Allan Rocha de Souza;1 Luca Schirru;2 Leon Queiroz Ramos3
In Brazil, 2024 has been quite eventful regarding copyright, with the debate seemingly returning to center stage. The Senate’s approval of Bill 2338/23 (AI Bill) and Bill 2331/22 (audiovisual quotas on video-on-demand services), along with the enactment of Law 14.852/24 (Videogames Act), are the three major developments. However, no progress was made on Bill 2630/20 in the Senate (the so-called “Fake News Bill”) or Bill 2730/19 (copyright reform Bill) in the House of Representatives.
Unsurprisingly, the most attention-grabbing development, which sparked numerous discussions and seminars, was the approval of the AI Bill by the Senate on December 10, 2024. This was mainly due to the uncertainties and tensions surrounding Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems and the sensitive nature of the bill’s provisions on copyright. The Senate also approved Bill 2331/22, which introduces a fee for the commercial exploitation of audiovisual works in the digital environment—an initiative that is likely to impact user-generated content. Additionally, the Videogame Act (Law 14.852/24) was enacted, establishing a regulatory framework for video games in Brazil, including their normative classification as “interactive audiovisual works developed as computer programs.”
AI and copyright
The AI Bill (PL 2338/23), which establishes the regulatory framework for AI systems in Brazil, was approved by the Senate on December 10, 2024, and will now be reviewed by the House of Representatives. It is worth noting that the initial regulatory proposal was approved in the form of Bill 21-A/20 by the House of Representatives on September 29, 2021, but was later superseded by the Senate Bill.
In its structure, logic, and overall approach, it mirrors the European AI Act, representing a clear example of the “Brussels Effect.” However, such mirroring may be excessive and should not overlook national particularities and specific challenges.
The relationship between copyright and AI is complex and only gained national prominence in April 2024, when a dedicated chapter was incorporated into the Bill. As with any subject of this level of complexity and uncertainty (and all matters related to AI regulation fall into this category), there are always aspects that could and should be improved. These aspects were highlighted in the study “Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Contributions to the Regulatory Debate in Brazil“ .
Research in general—and text and data mining (TDM) in particular—received insufficient attention that is not able to ensure that research can continue without serious risks and costs, which could hinder this critical activity for the country. These regulatory oversteps include: (i) limiting research to institutional settings, (ii) prohibiting public-private research collaborations, and, most importantly, (iii) requiring that training data be “lawfully accessed,” a condition with significant implications. Without cutting-edge research, the country risks stagnation. Moreover, these provisions will impact all data-intensive research activities, across all sectors, regardless of whether they involve AI system development.
The remuneration and licensing obligations established for training AI systems with copyrighted works, while reasonable in cases of commercial uses with substitutive effects, impose high entry costs on domestic companies. As a result, the primary beneficiaries will be large technology players and database holders (mainly major foreign corporations) that own sufficiently large collections of copyrighted works to serve as training datasets for AI systems. Consequently, this framework will undoubtedly hinder national innovation and the development of AI systems that would reflect Brazilian characteristics — all of that without effectively ensuring compensation for authors and artists, which was supposed to be its main justification!
As approved by the Senate, these constraints on research and national innovation will impact virtually all economic, industrial, and public interest activities that rely on or require large volumes of information and data—whether for fundamental research or the development of AI systems tailored to national demands. This will also affect corporate customization and internal systems development, as copyright protection extends to text, sounds, and images. Consequently, any AI system that processes these types of content will be affected.
Videogames Act
Published on May 3, 2024, Law 14.582/2024 (officially ‘Legal Framework for the Video Game Industry’) establishes the Videogame Act, which regulates the “manufacturing, importation, commercialization, development, and commercial use of video games” in Brazil (Article 2). It does so by establishing guidelines and principles for their use (Article 6), as well as proposing measures for fostering investment and development in the sector (Article 4). Additionally, the law explicitly excludes games involving betting with prizes, random outcomes, commercial promotions, or lottery-based modalities (Article 5, sole paragraph).
The legislation introduces concrete incentives for national video game production by recognizing the sector as part of the cultural industry (Article 12), making it eligible for tax benefits and public funding, similar to other cultural goods. Furthermore, classifying investments in video game development as “investments in research, development, innovation, and culture” (Article 11, sole paragraph) will likely increase the availability of resources and foster growth in the sector.
An interesting aspect of the law is the facilitation of video games for educational and training purposes (Article 10), particularly through the development of public policies within the framework of the National Digital Education Policy and the creation of a repository for games developed with public funds. Equally relevant for research and development is the possibility of state support for research, development, and improvement of educational video games, including the creation of a dedicated platform for educational games (Article 13, §1, IV). However, all of these policies are optional rather than mandatory, as they arguably should be.
One of the law’s key contributions is its definition of “video game,” which directly references copyright legislation. It classifies video games as “an interactive audiovisual work developed as a computer program” (Article 5.1) and links their protection to the Software Law (Law 9.609/98), which has distinct provisions compared to the general Copyright Law (Law 9.610/98).
