The Chilean entertainment market has experienced increasing sophistication and diversification in media transactions over the last 12 months, driven by the continued presence of global streaming platforms, the internationalisation of Chilean content and the growing commercial value of local intellectual property.

A significant trend has been the expansion of relationships between Chilean producers and international platforms through different transaction models, including production services, local productions financed by or licensed to platforms, and adaptation projects involving Chilean underlying rights and international talent. These arrangements increasingly require more complex rights structures, particularly regarding intellectual property ownership, territorial scope, exclusivity periods and the allocation of exploitation rights across different formats and markets.

International co-productions and cross-border collaborations continue to be an important source of transactional activity, particularly in feature films and selected scripted projects. Chilean production companies are increasingly participating in projects involving foreign partners, whether through local production capacity, co-financing structures or rights-based arrangements. These transactions require careful co-ordination between Chilean legal requirements and the expectations of international partners, particularly regarding copyright assignments, moral rights, corporate structuring and revenue participation.

The market has also seen continued development in the exploitation of existing intellectual property through licensing, adaptations and derivative uses. As content increasingly circulates across multiple platforms and territories, transactions are placing greater emphasis on rights chain verification, reserved rights, future exploitation windows and contractual mechanisms addressing new forms of distribution.

Finally, the expansion of streaming, together with the growing presence of AVOD (advertising-supported video streaming on demand) and FAST (free ad-supported streaming TV) models alongside SVOD (subscription video streaming on demand), is creating additional licensing opportunities and more varied exploitation strategies for rights holders and producers. These developments are contributing to a more sophisticated transactional environment, where legal structuring plays an increasingly important role in aligning financing, rights ownership and commercial exploitation.

The main areas of growth in Chile’s entertainment market are concentrated around streaming content, live entertainment, digital formats and the increasing commercialisation of local intellectual property.

Streaming Content

Scripted and documentary content for streaming platforms, long-form scripted series and documentary formats continues to represent significant areas of activity, particularly through commissions, licensing arrangements and international co-production structures. Documentary projects, including true crime, biographical and archival-based productions, generate increasing legal work in areas such as life rights, archival clearances, music licensing and rights management, often involving multiple jurisdictions.

Live Entertainment and Music-Related Content

Chile continues to experience strong activity in live entertainment, including large-scale festivals, concerts and comedy formats. This growth generates transactional work involving talent agreements, venue arrangements, sponsorship deals, brand integrations and, increasingly, licensing and distribution agreements when live performances are recorded or adapted for digital platforms.

Digital-First Formats and Branded Content

Branded content, podcasts, creator-led formats and other digital productions are gaining commercial relevance. These projects require legal support across intellectual property clearance, advertising compliance, talent arrangements and ownership structures, particularly as independent creators increasingly develop commercially valuable content ecosystems.

Emerging Distribution Models

FAST channels and ad-supported digital platforms have expanded their presence in Chile, creating additional licensing opportunities and requiring producers and rights holders to address new exploitation windows, reporting obligations and revenue models. While still developing compared with subscription streaming, these formats are becoming part of the broader distribution landscape.

Chilean audiovisual deal-making continues to evolve around a mixed financing ecosystem that combines public support, private investment, platform participation and international co-production structures. Over the last 12 months, negotiations have increasingly focused on aligning these different sources of financing with rights ownership, exploitation strategies and contractual risk allocation.

Public Support Mechanisms

Public support mechanisms remain relevant in structuring transactions, as many productions incorporate competitive funds such as the Fondo CNTV, the Fondo de Fomento Audiovisual and government agency CORFO (Corporación de Fomento de la Producción)’s IFI Audiovisual programme. These mechanisms influence deal structures from an early stage, including production timelines, budget allocation and the contractual relationship between producers, investors and international partners.

Streaming Platforms

Streaming platforms have also become an increasingly relevant factor in deal-making, through both commissions and licensing or co-financing arrangements. These transactions require careful negotiation of intellectual property ownership, exclusivity periods, territorial scope and exploitation rights, particularly because Chilean law does not recognise a broad work-for-hire doctrine and rights transfers must comply with the formalities established under Law No 17.336.

International Co-Productions

International co-productions continue to shape contractual practice, particularly in feature films. These structures require co-ordination between Chilean legal requirements, including moral rights protection, notarial formalities for rights transfers, tax considerations and corporate structuring, and the expectations of foreign partners operating under different legal frameworks.

Emerging Economic Considerations

Finally, negotiations are increasingly addressing emerging economic considerations, including performers’ remuneration rights in the digital environment, transparency mechanisms and contractual treatment of new technologies. These developments reflect a broader trend towards more detailed allocation of rights, obligations and economic participation among the different stakeholders involved in audiovisual projects.

Back-end participation structures in Chile are generally adapted to the actual revenue streams available for each type of production. In feature films, theatrical exhibition may remain an important exploitation window, particularly for locally oriented productions, but participation arrangements are increasingly structured around a combination of distribution revenues, international sales, licensing arrangements and, in some cases, streaming-related compensation.

