created by Law 814 of 2003 and administered by Proimágenes Colombia, provides cash reimbursements of up to 40% for audiovisual services and 20% for logistics expenses. This incentive has benefited a wide range of national and foreign productions, including feature films, documentaries, and television series.

The CINA incentive, regulated by Law 1955 of 2019, offers a transferable tax credit of up to 35% for investments made in audiovisual projects carried out in Colombia. Its flexibility and scalability have attracted streaming platforms and global studios, especially for serial content and advertising.

In parallel, mechanisms like COCREA (allowing tax deductions for donations to cultural projects) and MINTIC grants (focused on digital content and emerging technologies) have not only increased production volume but also strengthened local talent, technical infrastructure, and international co-productions. These incentives have also led to greater demand for legal services related to incentive eligibility, compliance, and cross-border structuring.

Across Latin America and beyond, jurisdictions such as Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and Chile have introduced or expanded rebates, cash grants, and tax credits to attract both domestic and international productions and position themselves as competitive filming locations.

This race to offer more favourable terms presents producers with both opportunities and legal complexity. They must compare not only financial benefits but also regulatory burdens, including local content quotas, labour law compliance, and certification requirements.

From a legal perspective, challenges arise when:

• incentive eligibility criteria vary significantly, requiring precise structuring of production entities and contracts to meet local thresholds (eg, spend, employment quotas, or cultural content);
• double-dipping prohibitions and state aid rules create constraints on combining incentives from different countries;
• IP ownership and distribution rights must be carefully allocated to avoid conflicts with national legislation, especially in treaty-based co-productions; and
• timing and liquidity issues emerge, as some jurisdictions offer delayed reimbursements or tax credits that are hard to monetise.

In Colombia, producers increasingly rely on cross-border legal teams to navigate incentive systems and align production timelines, contractual structures, and financing models across multiple countries.

As global productions become more mobile, legal counsel must anticipate regulatory mismatches, advise on compliance risks, and negotiate protections in case of denied or delayed incentive payments.

Entertainment companies pursuing cross-border tax incentives must navigate a complex legal landscape. Each jurisdiction has distinct rules governing eligibility, qualified expenses, IP ownership, and local partnerships. In Colombia, for example, investors accessing the CINA must meet strict conditions related to local spending, employment, and vendor qualification.

Key legal considerations have been outlined below.

Entity Structuring and Residency Requirements

Tax authorities often require that production companies or investors have a legal presence in the country offering the incentive, or partner with a certified local service company.

IP Location and Rights Assignment

Many incentive schemes demand that certain rights remain in the country or be co-owned with a national entity, which affects global exploitation strategies and must be addressed in early-stage contracts.

Treaty Compliance and Anti-Avoidance Rules

Projects involving multiple jurisdictions must comply with double taxation treaties and avoid triggering base erosion or profit shifting concerns under OECD guidelines.

Transparency and Documentation

Producers must maintain robust audit trails, expense documentation, and legal compliance records to ensure incentives are not disallowed during audits or challenged retroactively.

Currency and Remittance Issues

Incentives paid in local currency may require careful financial planning and legal advice to manage exchange rates, repatriation limits, and banking regulations.

Ultimately, legal advisors play a central role in coordinating tax, corporate, IP, and regulatory matters across borders to structure productions that are both financially efficient and legally sound.

Colombia has seen a notable increase in hybrid financing models combining public incentives and private capital. This is especially evident in the audiovisual sector, where producers structure their budgets around strategic use of government-backed instruments like the FDC and CINA tax credits, while securing equity or debt investment from private entities.

Bundling Incentives

Producers are leveraging multiple schemes to reduce financial exposure and attract investors by presenting a more de-risked structure. Most of the available tax incentives are mutually exclusive, meaning that electing one precludes the use of the other and directly impacts the overall financial structure of the project.

Private Equity

There is growing interest from private investors – especially those based in the United States and Europe – who view Colombian projects as low-cost, high-visibility opportunities. Legal counsel is critical in aligning local compliance with international investor expectations.

Pre-Sale and Licensing Models

Streaming platforms and broadcasters increasingly commit to licensing agreements or minimum guarantees, which serve as collateral to access public funds or close financing gaps.

This blended approach has made Colombia an attractive environment for co-productions and IP development. However, it also requires careful legal structuring to manage incentive requirements, chain-of-title clarity, profit sharing, and repatriation of funds.

