Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Szerzői jogi szabályok területenként/Brazília

< Commons:Copyright rules by territory
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Brazil and the translation is 37% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Brazil and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Outdated translations are marked like this.
Other languages:
Szerzői jogi szabályozás: Brazília
Rövidítés: COM:BRAZÍLIA
Brazília zászlaja
Brazília térképe
Védelmi idők
Általános Szerző élete + 70 év
Anonim művek Közzététel + 70 év
Egyéb
Panorámaszabadság Yes with caveats
Védelem év végéig Igen
Szokásos licencsablonok {{PD-Brazil-media}}
{{PD-Brazil-URAA}}
{{PD-BrazilGov}}
Szerződések
Berne convention 1922. február 9.
Univ. Copyright Convention 1960. január 13.
WTO-tag 1995. január 1.
URAA restoration date‌* 1996. január 1.
*‌Egy mű jellemzően jogvédett az Egyesült Államokban, ha olyan típusú mű, ami általánosságban jogosult a szerzői jogi védelemre az USA-ban, 1928. december 31. után hozták nyilvánosságra, és jogvédett volt a származási országában az URAA-dátumon.

A lap összefoglalja a brazíliai szerzői jogi szabályozásnak a Commons szempontjából releváns részét. A feltöltendő fájlnak mind Brazíliában, mind az Egyesült Államokban közkincsnek vagy szabad licencűnek kell lennie. Kétség esetén a területi jogszabályok az irányadók.

Háttér

Brazília 1822-ben, a Brazil Birodalom létrejöttével függetlenedett Portugáliától. Az elnöki köztársaság az 1889-es katonai puccsot követően jött létre.

Brazília 1922. február 9-e óta a Berni Egyezmény, 1960. január 13-a óta az Egységes Szerzői Jogi Egyezmény, 1995. január 1-je óta pedig a Kereskedelmi Világszervezet tagja.[1]

A 2018-as adatok szerint az ENSZ Szellemi Jogi Világszervezete (WIPO) a macedón szerzői jog tekintetében a Law No. 9.610 of February 19, 1998 (Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, as amended by Law No. 12.853 of August 14, 2013) törvényt tekinti irányadónak,[1] melynek szövege megtalálható a WIPO Lex adatbázisban.[2] A témakörben figyelembe kell venni a Law No. 9.279 of May 14, 1996 (Law on Industrial Property, as amended up to Law No. 10.196 of February 14, 2001) szabályzatot is.[3]

Általános szabályok

Az 1998-as szerzői jogi szabályozás szerint:

  • Az alkotónak kizárólagos joga van a művének felhasználásával kapcsolatban.[9.610/2013 Article 28]
  • A gazdasági jogok az alkotó halálát követő év január 1-jétől számított 70. évig érvényesek (a polgári törvénykönyv szerint felülvizsgálható).[9.610/2013 Article 41]
  • Ha egy közös munka eredményeképp létrejött irodalmi, művészeti vagy tudományos alkotás egyes közreműködései nem szétválaszthatóak, akkor a szerzői jogi védelem az utoljára elhunyt alkotó halálától számítandó.[9.610/2013 Article 42]
  • Ismeretlen vagy álnéven dolgozó szerző alkotásának gazdasági joga az első közreadást követő év január 1-jétől számítandó 70. évig áll fenn.[9.610/2013 Article 43] Ha ez idő alatt a létrehozó személye ismertté válik, akkor a 41. cikkely rendelkezései lépnek életbe.
  • Audiovizuális és fotografikus művek a kibocsátást követő év január 1-jétől számított 70. évig védettek.[9.610/2013 Article 44]
  • A következő esetekben a lejárt védelmű művek közkinccsé válnak:[9.610/2013 Article 45]
    • Az elhunyt alkotónak nincsenek örökösei
    • A népművészeti alkotás szerzője ismeretlen.
  • A védelmi időszak a felvételt, sugárzást vagy előadást követő év január 1-jétől számítandó.[9.610/2013 Article 96]

The old copyright of 1973 provided that copyright lasted for the life of the author and 60 years after their death. However, it also provided that the children, parents, and the spouse of the author benefited of the rights for life, even if it exceeded the 60 years. The copyright law of 1998 did not extend copyright in works where the life+60 years terms had already expired. For instance, the estate of Graciliano Ramos relied on this provision to extend their rights beyond 2024 (Ramos died in 1953). Ramos' last living daughter died in 2022, and in December 2023, the Ramos family complied with Brazilian law.