For television and digital projects, contingent compensation is more commonly structured through bonuses, revenue participation mechanisms or other performance-based arrangements linked to exploitation agreements. Traditional net-profit participation structures, based on complex studio accounting models, remain uncommon outside larger international co-productions or projects with more sophisticated financing structures.

The main source of disputes is usually not the percentage agreed, but the definition of the economic base on which participation is calculated. Parties may differ on the treatment of revenues, deductions, recoupment priorities, distribution fees or other costs affecting the amount ultimately payable. This has led to greater attention during negotiations to defining calculation methodologies, payment triggers and the information required to verify the applicable participation.

Traditional financing mechanisms such as public funds, private investment, pre-sales, co-productions and distribution agreements continue to play an important role in Chilean audiovisual production. However, changes in audience consumption patterns and the diversification of exploitation windows have led to a more integrated approach to financing and commercial planning.

Rather than relying primarily on post-release performance, producers are increasingly structuring projects with a broader financing and exploitation strategy from the development and production stages. This may include a combination of public incentives, private investment, pre-sales, platform participation, brand partnerships, product placement and other commercial arrangements designed to reduce financing risk and create visibility around the project before release.

Brand integration and strategic commercial alliances have therefore become more deliberate components of production planning, particularly for projects with a strong audience profile. These arrangements require early contractual co-ordination regarding intellectual property, advertising compliance, use of trade marks and the relationship between commercial objectives and the creative integrity of the production.

Co-financing structures combining public support, private capital and international partners have also gained relevance. In parallel, there is increasing interest from private investors and specialised financing actors in audiovisual content as an investment opportunity, particularly for projects with clearer exploitation strategies and international potential.

From a legal and transactional perspective, the main evolution has been the move towards more comprehensive financing structures in which rights, revenues, exploitation windows and commercial partnerships are addressed earlier in the production cycle, following trends already observed in more mature international markets.

Cross-border co-production agreements require the reconciliation of different legal approaches to authorship, ownership, exploitation rights and contractual allocation of risk. While these challenges are particularly relevant in co-productions, they also reflect broader issues that arise whenever Chilean producers, foreign investors, platforms or distributors participate in the same transaction.

One of the main challenges is aligning Chilean copyright principles with the expectations of international co-production partners operating under different legal frameworks. Chilean law provides strong protection for moral rights, which cannot be broadly waived, while many foreign contractual models assume greater flexibility regarding authorship, attribution and ownership of commissioned works. Co-production agreements therefore need to preserve the applicable moral rights protections while ensuring that economic rights are sufficiently structured to allow the exploitation strategy agreed by the parties.

The absence of a broad work-for-hire doctrine in Chilean law creates an additional layer of complexity in international co-productions. Foreign partners accustomed to automatic ownership of commissioned works must instead rely on express rights transfers or licences structured in accordance with Chilean intellectual property rules and applicable formal requirements. Proper chain-of-title planning is therefore a key element of cross-border projects, particularly where the content will be exploited across multiple territories and platforms.

Beyond intellectual property issues, co-production agreements require co-ordination of tax, currency, corporate and regulatory considerations, including the movement of funds between jurisdictions and compliance with the requirements of applicable co-production frameworks. Clear provisions regarding governing law, dispute resolution and contractual language are essential, and bilingual agreements increasingly require legal reconciliation rather than literal translation to ensure that the parties share the same understanding of their rights and obligations.

The pandemic prompted greater attention to risk allocation in large-scale production agreements in Chile, although the market has not developed the same level of standardised risk mechanisms found in larger production jurisdictions. Force majeure and production interruption clauses are now generally drafted with greater specificity, addressing events such as health emergencies, government restrictions, travel limitations and other circumstances that may affect production continuity.

Production agreements increasingly seek to allocate interruption risks more clearly among producers, financiers, co-producers and other stakeholders. This includes provisions addressing suspension periods, rescheduling, additional costs, delivery adjustments and the treatment of contingency reserves. Insurance requirements have also become more detailed, particularly in international co-productions where foreign partners or financiers may require broader coverage and clearer risk allocation.

The pandemic also accelerated the adoption of international contracting practices in Chilean productions. While not all local projects adopt the same structures, productions involving international financing or distribution increasingly address production continuity, insurance coverage and contractual mechanisms to manage unforeseen events from the outset.

Chile does not have union structures with the same collective bargaining reach as the US organisations SAG-AFTRA or the WGA, although it does have active audiovisual industry organisations representing different categories of professionals. These Chilean organisations represent workers operating under the special labour regime for arts and entertainment activities established under Law No 19.889, and their focus has generally been on advocating for clearer standards regarding working hours, on-set safety, rest periods and other production conditions that balance operational realities with worker protection.

The impact of recent international negotiations has therefore been reflected less through comparable strike action and more through increased attention to contractual and regulatory standards. This includes greater focus on issues such as performer protections, compensation structures, AI-related uses and transparency mechanisms, particularly in productions connected to international distribution.

Chile does not have the same guild-driven collective bargaining model found in other entertainment markets, where strikes have historically been a central mechanism for renegotiating industry standards. The influence of recent international labour movements is therefore more likely to be reflected through contractual practices, legislative advocacy and regulatory discussions than through comparable collective strike action.

