Linkedin-in Youtube X-twitter

Latin America / GRULAC

Artificial Intelligence, Blog, Latin America / GRULAC

INTELIGENCIA ARTIFICIAL, DERECHOS DE AUTOR Y EL FUTURO DE LA CREATIVIDAD: APUNTES DE LA FERIA INTERNACIONAL DEL LIBRO DE PANAMÁ

/

Por Andrés Izquierdo Durante la segunda semana de agosto, fui invitado a hablar en la Feria Internacional del Libro de Panamá, un evento organizado por la la Oficina del Derecho de Autor de Panamá, el Ministerio de Cultura y la Asociación Panameña de Editores con apoyo de la Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual (OMPI). Mi presentación se centró en la cada vez más compleja intersección entre las leyes de derechos de autor y la inteligencia artificial (IA), un tema ahora en el centro del debate legal, cultural y económico mundial. Esta publicación resume los argumentos principales de esa presentación, basándose en litigios recientes, investigaciones académicas y desarrollos de políticas, incluyendo el informe de mayo de 2025 de la Oficina de Derechos de Autor de EE. UU. sobre IA generativa. ¿Cómo deberían responder las leyes de derechos de autor al uso generalizado de obras protegidas en el entrenamiento de sistemas de IA generativa? El análisis sugiere que hay debates emergentes en varias áreas clave: los límites del uso justo y las excepciones, la necesidad de derechos de remuneración aplicables, y el papel de la concesión de licencias y la supervisión regulatoria. El artículo se desarrolla en cinco partes: comienza con una visión general del contexto legal y tecnológico en torno al entrenamiento de IA; luego revisa propuestas académicas para recalibrar los marcos de derechos de autor; examina decisiones judiciales recientes que ponen a prueba los límites de la doctrina actual; resume el informe de 2025 de la Oficina de Derechos de Autor de EE. UU. como respuesta institucional; y concluye con cuatro consideraciones de política para la regulación futura. UN ESCENARIO LEGAL Y TECNOLÓGICO EN TRANSFORMACIÓNLa integración de la IA generativa en los ecosistemas creativos e informativos ha expuesto tensiones fundamentales en la ley de derechos de autor. Los sistemas actuales ingieren rutinariamente grandes volúmenes de obras protegidas —como libros, música, imágenes y periodismo— para entrenar modelos de IA. Esta práctica ha dado lugar a preguntas legales no resueltas: ¿Puede la ley de derechos de autor regular de manera significativa el uso de datos de entrenamiento? ¿Se extienden las doctrinas y disposiciones legales existentes—como el uso justo, o excepciones y limitaciones—a estas prácticas? ¿Qué remedios, si los hay, están disponibles para los titulares de derechos cuyas obras se utilizan sin consentimiento? Estas preguntas siguen abiertas en todas las jurisdicciones. Si bien algunos tribunales y agencias reguladoras han comenzado a responder, una parte sustancial del debate está siendo moldeada ahora por la investigación académica  jurídica y por los litigios, cada uno proponiendo marcos para conciliar el desarrollo de la IA con los compromisos normativos del derecho de autor. Las siguientes secciones examinan este panorama evolutivo, comenzando con propuestas académicas recientes. PERSPECTIVAS ACADÉMICAS: HACIA UN EQUILIBRIO RENOVADOAl revisar la literatura académica, han emergido varios temas claros. Primero, algunos autores concuerdan en que deben fortalecerse los derechos de remuneración para los autores. Geiger, Scalzini y