Kormányzati alkotások

Rövidítése

Lásd még: Commons:Government works

A Berni Egyezmény 2.4-es cikkelye szerint a hivatalos szövegek és ezek fordításainak védelme az egyes országok szabályozása alá esik. Az egyezményt a Federal Decree nº 75.699 of 1975 vezette be, azonban ez nem rendelkezik a fent említett esetről. Az 1988-as szövetségi alkotmány óta a szabályozás lazább.[4][5][6]

  • Article 5 (XIV) – access to information is ensured to everyone and the confidentiality of the source shall be safeguarded, whenever necessary to the professional activity.
  • Article 216 (Para 2) It is incumbent upon the Government, in accordance with the law, to manage the keeping of the governmental documents and to make them available for consultation to whomever may need to do so.

In 1998 the exclusion from copyright protection of these types of work was expressed by article 8, items I and IV of the Copyright law. It excludes legislative and judicial documents, but not all works (ex. cited maps, tables, etc.) created by the federal government.

See {{PD-BrazilGov}}. Note: a special clause must be added to the CC0 implicit license of legislative documents that obliges copiers to add a red notice saying "This text does not replace the original published in the Official Gazette".

URAA: Uruguay Round Agreements Act

Az Egyesült Államok Uruguay Round Agreements Act megállapodásának és a brazil közkincs alkotások jogállásának kompatibilitását lásd a {{PD-Brazil-URAA}} sablon lapján.

Photos

All photographic works produced until 19 June 1998 follow the 1973 Brazilian copyright law, which deemed Public Domain works not considered to be "artistic creations".[7] This includes documentary photography in general (commercial or not), as well as non-artistic photographic portraits. {{PD-Brazil-Photo}} should be used for those cases. Some examples to help define which photos are, and are not, "artistic creations", and therefore object of protection under the 1973 copyright law:

  •   OK The facade of the Jung Frau building, in Joinville, as well as partial views of the city, when photographed in an obvious simple way, without employment of any special ("diferenciada") technique"
    TJ-SC - Apelacao Civel : AC 111630 SC 2002.011163-0 (2006): "não se considera criação artística as fotografias tiradas por profissional do ramo que retratam de forma manifestamente singela, sem o emprego de qualquer técnica diferenciada, o frontispício de um edifício residencial e a vista parcial da cidade, em observância a contrato de prestação de serviços entabulado com empresa do ramo imobiliário e com destino publicitário previamente ajustado entre as partes"
  •   OK Mere documental, descritive photographs in general, such as photographs documenting social reunions:
    TJ-SC - Apelacao Civel : AC 111630 SC 2002.011163-0 (2006): ""mera documentação fotográfica, sem caráter artístico, afasta a incidência do direito de autor, "... tornando possível o uso de terceiro sem menção do nome do fotógrafo, pois, conforme lei brasileira, somente a fotografia artística (pela escolha do objeto e condiçõe de execução) se inscreve dentre as obras protegidas." (...) [segue exemplo ilustrativo] fotografias documentárias de reuniões sociais - Autor que na época estava do desempenho de funções junto ao réu - Inexigível a referência ao nome do fotógrafo por não se tratar de trabalho artístico - Falta de originalidade, criatividade, valor estético ou de furo de documentação "
  •   OK
    TJ-PR - Apelação Cível : AC 946589 PR Apelação Cível - 0094658-9 (2000) "As fotografias destinadas a documentos de identidade, produzidas por máquinas automáticas, não são obras artísticas. (...) Também não devem alcançar a proteção do direito de autor as fotografias meramente técnicas, em que se procura uma reprodução tal qual de certo objetivo, sem a menor preocupação artística."
  •   Not OK
    TJ-MG : 2933464 MG 2.0000.00.293346-4/000(1) (2000) "as fotos [...] denotam caráter artístico, caracterizando-se pela originalidade, criatividade e técnica da sua autora, elementos que dela não se podem excluir como reveladores, a princípio, de uma obra de arte. Não são elas, como pretende o apelante, meras constatações ou reproduções de imagens para fins publicitários, ou instantâneos comuns"