Industry organisations and collective management entities in Chile have traditionally focused on promoting legal reforms and the recognition of additional rights for creators and performers, including issues related to remuneration, digital exploitation and emerging technologies. These developments are likely to continue shaping negotiations between performers, creators and production companies as new forms of exploitation and distribution evolve.

At the contractual level, international productions and cross-border distribution are already influencing local practice. While negotiations with global platforms and studios may continue to develop as the market evolves, many of the most active discussions at the local level are expected to arise in agreements between talent and production companies, particularly regarding compensation structures, AI consent, digital replicas, voice and likeness protection, transparency mechanisms and additional compensation for expanded uses.

Chile does not have a guild-driven entertainment labour model comparable to jurisdictions with established guild and union structures, where collective organisations may negotiate minimum terms, compensation standards and other industry-wide conditions for professionals. Podcasters, YouTubers and other independent digital creators are therefore not subject to mandatory guild affiliation or collective bargaining arrangements. The relevant challenges generally arise when creator-led projects evolve into professional productions and begin engaging third-party contributors.

When digital creators hire actors, voice artists, musicians or audiovisual crew, the applicable legal framework depends on the nature of the relationship established with those contributors. Where services are provided under conditions of subordination and dependency, the special employment regime for artistic and entertainment activities under Law No 19.889 may apply, regardless of whether the content is distributed through traditional media or digital platforms.

Professional associations may also become relevant in specific areas, particularly in relation to voice talent. Organisations such as Chilevoces have highlighted contractual concerns regarding professional voice recordings, performers’ rights and AI-related uses. Beyond labour considerations, digital creators increasingly need to address ownership, licensing and permitted exploitation of creative contributions as their projects acquire commercial value.

Chile currently does not have an audiovisual-specific tax incentive in force. The main public support mechanism affecting international productions has instead been CORFO’s IFI Audiovisual programme, which operates as a cash rebate funded through public resources rather than as a tax measure. The programme reimburses a percentage of qualifying local expenditure in Chile, with enhanced support for productions carried out outside the Santiago Metropolitan Region, subject to project caps and minimum qualifying expenditure requirements. Between 2017 and 2024, it supported productions involving companies such as HBO, Netflix, Amazon Studios and Film Nation and, according to CORFO, contributed to attracting significant foreign investment into the local audiovisual sector. The regional uplift has also influenced production decisions, as it can materially affect the economics of filming outside Santiago.

A tax-based incentive is nevertheless under legislative discussion. A bill currently before the Senate (Bill No 16.817-05, relating to tourism reactivation and the audiovisual industry) proposes mechanisms allowing non-resident producers to recover VAT incurred on services contracted in Chile. As of mid-2026, the proposal has not yet been enacted.

Producers selecting a location for international audiovisual projects routinely compare the fiscal and support regimes available across jurisdictions, and the incentive on offer is frequently a decisive factor alongside creative and logistical considerations. In the regional context, Chile competes principally with jurisdictions that have established statutory audiovisual incentive regimes.

Chile’s position is shaped by the fact that its main support mechanism is a cash rebate administered under a public programme, rather than an incentive established by tax legislation. This is relevant to how producers assess predictability, available funding levels and per-project limits when weighing one jurisdiction against another.

Producers also look beyond the headline percentage of the incentive. Relevant considerations include the tax cost of accessing the benefit – such as withholding tax on cross-border payments and the recoverability of VAT – together with eligibility requirements, payment timing and the administrative process involved. Comparisons between jurisdictions are therefore generally made on the effective net benefit rather than on the nominal rate.

The audiovisual bill currently under discussion in Congress would, if enacted, address some of these considerations, particularly in relation to VAT recovery for non-resident producers. Until then, Chile’s competitive position continues to rest primarily on the IFI Audiovisual programme, together with non-fiscal factors such as locations, regional support and local service capacity.

Colombia is one of the main regional alternatives considered by producers when comparing incentives, with Uruguay and Spain also frequently evaluated for international productions. Colombia’s framework is more extensive and has been established for longer: under its Film Law (Law No 1556 of 2012), it offers two incentive mechanisms, including a cash rebate through the Colombia Film Fund (40% on audiovisual services and 20% on logistics) and an audiovisual investment certificate, known as the CINA (Certificado de Inversión Audiovisual), which is a transferable tax credit (35%) with a 2026 allocation of approximately USD90 million and no per-project cap. Colombia also treats qualifying audiovisual activities as exports of services for VAT purposes, subject to applicable refund mechanisms. By comparison, Chile’s support structure is more limited and currently relies primarily on the IFI Audiovisual cash rebate, which includes a fixed USD3 million project cap. Producers therefore evaluate not only the level of support available, but also location advantages, crew availability and administrative feasibility.

The main legal challenges for producers are largely structural. The first relates to tax residence and permanent establishment considerations: a production vehicle or operational presence established to access incentives may inadvertently create a taxable presence in the relevant jurisdiction, requiring careful structuring from the outset. The second concerns the different economic nature of incentive mechanisms. A transferable tax credit model, such as Colombia’s, introduces an additional monetisation step because the credit must be transferred or utilised, creating valuation, timing and counterparty considerations that do not arise in the same way with a direct cash rebate model. In practice, the key issue is ensuring that the chosen incentive regime aligns with the producer’s actual cost structure and qualifying expenditure requirements.