Bossi sostienen que, para garantizar verdaderamente una compensación justa para los creadores en la era digital, especialmente a la luz de la IA generativa, la ley de derechos de autor de la Unión Europea debe ir más allá de las débiles protecciones contractuales y, en su lugar, implementar derechos de remuneración robustos e inalienables que garanticen ingresos directos y equitativos a autores e intérpretes como cuestión de derechos fundamentales. Segundo, varios académicos subrayan que la opacidad técnica de la IA generativa exige nuevos enfoques de remuneración para los autores. Cooper argumenta que, a medida que los sistemas de IA evolucionen, será casi imposible determinar si una obra fue generada por IA o si una obra protegida específica se utilizó en el entrenamiento. Advierte que esta pérdida de trazabilidad hace que los modelos de compensación basados en atribución sean inviables. En cambio, aboga por marcos alternativos para garantizar que los creadores reciban una compensación justa en una era de autoría algorítmica. Tercero, académicos como Pasquale y Sun sostienen que los responsables de formular políticas deberían adoptar un sistema dual de consentimiento y compensación: otorgar a los creadores el derecho a excluirse del entrenamiento de IA y establecer un gravamen sobre los proveedores de IA para asegurar el pago justo a aquellos cuyas obras se utilizan sin licencia. Gervais, por su parte, defiende que los creadores deberían recibir un nuevo derecho de remuneración, asignable, por el uso comercial de sistemas de IA generativa entrenados con sus obras protegidas por derechos de autor; este derecho complementaría, pero no reemplazaría, los derechos existentes relacionados con reproducción y adaptación. También hay un consenso creciente sobre la necesidad de modernizar las limitaciones y excepciones, en particular para educación e investigación. Flynn et al. muestran que una mayoría de los países del mundo no tienen excepciones que permitan la investigación y enseñanza modernas, como el uso académico de plataformas de enseñanza en línea. Y en Science, varios autores proponen armonizar las excepciones de derechos de autor internacionales y domésticas para autorizar explícitamente la minería de texto y datos (TDM) para investigación, permitiendo el acceso lícito y transfronterizo a materiales protegidos sin requerir licencias previas. En la OMPI, el Comité Permanente sobre Derecho de Autor y Derechos Conexos (SCCR) ha tomado medidas en este ámbito aprobando un programa de trabajo sobre limitaciones y excepciones, actualmente en discusión para el próximo SCCR 47. Y en el Comité de Desarrollo y Propiedad Intelectual (CDIP), está aprobado un Proyecto Piloto sobre TDM para Apoyar la Investigación e Innovación en Universidades y Otras Instituciones Orientadas a la Investigación en África – Propuesta del Grupo Africano (CDIP/30/9 REV). Mi propio trabajo, al igual que el de Díaz & Martínez, ha enfatizado la urgencia de actualizar las excepciones educativas latinoamericanas para dar cuenta de usos digitales y transfronterizos. Eleonora Rosati sostiene que el entrenamiento con IA no licenciada queda fuera de las excepciones de derechos de autor existentes en la UE y el Reino Unido, incluidas el Artículo 3 (TDM para investigación científica) de la Directiva DSM, el Artículo 4 (TDM general con exclusiones) y el Artículo 5(3)(a) de la Directiva InfoSoc (uso para enseñanza o investigación