Colombian copyright law, like most jurisdictions in Latin America, does not yet include specific provisions for works created by artificial intelligence. The current framework, grounded in Law 23 of 1982, defines authorship as a human and original act, making it challenging to recognise AI-generated content as protectable unless human intervention can be clearly established.

In practice, this raises multiple legal challenges, such as those outlined below.

• Authorship attribution – works created with generative AI tools often involve multiple layers of input (datasets, prompts, algorithm design) making it difficult to identify a legally recognisable author. Without a clear human author, copyright cannot subsist under current law.
• Moral rights incompatibility – Colombia’s copyright system includes strong moral rights (eg, attribution, integrity), which cannot be assigned or waived, and are inherently linked to human authorship, creating friction when AI is involved.
• Uncertain ownership of outputs – companies and creators using AI tools face legal uncertainty over who owns the final outputs, especially when using third-party platforms that assert terms of service or data use policies inconsistent with copyright norms.
• Challenges in enforcement – infringement claims involving AI-generated works struggle to succeed in court due to ambiguity in ownership, originality, and the absence of legal recognition for machine-created expression.

Despite the lack of dedicated legislation, Colombian legal practitioners are increasingly drafting custom contractual frameworks that assign authorship and ownership to human users of AI tools, clarify licensing of training data, and address liability for unauthorised use of inputs or outputs.

Colombia is expected to see legislative and judicial developments in the coming years as it aligns with international discussions and addresses the growing role of AI in creative sectors such as advertising, audiovisual production, and digital design.

As of mid-2025, Colombia has not yet issued binding judicial precedents directly addressing the use of artificial intelligence in the creation of entertainment content. However, legal conversations are intensifying in both public and private sectors due to the increasing presence of generative AI in audiovisual production, advertising, and music.

While no landmark rulings have emerged, three key developments stand out.

Early Contractual Litigation

Confidential disputes have arisen between advertising agencies and production companies regarding the unauthorised use of AI-generated imagery and voice synthesis. These cases typically involve claims of breach of contract and improper attribution, rather than solely focusing on copyright infringement.

Collective Management Organisations

Colombian CMOs, particularly in the audiovisual and music sectors, are beginning to address challenges related to remuneration for AI-assisted works. Internal disputes have arisen around the eligibility of AI-generated pieces for royalties, prompting legal reviews of repertory admission standards.

Regulatory Observations

The Ministry of Culture and Proimágenes Colombia have issued early-stage policy guidelines encouraging transparency in the use of AI in state-funded audiovisual projects. Although not legally binding, these documents suggest a possible approach for soft regulation and individual assessment by funding organisations and regulatory bodies.

Overview

Overall, Colombian courts have yet to define whether AI-assisted or AI-generated works qualify for copyright protection, and whether rights can be enforced when authorship is in doubt. Practitioners expect that future disputes, particularly in co-productions or branded content, will push the judiciary to clarify the legal standing of synthetic media.

In the meantime, legal advisors are taking proactive steps to address these gaps by including specific AI clauses in production and licensing agreements, defining authorship attribution, liability for misuse, and data training disclosures.

In Colombia, the practice of licensing audiovisual materials for AI model training is still emerging and largely unregulated. However, legal practitioners are observing early trends in both commercial contracts and industry negotiations that mirror global developments.

Proactive Licensing Language

Some production companies and rights holders – particularly those with music video, advertising, and archival footage libraries – have begun including express provisions prohibiting the use of their content for AI training without specific written consent. This is often motivated by concerns over brand integrity and performer rights.

Negotiation of “Training Rights” as a Separate Category

In recent licensing negotiations involving footage libraries and advertising content, legal advisors have started distinguishing traditional usage rights from AI-related rights. This includes carving out clauses that address whether and how a licensee may use content to train generative models or extract metadata for machine learning purposes.

Concerns from Performers and Talent Unions

There is rising sensitivity among Colombian actors, musicians, and on-screen talent regarding the use of their voice, image, and performance data in AI training. Although collective bargaining agreements are not yet standardised for AI-related use, individual contracts are increasingly addressing synthetic likeness and dataset restrictions.

