Brazilian State Court rules, in a preliminary injunction, that ECAD can collect fees for the public performance of music generated by artificial intelligence.

Brazilian State Court rules, in a preliminary injunction, that ECAD can collect fees for the public performance of music generated by artificial intelligence.

In a recent decision, the Court of Justice of Santa Catarina (TJSC), through Justice João Marcos Buch, denied an Interlocutory Appeal, in a Preliminary Injunction, filed by a company and upheld the right of the Central Office for the Collection and Distribution of Copyright (ECAD) to charge fees for the public performance of music created by artificial intelligence (AI).

The dispute originated in an action brought by a theme park, which sought a declaration of nonexistence of debt on the grounds that it exclusively used AI-generated compositions, without human authorship and not registered in ECAD’s database. Nevertheless, the entity continued to collect monthly amounts as copyright fees. According to the company, the absence of an identifiable human author would exclude the application of the Copyright Law (Law No. 9,610/1998). On this basis, it requested provisional relief to suspend the enforceability of such payments.

The request was denied at first instance. On appeal, the company reiterated that the songs were original and autonomous, created exclusively by the platform Suno AI. ECAD, in turn, argued that artificial intelligence systems rely on protected works to train their models, thereby constituting copyright infringement. The entity also submitted an expert report indicating significant similarity between AI-generated compositions and preexisting works, thereby reinforcing the theory of derivation.

In adjudicating the appeal, the rapporteur emphasized that, to resolve this type of dispute, it is essential to determine whether AI tools are, in fact, creating original compositions or merely reusing, even in fragmented form, portions of preexisting copyrighted works. According to the magistrate, this distinction is decisive in defining what constitutes a new creation and what amounts to unlawful reproduction. The opinion further noted that the debate extends to the legality of using protected works, without proper authorization from rights holders, during the training of AI models. In this context, the Court underscored that the thesis of automatic exemption from copyright liability for AI-generated compositions lacks legal foundation.

In the specific case under review, the TJSC concluded that there was no likelihood of success regarding the company’s claim. For the Court, the mere argument that the songs were generated by AI is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of legality attributed to ECAD’s conduct, expressly legitimized by Law No. 9,610/1998 and firmly established in national jurisprudence. The Court further stressed that the controversy surrounding the originality of AI creations, as well as potential copyright violations during the training process, is complex and involves technical aspects of data engineering, artistic creation theory, and copyright legislation, thereby requiring comprehensive evidence and adversarial proceedings.

Finally, the decision reaffirmed that the collection of copyright fees does not depend on the prior identification of the works performed or on the affiliation of authors with the collecting entity. The mere fact of public performance is sufficient to justify collection, given the system of collective management, which is mandatory and centralized, designed to ensure the effectiveness of copyright protection in environments where individualized control is difficult to achieve. This is a single-judge decision, handed down in a preliminary injunction, and may be overturned.

The decision can be accessed via the link: AI- 5032376-37.2025.8.24.0000

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