Artificial Intelligence, Blog, Latin America / GRULAC

AI, Copyright, and the Future of Creativity: Notes from the Panama International Book Fair

/

AI, Copyright, and the Future of Creativity: Notes from the Panama International Book FairDuring the second week of August, I was invited to speak at the Panama International Book Fair, an event hosted by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Panama Copyright Office, the Ministry of Culture, and the Panama Publishers Association. My presentation focused on the increasingly complex intersection between copyright law and artificial intelligence (AI)—a topic now at the center of global legal, cultural, and economic debate. This post summarizes the core arguments of that presentation, drawing on recent litigation, academic research, and policy developments, including the U.S. Copyright Office’s May 2025 report on generative AI. How should copyright law respond to the widespread use of protected works in the training of generative AI systems? The analysis suggests there are emerging discussions around several key areas: the limits of fair use and exceptions, the need for enforceable remuneration rights, and the role of licensing and regulatory oversight. The article proceeds in five parts: it begins with an overview of the legal and technological context surrounding AI training; it then reviews academic proposals for recalibrating copyright frameworks; it examines recent court decisions that test the boundaries of current doctrine; it summarizes the U.S. Copyright Office’s 2025 report as an institutional response; and it concludes by outlining four policy considerations for future regulation. A Shifting Legal and Technological LandscapeThe integration of generative AI into creative and informational ecosystems has exposed foundational tensions in copyright law. Current systems routinely ingest large volumes of copyrighted works—such as books, music, images, and journalism—to train AI models. This practice has given rise to unresolved legal questions: Can copyright law meaningfully regulate the use of training data? Do existing doctrines and legal provisions—fair use, or exceptions and limitations—extend to these practices? What remedies, if any, are available to rightsholders whose works are used without consent? These questions remain open across jurisdictions. While some courts and regulatory agencies have begun to respond, a substantial part of the debate is now being shaped by legal scholarship and litigation, each proposing frameworks to reconcile AI development with copyright’s normative commitments. The following sections examine this evolving landscape, beginning with recent academic proposals. Academic Perspectives: Towards a New Equilibrium In reviewing the literature, several clear themes have emerged. First, some authors agree that remuneration rights for authors must be strengthened. Geiger, Scalzini, and Bossi argue that to truly ensure fair compensation for creators in the digital age, especially in light of generative AI, EU copyright law must move beyond weak contractual protections and instead implement strong, unwaivable remuneration rights that guarantee direct and equitable revenue flows to authors and performers as a matter of fundamental rights. Second, some scholars highlight that the technical opacity of generative AI demands new approaches to author remuneration. Cooper argues that as AI systems evolve, it will become nearly impossible to determine whether a work was AI-generated or whether a particular copyrighted work was used in training. He warns that this loss of traceability renders attribution-based compensation models unworkable. Instead, he calls for alternative frameworksto ensure creators are fairly compensated in an age of algorithmic authorship. Third, scholars like Pasquale and Sun argue that policymakers should adopt a dual system of consent and compensation—giving creators the right to opt out of AI training and establishing a levy on AI providers to ensure fair payment to those whose works are used without a license. Gervais, meanwhile, argues that creators should be granted a new, assignable right of remuneration for the commercial use of generative AI systems trained on their copyrighted works—complementing, but not replacing, existing rights related to reproduction and adaptation. There is also a growing consensus on the need to modernize limitations and exceptions, particularly for education and research. Flynn et al. show that a majority of the countries in the world do not have exceptions that enable modern research and teaching, such as academic uses of online teaching platforms. And in Science, several authors propose harmonizing international and domestic copyright exceptions to explicitly authorize text and data mining (TDM) for research, enabling lawful, cross-border access to copyrighted materials without requiring prior licensing.  At WIPO, the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) has been taking steps in this area by approving a work program on L&E´s, under current discussions for the upcoming SCCR 47. And in the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP), there is a Pilot Project approved on TDM to Support Research and Innovation in Universities and Other Research-Oriented Institutions in Africa – Proposal by the African Group (CDIP/30/9 REV). My own work, as well as that of Díaz & Martínez, has emphasized the urgency of updating Latin American educational exceptions to account for digital and cross-border uses.  Eleonora Rosati argues that unlicensed AI training falls outside existing EU and UK copyright exceptions, including Article 3 of the DSM Directive (TDM for scientific research), Article 4 (general TDM with opt-outs), and Article 5(3)(a) of the InfoSoc Directive (use for teaching or scientific research). She finds that exceptions for research, education, or fair use-style defenses do not apply to the full scope of AI training activities. As a result, she concludes that a licensing framework is legally necessary and ultimately unavoidable, even when training is carried out for non-commercial or educational purposes. Finally, policy experts like James Love warn that “one-size-fits-all” regulation risks sidelining the medical and research breakthroughs promised by artificial intelligence. The danger lies in treating all training data as equivalent—conflating pop songs with protein sequences, or movie scripts with clinical trial data. Legislation that imposes blanket consent or licensing obligations, without distinguishing between commercial entertainment and publicly funded scientific knowledge, risks chilling socially valuable uses of AI. Intellectual property law for AI must be smartly differentiated, not simplistically uniform. Litigation as a Site of Doctrinal Testing U.S. courts have become a key venue for testing the boundaries of copyright in the age of artificial intelligence. In the past two years, a growing number of cases

Blog, Latin America / GRULAC

Legislative Initiatives on Copyright in Brazil in 2024

/

Allan Rocha de Souza; Luca Schirru; Leon Queiroz Ramos  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

Blog, Latin America / GRULAC

Perspectives from the ABPI (Brazilian Intellectual Property Association) Forum on AI and IP