Cross-border productions seeking to access Chilean incentives must address several structuring, tax and compliance considerations. The production will typically require a local vehicle, usually a Chilean SpA (simplified stock corporation), to receive incentive funds and contract qualifying local expenditure in accordance with CORFO’s requirements. Those eligibility rules are critical, as the IFI Audiovisual programme does not generally cover above-the-line foreign talent, production fees or recoverable taxes, and cannot be combined with other public funding sources for the same expenditure.

Cross-border payments also require careful tax planning, particularly regarding withholding tax on payments made abroad and the application of any relevant double taxation treaties. The availability of treaty relief generally depends on factors such as tax residence, the nature of the payment and applicable permanent establishment rules.

VAT treatment is another relevant consideration. Chile’s export-of-services regime is not automatically applicable to all audiovisual activities, as qualification as an “export of services” depends on the applicable classification requirements. Current legislative proposals, including Bill No 16.817-05, seek to provide greater certainty by allowing VAT recovery mechanisms for non-resident producers.

Finally, incentive structures must be mapped against the production budget at the structuring stage. Since sources of support, service payments and tax treatments may be applied differently depending on the nature of each expenditure item, producers should analyse qualifying costs, tax consequences and incentive eligibility before production begins.

Chilean intellectual property law, which follows a droit d’auteur (copyright) tradition distinct from the Anglo-Saxon copyright model, has traditionally required human authorship as a condition of protection. Neither the current statute nor the AI bill working its way through Congress proposes to change that starting point. The pending AI bill contains no proposal addressing authorship or ownership disputes over algorithmically generated creations, leaving the question to be resolved under the existing human-authorship requirement of general intellectual property law. In practice, this means content generated without meaningful human creative input is unlikely to attract protection in Chile, which creates real enforcement difficulties for producers who want to protect purely AI-generated assets.

The prevailing advice to producers has focused on ensuring there is a documented, identifiable human creative contribution wherever AI tools are used in development or production, and on addressing ownership contractually between collaborators rather than relying on the statute to resolve it. For that same reason, it is advisable to avoid generating key visual or artistic elements entirely through AI, particularly in animation, or when the production and art design are highly distinctive or central to the project’s commercial value, such as in a franchise, a teen series or a musical. This is because the inability to secure copyright protection over these core assets could leave the most valuable elements of the project unprotected.

There are currently no Chilean court decisions addressing disputes involving AI-generated entertainment content under authors’ rights law. However, the Department of Intellectual Rights (Departamento de Derechos Intelectuales or DDI), which administers the national Register of Authors’ Rights, has begun developing administrative criteria regarding AI-assisted works.

In one of the first publicly known cases, the DDI initially refused to register a series of images generated with Midjourney on the grounds that they resulted from automated generation. Registration was later granted for other AI-assisted images created by the same applicant after he documented his creative process in detail, including the development and refinement of prompts and the artistic decisions taken throughout the process. While not a judicial precedent, this administrative approach suggests that the DDI distinguishes between purely autonomous AI outputs, which do not qualify for protection under Chilean authors’ rights law, and AI-assisted works where a sufficiently identifiable human creative contribution can be demonstrated. This position is also reflected in the DDI’s recently published guidance on AI-generated works.

From a policy perspective, the most significant development has been the debate over AI training and authors’ rights. In April 2026, the Executive introduced Article 8 of the National Reconstruction Bill, proposing a broad text and data mining exception that would have permitted the use of protected works for AI training without prior authorisation or remuneration. The proposal generated significant opposition from a broad coalition of creative industry organisations, including the Chilean Society of Copyright (Sociedad Chilena del Derecho de Autor or SCD),the National Television Association (Asociación Nacional de Televisión or ANATEL), the National Press Association (Asociación Nacional de la Prensa or ANP), the National Union of Artists (Unión Nacional de Artistas or UNA) and representatives of the audiovisual sector, which argued that this undermined the protection afforded by Chilean authors’ rights law and conflicted with constitutional guarantees. The proposed provision was subsequently rejected during its consideration in the Chamber of Deputies, although the broader legislative discussion on AI and authors’ rights remains ongoing.

As a result, the current Chilean landscape is characterised less by litigation than by regulatory uncertainty. For the entertainment industry, the principal issues are not yet judicial disputes but rather the emerging administrative standards on human authorship and the ongoing legislative debate over the permissible use of protected works for AI training.

The Chilean market has not yet developed a mature licensing market for AI training datasets. To date, there are no publicly known transactions involving the licensing of Chilean audiovisual catalogues specifically for the purpose of training generative AI models. Instead, the market has responded through contractual risk allocation.

Producers, broadcasters, distributors and talent representatives are increasingly incorporating express provisions into production, talent, music and location agreements to regulate whether recorded material, performances, voices, likenesses or other protected content may be used for AI training or machine-learning purposes. These clauses are also becoming more sophisticated, distinguishing between AI-assisted production tools, synthetic content generation, digital replicas, and the use of content to train foundation models or other generative AI systems.