Licencsablonok

Rövidítése

Lásd még: Commons:Licencsablonok

  • {{PD-BrazilGov}} – hivatalos, nemzeti, külföldi vagy nemzetközi emblémák, címerek, medálok, zászlók, kitűzők, emlékművek és műemlékek számára.
  • {{PD-Brazil-media}} – Legalább 70 éve publikált brazíliai fényképek és audiovizuális művek számára.
  • {{PD-Brazil-URAA}}

See also Category:License tags attribution from Brazil, for example:

Pénz

Rövidítése

Lásd még: Commons:Pénznemek

   

Under the Copyright Law, all works subsidized by the Union are in the public domain.[9.610/2013 Article 6] According to the Industrial Property Law of 1996,

  • The following are not registrable as marks: ... reproductions or imitations of titles, policies, coins, and paper currency of the Union, the States, the Federal District, the Territories, the Municipalities, or of a country.[9.279/1996 Art.124(XIV)]
  • However, the law prohibits reproducing or imitating, in whole or in part and in a way that may induce error or confusion, coats of arms, escutcheons, or national, foreign or international official badges, without the necessary authorization, in a mark, title of establishment, trade name, insignia or advertising sign, or using such reproductions or imitations for economic purposes.[9.279/1996 Art.191]

A {{Money-BR}} sablont használd.

Illegal graffiti

    Graffiti in Brazil produced without the authorization of the owner of the place where the artwork is installed is not subject to copyright.[8]

Panorámaszabadság

Rövidítése

Lásd még: Commons:Panorámaszabadság

   , {{FoP-Brazil}} with caveats. Freedom of panorama is allowed in Brazil, including commercial use, to some extent. According to the Copyright Law 9.610 as of 2013,

  • Works permanently located in public places may be freely represented by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.[9.610/2013 Article 48]

Representation is allowed, but reproduction is forbidden. Works of art placed in locations with access to the public can be freely represented by photography, painting, drawing and audiovisual means, to the extent that it does not reproduce the artwork. Commercial use is allowed, as long as the artist's work is properly attributed and the representation does not consist of a reproduction. The existing jurisprudence consistently allows commercial use of artworks under freedom of panorama, as long as the artwork is accessory, and is not detached from its surrounding elements, and therefore not unfairly used to produce revenue that by law belongs to the artist.

According to the available jurisprudence, and the ongoing debate about Article 48 in Brazil, "Public places" means "places available to the public", including private property and building interiors. Lawyer Marcelo Frullani Lopes says on the question of commercial use of representations of the Rio de Janeiro iconic landmark Christ the Redeemer: "although the area is privately owned, public access to the site is not restricted. One cannot ignore, also, that the Christ Redeemer is part of the landscape of Rio de Janeiro. From this point of view, the place where the work is located must be considered a public place."

[9]

Examples of public places quoted in a 2017 court case include squares, gardens, sidewalks, parks, avenues, streets, museums, cultural entities.

[10]

Article 48 of Law nº 9.610 of February 19, 1998 must be interpreted with other articles of the law, as established by case law.

[11]

  • Article 5 of Federal Constitution of Brazil states: XXVII – the exclusive right of use, publication or reproduction of works rests with their authors and is transmissible to their heirs for the time the law shall establish.
  • Under the Copyright Law as of 2013, unless otherwise agreed, the author of a work of art, when disposing of the object in which it materializes, transmits the right to exhibit it, but does not transmit to the acquirer the right to reproduce it.[9.610/2013 Article 77] Authorization to reproduce a work of art in any form must be in writing and is assumed to be costly (se presume onerosa).[9.610/2013 Article 78]

A panorámaszabadsággal kapcsolatos precedensek

 
Statue of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro
  • In Frederico George Barros Day vs. Edipress (2016): A mural in a public alley was represented by photography in a commercial publication, deformed and without attribution. The court considered the artwork was not being used in a way that took away revenue from the artist, even by being in a commercial publication. However, it considered that the artist's moral rights were violated due to lack of attribution and misrepresentation of the work in an improper way (deformed mural), causing damage to his reputation. An indemnization was granted.