Although it does not directly address copyright, the law provides definitions for multiple roles that different professionals can assume in the creation and production of video games. These include potential authors, such as visual artists (Article 7, §3, I), audio designers for games (Article 7, §3, II), narrative designers (Article 7, §3, III), and game programmers (Article 7, §3, V), as well as rightsholders, such as game producers (Article 7, §3, VII).
Finally, the law introduces a modification to the Industrial Property Law, adding “the granting of registration for video games” as one of the protective measures for rights. This amendment is questionable, as the Legal Framework for the Video Game Industry itself, despite referencing core and accessory components, defines video games as “interactive audiovisual works developed as computer programs,” which are protected under copyright law rather than industrial property law. Therefore, as a copyright-protected work, a video game does not require registration for effective legal protection. Even considering hardware elements that may fall under industrial property protections, this amendment to the Industrial Property Law (LPI) raises concerns about the mandatory nature and potential creation of an exclusive registration system for video games.
Video on demand and user-generated content
Years after its initial proposal, Bill 2331/22 was approved by the Senate on April 25, 2024, and forwarded to the House of Representatives on May 9, 2024. The Bill seeks to regulate video-on-demand (VoD) services in Brazil and, among its provisions, it expands the National Film Agency’s (ANCINE) authority, extends the application of CODECINE (the Contribution for the Development of the National Film Industry) to this mode of audiovisual distribution, and introduces new incentives for Brazilian films on these platforms through the establishment of minimum quotas.
When ANCINE was created in 2001 through Provisional Measure 2228-1, VoD was not yet on the radar, as the world was only beginning to enter the digital era. To enable ANCINE to regulate the specific activities of this sector, Bill 2331/22 (Article 11) amends MP 2228-1 (Article 7, XXIV) to expand its authority, granting it the power to “regulate the implementation of obligations established by the law governing video-on-demand services.” This mirrors ANCINE’s existing regulatory oversight over other audiovisual distribution sectors, such as cinema, television, and video.
Since most VoD service providers and their catalogs consist of foreign content, lawmakers saw the need to establish screen quotas for national productions within these services, including in the composition of the catalogs offered to the public. In other words, VoD platforms will be required to allocate space in their storefronts for Brazilian films.
However, the mandated participation percentages—always set at 5%—are minimal and seem insufficient to achieve the intended goal. A comprehensive assessment of the current market landscape—which does not appear to have been conducted or even considered—could provide valuable insights. The quota system will be implemented gradually and may be waived, but the legislation sets no timeline for review nor requires impact studies to support future policy decisions.
CODECINE is a tax-equivalent applied to the commercial exhibition of audiovisual works, and, as its name suggests, its purpose is to fund public policies aimed at developing Brazil’s audiovisual industry. It serves as one of the main pillars of financial support for film production, which may eventually reach audiences through the screen quota system. If approved, VoD companies will be required to pay CODECINE.
However, this is not the most relevant aspect of the Bill. What truly stands out is the inclusion of video-sharing platforms that host content produced or uploaded by users—even when the content is voluntarily shared and freely accessible—so long as there is an economic revenue stream, such as advertisements. This means that these platforms will also be subject to CODECINE payments. In this category, YouTube and TikTok are particularly noteworthy, as they are explicitly mentioned in ANCINE’s Technical Note (n. SEI 3238269), which was prepared in response to a request from the Senate’s Economic Affairs Committee (Req. 219/2023).
There are, however, important exceptions to the law’s scope (Article 3), including video games (Article 3, IV), strictly educational content (Article 3, IV), informational and journalistic materials (Article 3, III), sports events (Article 3, VIII), and “third-party content that is not monetized” (Article 3, IX).
We do not yet know what the actual outcomes of this proposal will be, as it is now under review in the House of Representatives.
However, one untouched but pressing issue remains unresolved: the ownership of copyright over works produced with public funding, including those financed through funds collected via CODECINE. To this day, despite being financed with national resources, the rights to many films often end up belonging to transnational audiovisual corporations. This is a matter that certainly deserves further scrutiny and attention.
- Professor and Researcher at UFRRJ, UFRJ/PPED, and PUC-RJ, PhD in Law from UERJ, and Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Oxford, with research focused on copyright and cultural rights. President and Scientific Director of the Brazilian Institute of Copyright Law (IBDAutoral). Legal Consultant and Lawyer. ↩︎
- Executive Director and Researcher at IBDAutoral. PhD and Master’s degree from UFRJ (PPED/IE). LLM in IP & Technology (AUWCL). Postdoctoral Researcher (2022–2024, KU Leuven / 2024–2025, IBICT). Professor in the Graduate Program in Intellectual Property Law at PUC-RJ. Lawyer specialized in Intellectual Property Law (PUC-RJ). ↩︎
- Legal Research Analyst and Junior Researcher at IBDAutoral. Law graduate from the Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ). Researcher at the Research Center on Fundamental Rights, Private Relations, and Public Policies – NUREP (UFRRJ/CNPq). Lawyer. ↩︎