Lack of Regulatory Guidance

No binding national regulation currently addresses dataset training consent in Colombia, and most licensing arrangements rely on general copyright, personality rights, and data protection frameworks. This legal vacuum is prompting lawyers to draft highly customised provisions in anticipation of future regulatory changes.

Evolving Licensing Models

As generative AI becomes more prevalent, it is expected that licensing models in Colombia will evolve to include royalty structures, audit rights, and usage limitations specifically tied to AI applications, particularly in music, advertising, and streaming content markets.

In Colombia, residuals for performers and creators in streaming content are not governed by standardised union agreements, as local guilds and associations generally lack the same collective bargaining power as their counterparts in jurisdictions like the United States. However, several important developments are shaping the legal landscape.

Application of the “Pepe Sánchez Law” (Law 1835 of 2017)

This law grants screenwriters and directors the right to equitable remuneration for public communication of their works, including on streaming platforms, through CMOs. Enforcement has been gaining momentum, particularly with local courts recognising the validity of such claims even in cases involving foreign platforms operating in Colombia.

Growing CMOs Activity

Representing screenwriters, directors, and musicians, CMOs are increasingly negotiating licensing fees and initiating collections from streaming platforms and cable operators. These efforts are prompting producers and platforms to factor in residual obligations at the contracting stage, especially for domestic productions or Colombian talent involved in international projects.

Contractual Compensation Schemes

In the absence of binding union rules, producers are negotiating residual-style back-end payments or lump-sum buyouts on a case-by-case basis. This is particularly relevant in streaming-exclusive productions, where local actors or writers seek to mirror international standards of residuals or royalties.

Lack of Uniform Enforcement

Despite the legal foundation, there is no consistent enforcement of residuals across all streaming services. Many global platforms have historically relied on direct licenses or acquisition agreements that exclude ongoing compensation, but this is changing slowly as CMOs assert broader claims.

Need for Judicial Clarification

Litigation is expected to increase in the coming years as creators test the limits of the Pepe Sánchez Law and demand residuals even when contractual waivers exist. Courts may be called upon to determine whether such waivers violate the law’s intent to protect authors’ rights to equitable remuneration.

In summary, while Colombia does not yet have union-mandated residual frameworks for streaming, the combination of statutory rights and CMO advocacy is gradually reshaping how residuals are understood and applied, especially for writers, directors, and musicians.

Negotiating revenue-sharing models for digital-first content in Colombia presents several legal and practical challenges.

Unlike traditional broadcast or theatrical distribution, there are no widely accepted norms or formulas for calculating revenue shares in digital-first content such as YouTube series, podcasts, or social media-driven formats. This makes negotiations highly individualised and complex.

Content creators often lack access to transparent and verifiable data, which complicates the auditing and calculation of revenue shares. Contracts must include precise language on data access, reporting obligations, and definitions of monetisation.

Revenue

When revenue flows through foreign digital platforms, defining the applicable jurisdiction, tax liabilities, and enforceability of rights becomes challenging, particularly in cases where creators are based in Colombia but revenues are generated abroad.

Revenue-sharing agreements must often account for a high volume of short-format episodes with fluctuating income streams, including advertising revenue, brand integrations, and platform incentives. This leads to complicated tracking and reporting mechanisms.

In many digital-first deals, multiple stakeholders (such as directors, influencers, composers, and third-party licensors) claim revenue participation, leading to intricate rights clearance processes and negotiation bottlenecks.

Use of AI

With the rise of AI-generated content and voice/image synthesis, contracts for digital-first projects are beginning to address rights to digital likeness, royalties for avatars, and secondary exploitation, adding layers of complexity to revenue-sharing terms.

Solutions

To mitigate these challenges, practitioners in Colombia are adopting hybrid deal structures – combining flat fees, performance bonuses, and scaled royalties based on platform thresholds – while reinforcing audit rights and dispute resolution mechanisms in contracts.

In Colombia, in-season stacking on affiliated or vertically integrated streaming platforms has become a delicate issue in the absence of express licensing provisions.

Implied Licensing

Producers and rights holders frequently rely on arguments of implied consent or industry practice, particularly when the same corporate group oversees both the broadcaster and the streaming platform. However, this situation can lead to legal uncertainty and potential disputes regarding revenue allocation and the extent of rights.

To eliminate ambiguity, many parties are now negotiating retrospective side letters or amending existing agreements to allow for in-season stacking. These amendments typically clarify exclusivity periods, revenue-sharing terms, and attribution rules.

