The São Paulo Court of Justice Rules That Repetitive Sound Patterns, Rhythms, and Beats Are Not Protected by Copyright

The São Paulo Court of Justice Rules That Repetitive Sound Patterns, Rhythms, and Beats Are Not Protected by Copyright

In a decision issued on May 6, 2026, the 6th Chamber of Private Law of the São Paulo Court of Justice (TJSP) dismissed an appeal filed by a music producer seeking recognition as a co-author of the beat used in the funk song “Tá 3 Tá Lindo”, as well as compensation for the alleged failure to pay copyright royalties arising from the use of that beat.

The case originated from a lawsuit filed by a music producer who claimed to have entirely created the beat of the work, arguing that such contribution should qualify as authorship protected under the special statute, even in the absence of lyrics. He further alleged the existence of a verbal agreement providing for equal division of the revenues generated by the song, which reportedly achieved millions of streams on digital platforms, although he never received payments, reports, or accounting statements. At first instance, the claim was dismissed by the 2nd Civil Court of the District of Jacareí, and the decision was fully upheld by the TJSP on appeal.

The central rationale of the decision lies in the distinction between a musical composition, as a “work of authorship” protected under Article 7(V) of the Brazilian Copyright Act (Law No. 9,610/1998), and the mere creation of repetitive sound patterns or rhythmic tracks. According to the panel, the Copyright Act does not protect the production of repetitive sound patterns, rhythms, or beats which, although they may form part of a sound recording, do not, in themselves, constitute an intellectual creation in the legal sense. In her opinion, the reporting judge, Maria do Carmo Honório, emphasized that “a musical work, as a ‘work of authorship,’ presupposes a creative contribution that may be attributed to an author (Article 11), whereas the mere temporal arrangement of sound pulses or standardized rhythmic sequences does not fall within the legal concept of a protected musical composition. Accordingly, the generation of beats or background sounds, when devoid of individualized intellectual creation, does not constitute copyrightable work under the applicable legislation.”

The chamber specifically addressed the context of the funk genre, acknowledging the aesthetic centrality that the beat occupies within that musical universe, while rejecting the equivalence between cultural relevance and legal originality. What the law protects is original intellectual creation, not the prominence of a particular sonic component within the artistic context in which it appears. Therefore, the functional importance of the beat in funk music, however significant, does not automatically transform it into a work entitled to copyright protection.

From an evidentiary standpoint, the decision emphasizes that originality, a prerequisite for copyright protection, is not presumed and must be affirmatively demonstrated. In the present case, the appellant failed to produce any evidence that his contribution constituted an intellectual creation, such as the existence of a melodic or harmonic composition.

Regarding the alleged verbal agreement for revenue sharing, the panel found that the messages exchanged between the parties merely revealed the producer’s expectation of remuneration for the services rendered, without sufficient content to prove the existence of a specific agreement concerning copyright ownership. The ruling nevertheless highlights that, even though the producer’s recognition as co-author was denied, he may still seek compensation in a separate action for possible contractual breach relating to payment for the production services associated with the rhythmic base. The chamber expressly recognized that services had in fact been provided and that this contractual relationship, being distinct from copyright ownership, may be litigated through the appropriate legal avenue.

The decision establishes an important judicial precedent regarding the limits of the copyright protection afforded under the Brazilian Copyright Act to rhythmic patterns in the context of Brazilian popular music. The ruling also has important implications for the music industry and for professionals engaged in the creation and production of beats and instrumental tracks, as these activities are frequently performed by independent professionals without formal agreements governing ownership rights and the allocation of rights in the resulting works. The decision underscores the importance of clearly documenting the parties’ rights and expectations from the outset of the creative relationship.

The decision is available at: Appeal nº 1006797-35.2024.8.26.0292

Note: For quick release, this English version is provided by automated translation without human review.