Market participants have also observed increasing interest in certain categories of material that may present fewer copyright barriers, such as unpublished footage, production outtakes, factual recordings or other content that may not satisfy the originality threshold for copyright protection. However, even where the footage itself is not protected as a copyright work, it may still incorporate performances, voices, likenesses, music or other protected subject matter belonging to third parties. As a result, the legal analysis increasingly extends beyond copyright ownership and requires a broader assessment of the different rights embedded in audiovisual content before it can be used for AI training purposes.

The legislative debate during 2026 has reinforced this trend.The Executive proposed introducing a broad text and data mining exception that would have permitted the use of copyrighted works for AI training without prior authorisation or remuneration. The proposal prompted a co-ordinated response from copyright collective management organisations and industry associations across the music, audiovisual and broadcasting sectors. These organisations argued that the training of AI systems should remain subject to the authorisation of rights holders rather than falling within a statutory exception. Although the proposal was ultimately rejected by the Chamber of Deputies, the debate reinforced the industry’s position that AI training should be treated as a licensable use of protected content.

Another emerging issue concerns chain-of-title due diligence. Producers are beginning to verify whether the rights acquired from performers, composers, screenwriters, directors and other contributors are sufficiently broad to permit any future AI-related exploitation or, conversely, whether AI training has been expressly excluded. As a result, AI is becoming less of a purely technology issue and increasingly, a rights-clearance and contractual drafting issue.

As a practical consequence, AI provisions are becoming standard contractual language even where no immediate AI exploitation is contemplated. Rather than negotiating standalone AI training licences, parties are focusing on preserving future control by expressly reserving or restricting the use of audiovisual material for machine-learning purposes. Until Chile adopts a clearer legal framework, contractual drafting is likely to remain the principal mechanism through which rights holders manage AI-related risks.

Statutory Equitable Remuneration Right

Chile has no guild or collectively bargained residual regime comparable to the structures found in larger markets. What does exist, as in other Latin American jurisdictions, is a statutory equitable remuneration right in favour of performers, authors and other neighbouring rights holders for publicly communicating or making available protected works and performances, collected through collective management organisations. This is a legal entitlement enforceable against users such as broadcasters and digital platforms, rather than a bargained-for residual owed by a producer or studio under contract.

A significant development in the digital environment occurred in May 2026, when the First Civil Court of Santiago issued one of the region’s first decisions addressing the application of statutory performers’ remuneration to streaming services. The case arose from a claim brought by Chileactores against Amazon Prime Video, and the court held that streaming services making content available to users in Chile are subject to Chilean authors’ rights law and to the statutory remuneration administered by Chileactores, irrespective of where their technical infrastructure is located. Although the decision remains subject to appeal, it provides important guidance on the application of Chilean authors’ rights law in the streaming environment and follows earlier agreements reached by Chileactores with Netflix and Zapping, as well as successful enforcement actions involving cinema exhibitors.

Remuneration and Economic Participation

This decision has also prompted greater attention during contract negotiations regarding the allocation of responsibility for statutory remuneration. Distribution, licensing and production agreements increasingly address which party will bear the economic burden of payments owed to collective management organisations operating in Chile, particularly where content is distributed through international streaming platforms.

At the same time, market practice continues to evolve independently of the statutory framework. Since most streaming services operating in Chile are international platforms, parties are increasingly incorporating compensation mechanisms inspired by international practice, including fixed success bonuses, audience-based incentives and additional payments linked to sequels, renewals or exceptional commercial performance. Rather than replacing the statutory remuneration regime, these contractual mechanisms complement it by providing additional economic participation where the parties consider it commercially appropriate.

In Chile, the principal challenge is not the legal recognition of revenue-sharing mechanisms but their practical implementation. International streaming platforms generally do not disclose title-specific revenue or audience data, making percentage-based participation difficult to verify. This is compounded by the fact that subscription-based business models do not allocate revenue to individual works. As a result, producers increasingly favour fixed licence fees, minimum guarantees or performance-based bonuses over traditional revenue-sharing arrangements. In co-productions, parties also devote greater attention to defining how any future digital revenues will be allocated among producers and investors, reflecting the growing complexity of financing structures for digital-first content.

Where a streaming platform acquires exclusive rights to a new release or original production, the relevant agreements generally define the scope of the exclusivity, including the authorised territories, exploitation windows, release schedule and permitted platforms. As a result, questions relating specifically to in-season stacking on affiliated streaming services have remained relatively uncommon.

The issue is, however, becoming increasingly relevant in more complex financing structures, particularly where public funding, broadcasters and streaming platforms participate in the same project. In these cases, careful drafting is required to reconcile first exhibition commitments in Chile with the release strategies of international platforms, as questions may arise regarding release windows, territorial premieres and the sequencing of different forms of exploitation. Although these matters have not yet generated significant litigation, they are increasingly addressed during contract negotiations to avoid future conflicts.

More generally, where a licence agreement does not expressly contemplate additional exploitation through affiliated platforms or services, the discussion focuses on the scope of the rights granted, particularly the authorised platforms, exploitation windows, territories and exclusivity provisions. Rather than relying on implied rights, parties increasingly seek to regulate these issues expressly in order to avoid uncertainty as distribution strategies evolve.