Stacking and Promotion

In some instances, platforms defend the practice of in-season stacking as a promotional strategy to expand their audience, particularly when episodes are released on a delayed linear schedule. Although this approach may be commercially justified, it does not negate the requirement for explicit legal foundations.

Union, CMOs and Arbitration

If the underlying content includes contributions from guild members or rights managed by CMOs, unauthorised stacking may lead to compliance issues or claims for additional

compensation. An increasing number of producers and creators are turning to arbitration or mediation to resolve conflicts related to stacking, especially when audience performance on the streaming platform greatly exceeds that of the original broadcast.

Stacking Clauses

Legal practitioners in Colombia now recommend including stacking clauses in all new television production and licensing contracts, clearly defining the relationship between linear and digital exploitation windows, platform branding, and promotional exceptions.

In Colombia, traditional labour unions and guilds in the audiovisual sector are not as formalised as those in jurisdictions like the U.S. However, CMOs and emerging professional associations are starting to have a noticeable impact on distribution costs, particularly for streaming platforms.

Streamers operating in Colombia are increasingly required to pay royalties for public communication to authors, performers, and directors under the enforcement of laws such as the Pepe Sánchez Law (Law 1835 of 2017). These obligations, collected by CMOs, are non-waivable and must be budgeted as fixed distribution costs.

Informal yet organised groups of screenwriters, musicians, and actors are advocating for improved contractual standards and better pay structures, especially in digital-first productions and localised adaptations. This advocacy is influencing how streaming platforms negotiate participation and residual payments. CMOs are seeking greater transparency in revenue reporting and audience metrics from these platforms. This demand has led to disputes and added compliance requirements, which in turn increase the operational costs for platforms, particularly those looking to expand their catalogue of local content.

When Colombian works are distributed internationally or foreign works are localised in Colombia, conflicts may arise around double collection or jurisdictional overlaps among CMOs, requiring streamers to engage in complex rights clearance processes.

In light of these pressures, streamers are revising standard contract templates to better reflect local royalty rules, reserve rights to deduct statutory fees, and shift certain payment obligations to producers.

While formal unionisation remains limited, the growing assertiveness of collective rights entities and professional groups is significantly shaping the economics of streaming distribution in Colombia and across Latin America.

M&A transactions involving audiovisual libraries in Colombia often encounter complex legal challenges related to:

• chain of title irregularities and incomplete documentation of rights;
• moral rights enforcement, which remains inalienable under Colombian law, even post-sale;
• outstanding royalties and public communication rights tied to CMOs;
• historical contracts with limited exploitation scopes (eg, excluding digital or international rights);
• tax implications linked to IP transfers and incentive programs like CINA or FDC;
• licensing renewals for music, archival footage, or brand placements; and
• privacy and image rights clearances, especially in factual or unscripted content.

These issues make legal due diligence, risk mitigation, and robust indemnity structures critical components of any entertainment-related M&A deal in Colombia.

In Colombia and across Latin America, vertical integration between cable operators, content studios, and streaming platforms raises significant antitrust concerns related to:

• market dominance in content distribution, especially when a single entity controls both the pipeline (cable/internet) and the content;
• exclusionary practices, such as preferential access to owned content or withholding premium content from competitors;
• bundling strategies that limit consumer choice and disadvantage independent producers or OTT competitors;
• discriminatory pricing models affecting small-scale cable operators or third-party platforms; and
• barriers to entry for new content players due to consolidated ownership and aggressive licensing terms.

Colombia’s Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (SIC) monitors these transactions closely under Law 1340 of 2009 and has the authority to block or condition mergers. In practice, regulators are increasingly sensitive to how these integrations affect consumer access, local content quotas, and fair competition, especially when global players acquire or partner with domestic distribution channels.

In entertainment-related M&A transactions in Colombia, representations and warranties (R&Ws) are meticulously crafted to address liabilities arising from talent agreements, especially given the growing scrutiny over image rights, labour rights, and intellectual property.

Buyers typically require the seller to:

• represent that all talent agreements are in writing, duly signed, and enforceable;
• warrant that no disputes or claims (eg, unpaid residuals, unauthorised uses, or moral rights violations) are pending or anticipated;
• confirm that transfer and exploitation rights over performances are valid and have been assigned in accordance with Colombian copyright law (Law 23 of 1982, and Law 1835 of 2017 for audiovisual creators); and
• address issues of termination clauses, exclusivity, compensation, and profit participation, which may trigger post-closing liabilities.

