COPYRIGHT REFORM
As to the need for altering local norms, it is worth noting the discussions put forward by the Brazilian Ministry of Culture through the National Forum on Copyright (FNDA). Troughout 2008 and 2009, the forum held more than 80 meetings and seminars with various industry and business sectors. Around 10,000 people participated in the discussions, which were transmitted over the Internet. In November 2009, with the conclusion of the FNDA, the Ministry of Culture began preparing a draſt bill to reform Brazilian copyright law. Te draſt was published in June 2010 for public consultation until the end of August 2010. Te Ministry of Culture is trying to make the consultation as accessible as possible and has set up a website that enables participation through collaborative construction (
www.cultura.gov.br/consultadireitoautoral/).
At the launch of the FNDA in December 2007, the then Minister of Culture Gilberto Gil gave a speech in which he called attention to issues such as the legal equivalence between commercial and private copying, the fragility endured by authors on imposed transfer and licence agreements, and the strengthening of the government’s role in the sector. Tese topics represent some of the most important challenges to the current copyright dilemma, which at heart is linked to the relentless search for a balance between the exclusive privileges of content owners and the possibilities of public use.
Te quest for equilibrium must take into consideration essential principles determined by the Brazilian federal constitution. Among other fundamental rights and guarantees found in Article 5, items XXVII and XXVIII prescribe the protection of copyright and neighbouring rights, reserving exclusive prerogatives to use, publish, reproduce and monitor. But copyright protection is oſten confronted with other fundamental safeguards, notably the right of access to information and freedom of expression.
Te Brazilian legislature tried to resolve the conflict through the establishment of uses that do not constitute violations. Such uses include reproduction in the press, the copying of small portions for private use and the citation of passages for purposes of study or criticism. Since they are qualified as specific and closed limitations, it is not possible to extend their application beyond what has been exhaustively determined by law.
One of the most debatable points about copyright reform is permission for private use. Current law does not distinguish between the professional counterfeiter and the home copyist. Except in the cases provided as copyright limitations, express
www.worldipreview.com
prior authorisation is required for any use of works that have not yet fallen into the public domain. Despite the lack of commercial intent, current legislation qualifies private acts such as the transfer of content between personal digital devices as violations.
Te draſt bill permits at least one reproduction of legitimately acquired works for private and non-commercial use, without requiring further remuneration. Other proposed copyright limitations include copies made to ensure the portability or interoperability of digital files, and those made for inclusion in portfolios or resumes. Fair use may not be hindered or prevented by technological devices or measures. Te Ministry of Culture argues that the new copyright limitations follow the principles defined by the main international agreements, such as the Berne and Rome Conventions and the TRIPS Agreement, to which Brazil is a signatory.
Tose who advocate for more legitimate private uses argue that current legislation gives excessive power to copyright holders. Such disparity stifles important forms of expression and dissemination of knowledge due to the fear of accountability in the civil and criminal spheres (the so-called ‘chilling effect’). However, the liberalisation of uses may come at the expense of historical recognition. At a time of significant progress in the fight against piracy, the discussion should be focused on the establishment of more efficient alternatives to remunerated or free licences, instead of admitting other forms of unpaid uses. At least in part, the draſt bill is a sensible approach to the problem. Te proposed Article 52-B creates a government scheme for the grant of non-voluntary licences to meet the fundamental right of access to information and other public interests.
Another controversial issue relates to demands for greater safeguards to individual creators in negotiating agreements. Law No. 9610 allows the total or partial transfer of economic rights, subject to a general narrow interpretation of the agreement to the benefit of the author. Even so, members of artistic and cultural categories have been showing dissatisfaction with situations ranging from the lack of clarity in negotiations to the disparity between the actual remuneration received and the reality of the market.
No doubt an author should be afforded special protection as the individual responsible for creating the work. However, demands for changes in the configuration of assignment and licensing agreements, including suggestions for government intervention, should be carefully evaluated to avoid risks to the legal predictability
necessary for all parties. For instance, the draſt bill brings important changes to rules for works for hire. In the absence of other arrangements, the initial ownership of economic rights shall belong to the employer, public entity or other party that commissioned the work, exclusively for the purposes that constitute the scope of the commission agreement or the employment relationship.
Te discussions fostered by the 10th anniversary of the Brazilian Copyright Law represent an historic opportunity to correct possible distortions in the current social and economic context. Foreign copyright holders doing business in Brazil should closely follow the development of the proposed reform. Measures recently implemented by the Brazilian government set the protection of copyright as a strategic policy, valuing domestic cultural production and heritage. It is expected that the current debates will result in concrete solutions to possible abuses and reaffirm copyright’s fundamental role: to contribute to economic, cultural and technological developments, always taking social interest into account.
Alysson H. Oikawa is a Brazilian copyright and trademark attorney, and an associate at Bhering Advogados. He can be contacted at:
bhe@bheringadvogados.com.br
Alysson H. Oikawa is a Brazilian copyright and trademark attorney, and an associate at Bhering Advogados since 2003. He holds a communications degree from the Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana and a law degree from the Universidade Federal do Parana in Brazil. Oikawa obtained an LLM degree from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in the United States. His professional practice extends to advising domestic and international clients on marketing law, unfair competition and the draſting of licence agreements. He is also an adjunct professor at UNICURITIBA and a visiting instructor at other institutions teaching IP-related courses.
World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2010
43
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112