[12]

  • In a more recent case involving the same artist, Frederico George Barros Day (graffiter) vs. Editora Abril (2017), the artwork was reproduced on magazine covers, without attribution and with clear commercial intent, due to freedom of panorama being confused with Public Domain. An indemnization was granted.

[13]

  • In Ricardo Fernandez Costa (artist) vs. Leo Burnett Publicidade Ltda (2017): Use of mural graffiti placed in a public alley in publicity campaign for shopping center, the court considered there was no breach of moral or material rights of the author, and that the use was allowed under Article 48.

[14]

  • Cleir Ávila Ferreira Júnior (artist) vs. Confederação Brasileira de Futebol - CBF & Outplan Sistemas (2017) concerned representation of the artist's sculpture "Araras" in tickets sold for a soccer game. Commercial use of the representation was considered by the court to be covered by freedom of panorama as it was not detached from its landscape.

[15]

  • This differs from Sival Floriano Veloso (sculptor) vs. Telemar Norte Leste SA, where a statue was detached from its surroundings on commercialized phone cards.

[16]

  • In Frederico George Barros Day (graffiter) vd. Edições Globo Conde Nast, commercial use of a representation of the mural in a fashion presentation was deemed to be correct under Article 48, as it was contained within the street landscape.

[17]

  • In the Panda / Mochilheira case (2015), commercial use of a representation of a mural in a fashion presentation was deemed to be correct under Article 48. Use of the "Panda" mural as background for the Mochilheira fashion show was deemed by the court to be accessory, and therefore covered by Article 48.

[18]

  • In Camila Pavanelli & others (mural artists/graffiters) vs. Lew’lara/TBWA Publicidade Propaganda, casual presence of artwork in a commercial spot was not in breach of the law under Article 48.

[19]

  • In a much quoted 2011 court case, Sival Floriano Veloso (sculptor) vs. Telemar Norte Leste SA, commercial use of representations of sculptures in a public place was deemed to be unlawful in court. On the phone cards being sold, the sculptures had been detached from their surrounding elements, which was considered to be in breach of Article 48. The court case lasted from 2007 to 2011, dealing with use of representations of sculptures placed in a public place in phone cards sold by the phone operator. The sculptures had been detached from their surrounding elements, which was considered to violate the spirit of Article 48. Of the three judges that voted on the final sentence, two considered that Article 48 does not cover commercial use of representations of artworks, when that representation was only about the artwork. The third judge considered that commercial use was allowed by Article 48, even when the only represented subject was the artwork.

[20]

  • Compare the above with Cleir Ávila Ferreira Júnior (artist) vs. Confederação Brasileira de Futebol, where the commercial use of an image of an artwork under copyright was considered to be covered by Article 48, as unlike this case, it had not been detached from its surrounding elements.

[21]

  • The situation was repeated in 2016, when a representation of a house on a commercial product was detached from its surrounding elements and used commercially by a paint manufacturer without consent by the architect, and without proper attribution.

[22]

  • Other cases, in particular related to Rio de Janeiro's iconic Christ the Redeemer which has been widely used commercially, have been quoted in court and in technical opinions to support the notion that Article 48 does indeed allow for free and unrestricted representation of works of art in public places.

[23]

  • In a 2017 juridical technical opinion, statues in public squares used in selling products were presented as an example of what is covered by Article 48. Recent jurisprudence related to Article 48 reinforces the notion that freedom of panorama in Brazil cannot be used in any way that provenly takes or diverts revenue that by right would belong to the artist.

[24]

  • In 2016, a controversial court case arose about a paint brand who used the representation of a copyrighted architectural work (house) to sell the paints, without attributing the work, and under the payment of a fee to the house owners (not the copyright holders). While the court considered the commercial use of the artwork representation unlawful, and granted compensation to the copyright holder, it based its sentence on the fact that there was payment for the use of the specific artwork to someone who was not the copyright holder of the work, thus taking away revenue from the artist and damaging his rights. The court also emphasized the architect's moral rights violation, from commercializing his work without properly attributing it, and said this fact alone was enough to warrant compensation.

[25]

    • Use of the above decision to imply an interpretation of Article 48 as forbidding commercial use in general is disputed and contradicted by other evidence.