The broader trend is towards increasingly detailed exploitation clauses. Licence agreements now more frequently distinguish between linear broadcasting, catch-up services, SVOD, AVOD and FAST channels and other digital distribution models. The objective is to ensure that the contractual allocation of rights keeps pace with new methods of exploitation, rather than leaving those issues open to interpretation once new platforms or distribution strategies emerge.

In Chile, the main pressure on streaming distribution costs comes not from unions or guilds in the traditional sense, but from collective management organisations and legislative initiatives seeking to expand statutory remuneration rights in the digital environment. Unlike jurisdictions where distribution costs are significantly influenced by collectively bargained residuals, the Chilean debate has centred on the recognition of new equitable remuneration rights for performers and other right holders.

The most significant current example is the bill known as the “Tommy Rey Law”, which proposes to amend the Intellectual Property Law by creating an irrevocable and non-transferable equitable remuneration right for music performers whenever their performances fixed in phonograms are made available on digital platforms. The proposed remuneration would apply regardless of any prior assignment of economic rights and would be administered through collective management organisations. The bill was approved by the Chamber of Deputies in November 2025 and is currently under consideration by the Senate.

More broadly, recent legislative initiatives and judicial developments reflect a growing policy trend towards ensuring that performers receive remuneration from digital exploitation, independently of their contractual arrangements. Although these measures do not constitute guild-negotiated residuals, they may increase compliance and licensing costs for streaming services and distributors operating in Chile as new statutory remuneration obligations continue to develop.

Chain-of-Title Due Diligence

The principal legal issue in M&A transactions involving entertainment companies is chain-of-title due diligence. Buyers need to verify that the target company validly owns, or has the right to exploit, every element of the audiovisual library being acquired. This extends well beyond confirming ownership of the film or television production itself and includes reviewing the underlying rights in scripts, music, performances, literary works, life rights and any other third-party contributions incorporated into the content.

This diligence is particularly important in Chile because the legal framework does not recognise a broad work made-for-hire doctrine. The Intellectual Property Law provides only a limited number of presumptions regarding the ownership or transfer of authors’ rights, each subject to specific requirements and exceptions. Outside those cases, assignments of authors’ rights and neighbouring rights must comply with the formalities established by law, including execution before a notary public as a condition of enforceability. Consequently, buyers will typically verify not only that agreements exist with all relevant contributors, but also that those agreements were validly executed, and that the relevant rights have been effectively transferred and are sufficiently broad to support the intended exploitation of the library.

Existing Licensing Agreements

Buyers also devote significant attention to existing production, financing, distribution and licensing agreements. Particular focus is placed on identifying exclusivity arrangements, territorial restrictions, hold-backs, reversion rights, options, renewal rights and change-of-control provisions that could limit the future exploitation or value of the catalogue following the transaction.

Increasingly, buyers are also assessing whether legacy rights documentation adequately addresses new forms of digital exploitation. Libraries originally assembled years ago may not clearly cover newer business models, such as subscription streaming, advertising-supported streaming, FAST channels, AI-assisted exploitation or future uses of content for machine-learning purposes. Even where these rights are not immediately intended to be exploited, identifying potential gaps has become an increasingly important part of transactional due diligence and valuation.

On the corporate side, buyers also verify that historical share transfers, corporate approvals and amendments to the by-laws have been properly documented and completed in accordance with Chilean law. Deficiencies in the corporate chain of title may affect ownership of the target company itself, making corporate due diligence as important as the review of the underlying intellectual property rights.

Given the size of the Chilean market, antitrust reviews of transactions involving cable operators, studios and streaming platforms generally focus on broader competition concerns rather than on entertainment-specific issues alone. Nevertheless, recent decisions show that the Chilean Competition Authority (Fiscalía Nacional Económica or FNE) pays particular attention to transactions that combine content production, television channels and distribution platforms where these may affect bargaining power or access to audiovisual content.

A recent example is the FNE’s review of a WarnerMedia/Discovery transaction, which was approved subject to behavioural remedies aimed at preventing the combined entity from using its portfolio of pay television channels to distort negotiations with cable operators. The remedies addressed issues such as bundling practices, cross-default provisions and other commercial arrangements that could affect competition in the distribution of audiovisual content.

The FNE has also examined the convergence between telecommunications infrastructure and audiovisual distribution in transactions involving operators such as Claro and VTR. These decisions reflect an increasing focus on how the combination of connectivity, content and digital distribution may affect competition, rather than analysing each segment in isolation.

In practice, the principal competition concerns relate less to the ownership of film or television libraries themselves than to the potential effects of vertical integration, market access, bargaining power and the ability to bundle content across multiple distribution channels. Cross-border transactions involving Chilean assets are also commonly co-ordinated with merger control reviews in other jurisdictions, particularly where the transaction forms part of a global acquisition.

Representations and warranties in entertainment M&A are generally tailored to confirm that the target has obtained all rights necessary to continue exploiting its catalogue without interruption following closing. Buyers typically require representations confirming that talent, crew and underlying rights agreements were validly executed, that the relevant economic rights were effectively assigned or licensed, and that no contractual approvals, exclusivity arrangements, sequel or remake rights, or consent requirements could restrict future exploitation of the acquired assets.

