Brazilian Superior Court of Justice and Copyright: Assignment of Economic Rights Does Not Preclude the Author from Claiming Moral Damages, and Material Damages Are Presumed (In Re Ipsa)

Brazilian Superior Court of Justice and Copyright: Assignment of Economic Rights Does Not Preclude the Author from Claiming Moral Damages, and Material Damages Are Presumed (In Re Ipsa)

On October 13, 2026, the Third Panel of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (Superior Tribunal de Justiça, or STJ) unanimously granted Special Appeal (REsp) No. 2.235.787/RJ, filed by the authors of an artistic mural and the company to which they had assigned the economic rights in the work. The Panel reaffirmed that authors’ moral rights are inalienable and non-waivable and remain vested in the natural person who created the work. It also reiterated that compensation for material damages arising from copyright infringement does not depend on proof of actual loss.

The five artists who created the mural “Muda SP – Pinheiros” founded the company Coletivo Muda Comércio de Obras de Arte Ltda. in 2010. In 2013, they assigned to it all economic rights in the work under an agreement that granted it “all exclusive rights to the work.” In 2016, Karsten S/A publicized a line of wallpapers featuring a design that, according to the artists, reproduced the mural without authorization. The artists and the company then brought a claim for damages against Karsten.

At first instance, the claims were granted, and the defendant was ordered to cease using and selling the wallpaper and to pay compensation for material and moral damages. On appeal, the Rio de Janeiro State Court of Appeals (Tribunal de Justiça do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, or TJRJ) confirmed the copyright infringement but held that the artists lacked standing to seek compensation, finding that they had transferred all their rights in the work to the company. The court also set aside the award of material damages for lack of proof and reduced moral damages from BRL 30,000 to BRL 15,000, payable solely to the company.

Before the STJ, two issues were at stake: whether the assignment of economic rights prevents the artists from defending their moral rights in court, and whether compensation for material damages requires proof of actual loss.

As to the first issue, the STJ emphasized that moral rights, such as the right to claim authorship and the right to preserve the integrity of the work (Article 24 of Law No. 9.610/1998, the Brazilian Copyright Law, or LDA), are inalienable and non-waivable (Article 27) and belong to the natural person who created the work (Article 11). Therefore, they cannot be transferred to the assignee, however broad the terms of the assignment agreement may be. It should be noted that the BRL 15,000 in moral damages awarded by the TJRJ to the company remains unchanged because Karsten did not appeal that point, which was therefore not reviewed by the STJ.

Still on the first issue, the Panel held that the TJRJ erred in finding that the clause granting the company “all exclusive rights to the work” also covered the artists’ moral rights. The LDA requires agreements concerning copyright to be interpreted restrictively (Article 4) and excludes moral rights from the total transfer of such rights (Article 49(I)). Thus, the artists retain standing to defend their moral rights in their own names, while the company is the only party entitled to seek compensation for material damages.

As to the second issue, the STJ reaffirmed the understanding, shared by its Third and Fourth Panels, that material damage resulting from copyright infringement is in re ipsa, that is, it arises from the infringement itself, regardless of proof of actual loss. This is because the unauthorized use of the work undermines the exclusive economic exploitation guaranteed to the rights holder, even where no specific financial loss can be demonstrated.

Dispensing with such proof does not, however, eliminate the need to determine the amount of compensation, which may be calculated at a later stage of the proceedings (liquidação de sentença). Based on Articles 102 and 103 of the LDA, the reporting justice’s opinion set out criteria for this calculation, such as the market value of the license that was never obtained or the benefit wrongfully gained by the infringer. It further stressed that requiring the injured party to prove the loss concretely would be inconsistent with the reality of these cases, since production and sales data are held exclusively by the infringer.

As a result, the STJ recognized the artists’ standing so that the TJRJ may examine the merits of the claim for moral damages with respect to each of the five co-authors. As for the company founded by the artists, the STJ reversed the appellate decision and ordered Karsten to pay compensation for material damages, with the amount to be determined at a later stage of the proceedings.

The decision can be accessed via the following link: REsp n. 2235787

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