In deals involving international platforms, acquirers also focus on union compliance (if applicable), image rights authorisation, and applicable collective management payments. Where gaps exist, indemnity provisions or escrow arrangements are negotiated to allocate potential post-closing risks.

In Colombian entertainment M&A deals, addressing talent contracts and legacy IP rights requires a strategic and preventive approach. Key steps include:

• due diligence – a granular audit of all existing talent agreements and IP rights is the initial step (this includes verifying the existence, scope, and validity of assignments, and ensuring that all economic and moral rights have been properly transferred or licensed in writing, as required by Law 23 of 1982);
• chain of title – the chain of title for scripts, underlying works, music, and archival content is analysed to confirm no third-party claims exist (this is especially relevant in adaptations, biopics, and co-productions involving multiple jurisdictions or older properties);
• residual rights and participations – particular care is taken when contracts involve back-end participation, royalties, or residuals, which may not always be clearly reported or structured (these can give rise to post-closing liabilities if not disclosed or capped);
• moral rights and performer protections – in Colombia, moral rights are inalienable, and performers have distinct rights under Law 1403 of 2010 (Fanny Mikey Law); and
• contractual remedies – based on findings, specific representations and warranties, indemnities, and holdbacks are recommended to mitigate risks tied to unclear or deficient legacy agreements.

In Colombia, transparency in profit-sharing (particularly in film, TV, and digital content contracts) is increasingly being handled through more precise audit clauses and reporting obligations. Producers and distributors are often required to:

• provide periodic reports – agreements typically mandate quarterly or semi-annual profit reports, detailing gross revenues, deductions, and net profits;
• define scope of audits – parties now negotiate more robust audit rights, including the frequency, duration, and scope of permitted audits, and sometimes even third-party audit access for rights holders or talent representatives;
• overlook limitations and disputes – a common area of friction is the limitation period for audits (usually two to three years) and the costs of auditing, which the rights holder generally bears unless discrepancies above a certain threshold are found;
• revenue share on streaming platforms – given the opaque nature of platform analytics, there is growing pressure to include specific definitions for streaming revenues, performance-based bonuses, and even minimum guarantees to compensate for limited transparency.
• work with third-party collection societies – in some cases, especially for music and screenwriters, CMOs help enforce transparency by collecting and distributing royalties, adding an extra layer of accountability.

As deal structures evolve with global distribution models, the trend in Colombia is toward negotiating enforceable audit mechanisms early on to reduce litigation risk and support fair remuneration practices.

In Colombia, non-compete clauses are treated with caution and are enforceable only under strict conditions, particularly in the entertainment sector where creative freedom and project-based work are standard.

In labour law, non-compete clauses after termination are generally unenforceable unless the employer offers financial compensation during the restriction period. Such clauses must also be limited in scope, duration (usually no more than six months to a year), and geography.

In agreements involving independent contractors (eg, talent, producers, or showrunners), non-competes may be valid if they are reasonable and proportional, aiming to protect confidential information or project exclusivity for a defined period.

Non-compete obligations in the entertainment industry are often framed as exclusivity clauses during the term of a project. For example, an actor or director may be contractually restricted from participating in rival productions for a set time. These are generally upheld if clearly defined and time-limited.

Colombia’s Unfair Competition Law (Law 256 of 1996) discourages overly broad non-compete clauses that limit free market participation or innovation without justification.

In practice, custom-tailored, narrowly drafted non-compete clauses are more likely to be enforced, especially when linked to project confidentiality or marketing strategy. Courts may strike down clauses perceived as overly restrictive or exploitative.

The rise of emerging technologies such as AI, VR and AR is significantly transforming the structure and content of entertainment contracts.

AI and IP Ownership

Contracts now increasingly address the use of AI in scriptwriting, music composition, and content generation. Key clauses define ownership of AI-generated content, set boundaries for training datasets, and impose limitations on derivative use. There’s a growing trend to include disclosure and indemnity provisions when AI tools are used to mitigate copyright infringement risks.