Particular attention is also given to outstanding financial obligations. Sellers are commonly asked to represent that there are no unpaid royalties, equitable remuneration claims or outstanding compensation owed to performers or authors, or unresolved disputes with collective management organisations that could give rise to post-closing liabilities.

Cross-Border Transactions

In cross-border transactions, buyers also seek confirmation that moral rights have been waived to the fullest extent permitted by the laws governing the relevant agreements, and that any waivable aspects have been validly addressed where the applicable jurisdiction allows it. In Chile, however, moral rights are inalienable and generally cannot be waived or assigned. Accordingly, representations are drafted around compliance with Chilean authors’ rights law and confirmation that the target has obtained all permissions and economic rights that may validly be transferred or exercised, rather than assuming a general waiver of moral rights.

When advising on entertainment M&A transactions, the process typically begins with a comprehensive rights audit to verify the chain of title for each significant asset and identify any gaps that could affect its continued exploitation. In Chile, this review extends well beyond confirming that agreements exist. Since Chilean authors’ rights law does not recognise a broad work-for-hire doctrine comparable to that found in common law jurisdictions, and assignments of both authors’ rights and neighbouring rights must comply with specific statutory formalities (including execution before a notary public in order to be enforceable), buyers will verify that agreements with authors, performers and other contributors were validly executed, that the intended rights were effectively transferred, and that they remain sufficient for the proposed transaction.

Particular attention is paid to legacy talent, music and distribution agreements, as these frequently contain limitations that become apparent only when a library is exploited through new business models. Buyers assess whether historical licences are sufficiently broad to support the intended exploitation of the catalogue, including the reuse of audiovisual content, archive footage, promotional materials and evolving forms of digital distribution. Older agreements may not adequately address SVOD, AVOD or FAST channels or other emerging exploitation models, making additional clearances necessary before the acquired assets can be fully exploited.

Music rights have become an increasingly important focus of transactional due diligence. Beyond confirming that synchronisation, master and publishing rights were properly cleared, buyers evaluate whether legacy licences remain adequate for current methods of exploitation and whether the automated rights management systems used by digital platforms could give rise to monetisation claims, blocking or takedown notices. These issues can materially affect the commercial value and future exploitation of an audiovisual library.

Increasingly, buyers also assess whether legacy rights documentation is sufficiently broad to accommodate emerging technologies and future methods of exploitation. Many agreements pre-date current business models and do not expressly contemplate AI-assisted exploitation or the use of protected works for AI training. Even where no immediate AI use is contemplated, due diligence now routinely evaluates whether future exploitation could require additional licences, consents or contractual amendments. As a result, the review is no longer limited to confirming historical ownership of rights, but also seeks to determine whether the acquired catalogue is legally and commercially capable of supporting future exploitation across evolving technologies and distribution models.

Audit rights and reporting obligations have become standard features of agreements that include profit participation or other forms of contingent compensation. Rather than leaving these issues to be addressed only if a dispute arises, parties increasingly negotiate detailed contractual procedures governing financial reporting, revenue allocation and verification from the outset of the relationship.

The scope of these transparency mechanisms varies significantly depending on the nature of the contractual relationship, the parties involved and their respective economic exposure. For example, the level of reporting and access to underlying financial information negotiated between co-producers, investors, producers and platforms, or between producers and talent participants, may differ substantially depending on whether a party has made a financial investment, is entitled to recoupment before profit participation, or participates only through a contingent compensation arrangement.

Practical Arrangements

In practice, contracts may establish fixed reporting periods, deadlines for the delivery of statements of account, timeframes for the payment or liquidation of profit participations and contractual audit rights allowing the beneficiary to verify the underlying financial information. In certain arrangements, parties may also establish additional traceability mechanisms, such as separate reporting accounts, dedicated bank accounts or other forms of financial segregation, although these structures are not applied uniformly across all types of entertainment agreements.

It is also increasingly common to establish minimum payment thresholds, so that distributions are made only once the amount due exceeds an agreed threshold, reducing administrative costs while ensuring that unpaid balances continue to accrue and are reflected in subsequent accounting periods.

Parties are also devoting greater attention to the methodology used to calculate revenues, gross receipts and net profits. Agreements increasingly define deductible costs, accounting principles and the supporting documentation required to substantiate those deductions, recognising that transparency in the calculation process is often as important as the audit right itself. This trend is particularly relevant where revenues derive from streaming or other forms of digital exploitation, and access to the underlying performance and revenue data available to rights holders may be limited.

In Chile, the enforceability of non-compete clauses depends significantly on the nature of the relationship between the parties and the legitimate interest sought to be protected. Broad post-contractual restrictions preventing an individual from continuing to work are subject to limitations, particularly where they affect the freedom to work. Their enforceability generally depends on factors such as the duration, geographic scope and subject matter of the restriction, as well as whether the limitation is proportionate to the business interest being protected.

In the entertainment sector, the analysis is highly dependent on the role of the individual and the nature of the relationship. For creative contributors such as actors, directors and other artists engaged for a specific project, parties more commonly rely on exclusivity obligations tied to the production, availability commitments, confidentiality obligations and restrictions connected to release strategies or the exploitation of the underlying intellectual property, rather than broad post-contractual non-compete clauses.