[26]

    • Also, in this case, the image of the house on the commercialized product was detached from its surrounding elements.

[27]

    • The Superior Court has written, "The point is not merely representation of the surroundings of the architectural work, but of representation of the architectural work solely for the purpose of profit."

[28]

  • In any case, the ongoing debate on Brazilian jurisprudence over Article 48 is limited to the resulting financial damage to the artist, which has to be consistently demonstrated by palpable proof, and not to the use of artwork representations.

[29][30]

  • More recently, in June 2018, a 2nd instance Brazilian court affirmed the a hospital had the right to commercially use the image of the Rio de Janeiro Monument of the Redeemer even without any landscape context. "Article 48 of Law 9.610/98 in its literal sense authorizes the free representation of works located permanently in public places, and does not require maintenance of the landscape context."

[31]

Bélyegek

Lásd még: Commons:Bélyegek

1983 előtt

  Használd a {{PD-BrazilGov}} sablont.

1983 után

 

Eredetiség határa

Rövidítése

Lásd még: Commons:Threshold of originality

There are some court cases related to threshold of originality in Brazil. According to one study, and the court decisions contained in it, the concept of creativity in Brazil is way more strict and exigent than in the United States, and consequently the threshold of originality is considerably higher than the United States, which is the general reference in Commons.

[32]

Examples:

  •    . In the case of Boneco de Preço Miúdo (2011), puppets that were a tridimensional and humanized version of a logo were deemed by the court to lack enough originality to be protected. The court considered that there was no originality or unpublished work in the puppets because they represented an already existing symbol (the supermarket's logo), and that there were already previous 3D and humanized versions of that logo. The court did not grant any value nor legal protection to the specific 3D and humanized version of the logo in question, and called it something like a "stylization subordinate to a previous idea".

[33]

  •    . Copyright for compilations/ reorganizations of already existing elements has often been rejected on court, hinting that the threshold for what constitutes an "intellectual creation" in this respect is quite high in Brazil.

[34]

  •    . Slogans are generally acceptable. In rare occasions they may be protected, when there is such a level of creativity as to attain the level of a literary work. For example, in the Guerra das Moedas court case (2013), copyright in the expression was not recognized by the court. The verdict stated that the language is the cultural patrimony of the people, so language expressions can't be protected by law. The Rede Globo vs. Ronaldo Ciambroni case was similar.

[35][36]

Some examples help define which photos are, and are not, "artistic creations", and therefore object of protection under the 1973 copyright law:

  •    . The facade of the Jung Frau building, in Joinville, as well as partial views of the city, when photographed in an obvious simple way, without employment of any special ("diferenciada") technique". The court ruled: "photographs are not considered artistic creations ... that portray in a manifestly simple way, without use of any differentiated technique, the front of a residential building and a partial view of the city, under a service contract with a real estate business with a predefined advertising purpose"

[37]

  •    . Simple documentary, descriptive photographs in general, such as photographs documenting social reunions: In SC-AC 111630 SC 2002.011163-0 (2006): "mere photographic documentation, without artistic character, does not qualify for copyright ... making it possible to use a copy without mention of the photographer's name, since, according to Brazilian law, only artistic photography (by choice of the object and conditions of execution) is listed among protected works. ... [for example] with documentary photographs of social gatherings, where the author was performing duties for the defendant, a reference to the photographer's name is not required because it is not an artistic work..."

[38]

  •    . A 2000 ruling stated: "Photographs for identity documents, produced by automatic machines, are not artistic works. ... Neither should purely technical photographs, which reproduce a certain object without the slightest artistic concern, be protected by copyright."

[39]

  •     Another 2000 decision stated: "the photos [...] have an artistic character characterized by the originality, creativity and technique of its author, elements that reveal ... a work of art. They are not, as the appellant claims, mere reproductions of images for advertising purposes, or common snapshots."

[40]

  Puppets who were a tridimensional and humanized version of this logo were deemed in court to lack enough originality to be protected.