Virtual and Augmented Reality

VR/AR experiences often involve cross-platform rights, immersive environments, and interactive storytelling. As such, new licensing models are being crafted to cover 3D assets, motion capture data, interactive characters, and multi-user participation rights. Traditional contract templates are being adapted to allow broader usage across metaverse-type ecosystems.

Likeness and Deepfake Protections

The increasing capacity of AI to replicate voices and faces has driven contracts to include explicit image, voice, and likeness clauses, even posthumous rights management. Talent contracts in particular are now negotiated with greater care around digital cloning and synthetic media uses.

Data and Analytics

The use of real-time analytics and audience interaction data in immersive formats has also led to clauses regarding data ownership, monetisation rights, and privacy compliance, especially when such content is distributed globally.

These technologies are prompting entertainment lawyers to draft more forward-looking agreements that anticipate future exploitation channels, especially when projects involve global or hybrid formats.

When forming an entertainment production company in Colombia, several legal considerations must be strategically addressed to ensure operational efficiency, creative protection, and regulatory compliance.

SAS Structure

Most production companies in Colombia are incorporated as sociedades por acciones simplificadas (SAS), due to their flexibility, limited liability, and simplified governance. This structure allows producers to separate personal and corporate liability, attract investors, and issue shares to creative partners or financiers.

Guild and Union Membership

While Colombia does not have guilds equivalent to SAG-AFTRA or the WGA, the involvement of local associations of actors, musicians, or technicians may require adherence to minimum fee structures, credit protocols, and insurance provisions. International co-productions may require the company to become a signatory to foreign guild agreements, particularly when working with US or European-based talent. This has implications for residuals, labour standards, and arbitration forums.

Liability Protection

Contracts often include robust indemnity and insurance provisions, covering errors & omissions (E&O), public liability, and workers’ compensation. Especially for productions with physical risk (eg, stunts, live events), companies must obtain coverage aligned with international production standards.

Regulatory Compliance

Production companies must also comply with Colombia’s tax and employment laws, register with the National Directorate of Copyright (DNDA), and obtain permits for filming, particularly when using public spaces, children, or animals. If seeking state incentives, registration with Proimágenes and fulfilment of national content quotas are mandatory.

Intellectual Property

The production company must ensure it has clear rights to the underlying IP  – scripts, music, formats, and character rights – through assignments or licenses, especially when adapting literary works or formats.

A well-structured entertainment company not only facilitates financing and compliance but is essential to protecting creative assets and managing risk across local and international projects.

In Colombia, FAST (Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television) differs from AVOD and SVOD in rights, revenue, and regulation. FAST operates like linear TV, requiring licensing for 24/7 scheduled digital delivery, while AVOD and SVOD rely on on-demand rights, often exclusive and territory-based. Revenue in FAST is ad-based and less predictable, whereas AVOD may yield higher ad fees per title, and SVOD offers more stable income through subscriptions or flat fees.

Contracts for FAST include scheduling, formatting, and delivery terms for continuous playback. AVOD/SVOD focus on metadata, multi-device delivery, and discoverability. FAST platforms provide limited viewing data, making revenue audits harder; AVOD/SVOD offer real-time analytics. All models must follow Colombia’s rules on advertising, content classification, and data protection, but FAST may face additional scrutiny due to its similarity to broadcasting. Finally, FAST is often seen as library content, while curated AVOD or SVOD exclusives may boost brand value. As hybrid models emerge, careful legal structuring is essential.

As Colombia’s digital distribution landscape evolves, legal practitioners must be vigilant in differentiating these models in licensing and negotiation, particularly as hybrid monetisation strategies (eg, AVOD-first followed by FAST windowing) become more common.

In interactive formats where viewers influence the storyline, contracts with talent must address the non-linear nature of the content. In Colombia, this includes granting rights for branching narratives and expanding the definition of “audiovisual work” to cover interactivity and gamification. Compensation models should consist of:

• flat fees;
• per-branch payments; and
• bonuses tied to replay or user choice.

Without collective bargaining, residuals must be negotiated individually, and tiered models based on viewership data are recommended. Moral rights must be carefully managed, especially when multiple endings impact character arcs, and any renunciation must comply with Colombian law. Contracts should also restrict AI use of performances unless specifically approved, and consider international union requirements when applicable. Interactive content blends film, series, and gaming, requiring contracts that anticipate multi-path usage, tailored compensation, and strong rights management across jurisdictions.