By contrast, restrictions may have greater relevance in relation to senior executives, partners or key personnel of production companies, where the objective is to protect legitimate business interests such as confidential information, development pipelines, strategic relationships or projects in development. Even in these cases, restrictions must remain appropriately tailored in scope and duration to avoid becoming an unreasonable limitation on professional activity.

As a result, entertainment agreements in Chile generally rely on a combination of project-based exclusivity and other targeted contractual protections rather than broad non-compete obligations. The enforceability of these provisions will depend on their drafting, proportionality and alignment with the legitimate interests sought to be protected.

Emerging technologies are increasingly influencing how entertainment contracts address the scope and future exploitation of rights. Virtual reality, augmented reality and interactive formats are prompting more detailed contractual treatment of rights that were not necessarily contemplated when many underlying works were originally created. Practitioners are increasingly asked to structure agreements that distinguish between traditional audiovisual rights and additional rights relating to immersive, interactive or technology-driven exploitation, allowing these rights to be separately licensed or retained.

Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence is also becoming an important area of contractual attention, particularly in relation to performers’, image, likeness and voice rights. Agreements involving actors and other contributors are increasingly addressing whether their image, likeness or performances may be digitally modified, replicated or used to create additional elements within the same production or for promotional purposes. These provisions require careful drafting because Chilean law recognises personal rights and moral rights that cannot be fully waived, meaning that authorisations must be specific as to scope, duration and permitted uses rather than relying on broad general consents.

In addition, contracts are increasingly considering whether audiovisual materials, performances or other protected content may be used in connection with AI systems, including for training or the generation of derivative outputs. The current approach remains largely contractual, with parties seeking to define permitted and prohibited uses in advance, while the legislative and regulatory framework continues to develop.

The simplified stock corporation (Sociedad por Acciones or SpA) is one of the most commonly used vehicles for entertainment production companies in Chile, valued for its flexible governance structure and ability to operate with a single shareholder. It can be incorporated through the fast-track online “Empresa en un Día” registry or, for more complex arrangements involving investors, foreign producers or tailored governance provisions, through a public deed structure. For inbound productions, the SpA is commonly used as the local production vehicle responsible for receiving incentives and contracting local expenditure, in which case, structuring considerations often include tax withholding and potential permanent establishment issues in addition to ordinary corporate matters.

Special Employment Regime

Regarding guild and union considerations, Chile does not operate under a closed-shop or mandatory union signatory system, so affiliation with a guild is not a prerequisite for forming a production company or hiring talent. The relevant practical issue is the classification of the relationship with artists and crew members. Where services are provided under conditions of subordination and dependency, individuals must generally be engaged under the special employment regime for artistic and entertainment activities incorporated into the Labour Code by Law No 19.889, which allows engagement by project, season, work or fixed term. Independent contributors who do not meet these criteria are typically engaged under civil contractual arrangements.

Liability Protection

On liability protection, the SpA provides standard limited liability protection, with shareholders generally liable only up to their contributions. Beyond this baseline, producers commonly structure productions through separate special-purpose SpAs for each project, helping to ring-fence the liabilities, financing and rights associated with each production. This structure can also facilitate the admission of co-producers or investors at the project level through share transfers or participation in the relevant production vehicle.

The Chilean market continues to reflect the global distinction between subscription-based streaming models and advertising-supported models. SVOD services generally operate under business structures similar to those seen internationally, with licensing arrangements commonly based on fixed fees, minimum guarantees or negotiated exclusivity periods. By contrast, FAST and AVOD models have been progressively gaining relevance in Chile, introducing different approaches to monetisation, distribution and contractual risk allocation.

From a contractual perspective, FAST and AVOD arrangements in Chile often require greater flexibility than traditional SVOD licensing. Since compensation may depend on advertising revenues, audience performance, platform monetisation or other variable factors, rights holders and platforms tend to structure these agreements with more detailed provisions regarding reporting, revenue participation, exploitation periods and termination or exit mechanisms.

In particular, exclusivity is generally assessed more carefully in these models, as the economic value of the exploitation may depend on future performance rather than on a guaranteed licence fee. FAST arrangements also require specific attention to the distribution structure of the channel, including the platforms or aggregators through which it will be available, the applicable territories and the mechanisms for reporting and accounting for monetisation.

As these models continue to develop in Chile, contractual practice is increasingly focused on appropriately allocating commercial risk between rights holders and platforms, while ensuring sufficient transparency regarding exploitation and revenues.

Compensation structures for interactive entertainment formats are still developing in Chile, as standard talent agreements generally assume a linear performance and a defined scope of exploitation. The main challenge is not only determining additional compensation for expanded uses, but also ensuring that the contractual framework adequately addresses the limits of the rights that can be granted by performers.

While agreements may regulate the transfer or authorisation of performers’ economic neighbouring rights, interactive formats may raise additional considerations regarding moral interests connected to the interpretation and image rights. Contracts should therefore carefully define the scope, duration and permitted uses of the performance, particularly where future interactive or digitally modified uses are contemplated.