Lásd még

Jegyzetek

  1. ↑ a b Brazil Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights). WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization (2018). Retrieved on 2018-11-08.
  2. ↑ Law No. 9.610 of February 19, 1998 (Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, as amended by Law No. 12.853 of August 14, 2013). Brazil (2013). Retrieved on 2018-11-08.
  3. ↑ Law No. 9.279 of May 14, 1996 (Law on Industrial Property, as amended up to Law No. 10.196 of February 14, 2001) (in Portuguese). WIPO. Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  4. ↑ Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (as amended on September 28, 1979). WIPO. Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  5. ↑ Decreto nº 75.699, de 6 de Maio de 1975 (in Portuguese). LEXML (6 May 1975). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  6. ↑ Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil (Constitutional text of October 5, 1988, with the alterations introduced by Constitutional Amendments No. 1/1992 through 64/2010 and by Revision Constitutional Amendments No. 1/1994 through 6/1994 (in English). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  7. ↑ LEI Nº 5.988, DE 14 DE DEZEMBRO DE 1973[1] (in Portuguese), Presidente da República de Brasil, 1973-12-14: “as obras fotográficas e as produzidas por qualquer processo análogo ao da fotografia, desde que, pela escolha de seu objeto e pelas condições de sua execução, possam ser consideradas criação artística”
  8. ↑ Grafite e Direito Autoral (in Portuguese) (2019). Retrieved on 2021-07-16. "Para não ser considerada crime ambiental, se feita em local particular necessita da autorização do dono e em local público da autorização do órgão competente, caso isso não ocorra será considerada crime, e nesse caso entende-se que não seria nem poderia ser protegida pela lei de direitos autorais.."
  9. ↑ Marcelo Frullani Lopes (23 August 2014). Representação do Cristo Redentor em filme não pode ser vetada (in Portuguese). "apesar de a área ser de propriedade privada, o acesso público ao local não é restrito. Não se pode ignorar, também, que o Cristo Redentor integra a paisagem do Rio de Janeiro. Por esse ponto de vista, o local em que a obra se encontra deve ser considerado logradouro público para fins de aplicação desse dispositivo."
  10. ↑ Superior Tribunal de Justiça STJ - RECURSO ESPECIAL : REsp 1438343 MS 2013/0095665-3 - Inteiro Teor (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  11. ↑ RECURSO ESPECIAL Nº 951.521 - MA (2007/0103380-7) (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  12. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo TJ-SP - Apelação : APL 10052213320138260020 SP 1005221-33.2013.8.26.0020 - Inteiro Teor (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  13. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo TJ-SP - Apelação : APL 10052213320138260020 SP 1005221-33.2013.8.26.0020 - Inteiro Teor (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  14. ↑ Página 775 da Judicial - 1ª Instância - Capital do Diário de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo (DJSP) de 29 de Maio de 2017 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  15. ↑ Superior Tribunal de Justiça STJ - RECURSO ESPECIAL : REsp 1438343 MS 2013/0095665-3 - Inteiro Teor (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  16. ↑ Superior Tribunal de Justiça STJ - RECURSO ESPECIAL : REsp 951521 MA 2007/0103380-7 - Inteiro Teor (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  17. ↑ Página 545 da Judicial - 1ª Instância - Capital do Diário de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo (DJSP) de 29 de Janeiro de 2016 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  18. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo TJ-SP - Embargos de Declaração : ED 10016691920158260011 SP 1001669-19.2015.8.26.0011 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  19. ↑ 1007409-55.2015.8.26.0011 Camila Pavanelli e outro v. Lew’lara/TBWA Publicidade Propaganda Ltda. e outros (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  20. ↑ Superior Tribunal de Justiça STJ - RECURSO ESPECIAL : REsp 951521 MA 2007/0103380-7 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  21. ↑ Superior Tribunal de Justiça STJ - RECURSO ESPECIAL : REsp 1438343 MS 2013/0095665-3 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  22. ↑ Uso de casa para publicidade deve ter consentimento de proprietário e arquiteto (in Portuguese) (8 december 2016). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  23. ↑ Superior Tribunal de Justiça STJ - RECURSO ESPECIAL : REsp 951521 MA 2007/0103380-7 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  24. ↑ Samory Santos Advocacia e Consultoria. Doutor, violaram meus Direitos Autorais, e agora? (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  25. ↑ Superior Tribunal de Justiça STJ - EMBARGOS DE DECLARAÇÃO NO RECURSO ESPECIAL : EDcl no REsp 1562617 SP 2015/0250795-0 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  26. ↑ Marcelo Frullani Lopes (1 March 2017). O STJ e a questão da proteção autoral de obras arquitetônicas (footnote 3) (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  27. ↑ Uso de casa para publicidade deve ter consentimento de proprietário e arquiteto (in Portuguese) (8 december 2016). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  28. ↑ Página 2657 do Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) de 30 de Novembro de 2016 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12. "A hipótese, todavia, não é de mera representação a paisagem, em que inserida a obra arquitetônica, mas sim de representação unicamente da obra arquitetônica, com a finalidade lucrativa."
  29. ↑ Página 545 da Judicial - 1ª Instância - Capital do Diário de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo (DJSP) de 29 de Janeiro de 2016 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  30. ↑ Andamento do Processo n. 1008991-90.2015.8.26.0011 - Procedimento Ordinário - Direito Autoral - 01/09/2015 do TJSP (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  31. ↑ Página 203 da II - Judicial - 2ª Instância do Diário de Justiça do Rio de Janeiro (DJRJ) de 29 de Junho de 2018 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12. "Acórdão claro com relação à aplicação do artigo 48 da Lei nº 9.610/98 em sua literalidade, o qual autoriza a livre representação de obras situadas permanentemente em logradouros públicos, não se exigindo a manutenção do contexto paisagístico."
  32. ↑ Denis Borges Barbosa (dezembro de 2012). Como o requisito autoral de originalidade vai se radicando nos precedentes judiciais (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  33. ↑ Página 417 da Judicial - 1ª Instância - Capital do Diário de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo (DJSP) de 26 de Julho de 2011 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  34. ↑ STJ AI 604.956 - MG (2004/0059338-6), Ministro Carlos Alberto Menezes Direito, 30 de setembro de 2004; also PROCESSO TRT/SP Nº 0001174-81.2012.5.02.0086 (2016).
  35. ↑ Guerra das Moedas court case.
  36. ↑ Quarta Turma não reconhece violação de direito autoral em título de novela da Globo (in Portuguese) (18 May 2017). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  37. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina TJ-SC - Apelacao Civel : AC 111630 SC 2002.011163-0 (in Portuguese). "não se considera criação artística as fotografias tiradas por profissional do ramo que retratam de forma manifestamente singela, sem o emprego de qualquer técnica diferenciada, o frontispício de um edifício residencial e a vista parcial da cidade, em observância a contrato de prestação de serviços entabulado com empresa do ramo imobiliário e com destino publicitário previamente ajustado entre as partes"
  38. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina TJ-SC - Apelacao Civel : AC 111630 SC 2002.011163-0 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-11. "mera documentação fotográfica, sem caráter artístico, afasta a incidência do direito de autor, "... tornando possível o uso de terceiro sem menção do nome do fotógrafo, pois, conforme lei brasileira, somente a fotografia artística (pela escolha do objeto e condiçõe de execução) se inscreve dentre as obras protegidas." (...) [segue exemplo ilustrativo] fotografias documentárias de reuniões sociais - Autor que na época estava do desempenho de funções junto ao réu - Inexigível a referência ao nome do fotógrafo por não se tratar de trabalho artístico - Falta de originalidade, criatividade, valor estético ou de furo de documentação"
  39. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça do Paraná TJ-PR - Apelação Cível : AC 946589 PR Apelação Cível - 0094658-9 (in Portuguese) (2000). Retrieved on 2019-03-12. "As fotografias destinadas a documentos de identidade, produzidas por máquinas automáticas, não são obras artísticas. (...) Também não devem alcançar a proteção do direito de autor as fotografias meramente técnicas, em que se procura uma reprodução tal qual de certo objetivo, sem a menor preocupação artística."
  40. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça de Minas Gerais TJ-MG : 2933464 MG 2.0000.00.293346-4/000(1) (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12. "as fotos [...] denotam caráter artístico, caracterizando-se pela originalidade, criatividade e técnica da sua autora, elementos que dela não se podem excluir como reveladores, a princípio, de uma obra de arte. Não são elas, como pretende o apelante, meras constatações ou reproduções de imagens para fins publicitários, ou instantâneos comuns"
Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. Lásd még: Commons:Jogi nyilatkozat
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Brazil/hu&oldid=846147506"