/

By: Luca Schirru [1] and Allan Rocha de Souza [2] On December 11, 2024, the Brazilian Association of Intellectual Property (ABPI) organized and hosted the Forum “Decoding Copyright in the Age of Artificial Intelligence” in São Paulo. The event was on December 11th, just one day after the Brazilian Senate approved the AI Bill (Bill No. 2338/23). The bill will now be returned to the House of Representatives for further discussion and, if approved, will be submitted for presidential sanction. The forum brought together a diverse group of stakeholders: IP rightsholders, technology companies, researchers, and legal practitioners to explore some of the most pressing issues at the intersection of copyright and artificial intelligence (AI). Discussions were particularly focused on the complex challenges posed by generative AI in the realm of copyright. The adequacy – or not – of the AI Bill in addressing issues such as remuneration, opt-out mechanisms, transparency, and text and data mining was a central topic of discussion, featuring insights from national and international speakers. The panels covered issues regarding AI inputs, outputs, and the balance between copyright protection and the need for innovation and development. The Brazilian Copyright Institute was represented by Allan Rocha and Luca Schirru.    Bertin Martens offered an economic perspective and reasons why opt-out mechanisms and restrictions on AI training may be economically inefficient, also referring to the provision in the Brazilian AI Bill. Luca Schirru addressed the challenges related to training AI systems and text and data mining. He highlighted how the current text of the Bill fails to adequately promote research due to several shortcomings, such as (i) the lawful access requirement and (ii) the fact that the copyright exception is restricted to institutions and (iii) excludes university-companies partnerships.  Caroline Tauk addressed key copyright challenges related to AI-generated outputs, such as authorship, ownership, originality, and potential copyright infringement claims. Professor Pamela Samuelson provided an overview of the legal challenges and their competing arguments presented in U.S. court cases. Samuelson’s insights spanned both input-related issues, such as data used for training AI systems, and output-related concerns, highlighting the complexity of navigating copyright in the context of AI.   The approval of the AI Bill faced criticism since the final version of the text was made available less than a week before the vote, as noted by Andriei Gutierrez, who considered it to be “irresponsible that the bill passed in the Senate. The text was approved last Thursday by a minimum number of senators, and the rest had until Tuesday to approve it.” (see here and here) Finally, Allan Rocha de Souza presented a critical perspective on the AI Bill and explained why, as it is, it does not strike a good balance between the promotion of research, authors’ remuneration, or an innovation environment, and suggested that it could be greatly improved with minor changes.    The legislative year will resume in March 2025 and given the broad criticism towards the approved AI Bill from various stakeholders, further discussions and revisions to the copyright provisions are expected in the House of Representatives.  [1] Executive Director and Researcher at the Brazilian Copyright Institute. Postdoctoral researcher at INCC. Copyright Professor at the Specialization Program on Intellectual Property Law at PUC-RJ. Lawyer. Contact: luca.schirru@ibdautoral.org.br – ORCID: 0000-0002-4706-3776.   [2] Copyright Professor at the Graduation Program on Public Policy, Strategies and Development (PPED/UFRJ) and the Civil Law and Humanities Department of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (DDHL/ITR/UFRRJ), and in the IP Specialization Course at Pontifícia Universidade Católica (PUC-RJ), Brazil. Scientific Director of the Brazilian Copyright Institute (IBDautoral). Copyright consultant at Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ). Lawyer. Contact: allan@rochadesouza.com – ORCID: 0000-0002-6549-0085. 

Blog, Latin America / GRULAC

Brazil Urges Stronger Enforcement Mechanisms for AI and IP Rights

/

Brazil’s statement at WIPO CDIP 33 emphasized AI’s transformative potential in IP while highlighting challenges like copyright violations and the need for fair remuneration. Advocating for global governance and legislative reforms, Brazil called on WIPO to ensure transparency, equity, and inclusive policies that protect creators’ rights and provide equitable access to AI benefits. Brazil CDIP 33rd Statements BRAZIL: Thank you, Madam Chair. We thank WIPO for the opportunity to discuss AI in the context of development. We note the many number of WIPO representatives at the podium now including ADG Natsumi which we thank very much for a time showing that this is a cross organizational aspect and expresses the correctness of treating this topic at the CDIP without prejudice to the specific technical committees of WIPO.  Now, Madam Chair, the rapid pace of development of AI technology has put it under the spot. In 2022, sorry, we were all stunned by the launch of generative AI systems which we all assumed were years away and now we as countries and we as international organizations are analyzing its implications, potential uses and the necessity of regulating it. AI, of course, can be of significant assistance to IP offices in the process of registration and management of industrial property rights such as patents, trademarks, industrial designs. The translation of technical documents is another area where AI can be widely applied with the assistance of WIPO. Some such uses were explored recently in the last session of the SCP and application of AI in PCT activities are also being discussed at the PCT Working Group. But another area of analysis is the constitution and exercise of Intellectual Property Rights. So on the patent side, the use of AI systems can have an impact on new discoveries, increasing innovation. It also raises questions about patentability and ownership of the innovation resulting from such systems. This was explored previously by the Secretariat. So AI can assist research with the potential to result in a large number of patent applications. Additionally, it may be used to boost anti-competitive strategies adopted by specific industries to file patents for incremental modifications aiming to block competitors’ R&D, so-called patent tickets. So in this context, legislative changes in the patent legislation may be necessary to encompass and address such challenges and opportunities. But the speed with which this technology develops is, of course, a challenge for us as regulators. Now, I would like to address specific copyright-related issues on AI. As we all know, AI systems, especially generative AI, demand vast amounts of data, the most valuable of which is copyright protected. Copyrighted works such as music, books and movies contain organized expression of ideas which are vital for AI systems to develop their capacities to, so to speak, mimic human behavior. Of course, generative AI can be a tool for creation and like any new tool, it has benefits and risks. It raises a series of ethical, aesthetic, technical and legal questions that we have the responsibility of examining. Now, in many countries, including Brazil, the United States and others, the protection of an author’s right is a constitutional clause. Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which the person is the author. So we see a strong basis for discussing the protection of author’s rights in AI systems. There’s a trend towards the reduction of the value of creative works, the so-called commoditization of creative works, which affect the enjoyment and exercise of the copyright protection to authors, artists and creators. A study by CISAC published just last week shows that copyright right holders will lose 22 billion euros until 2020 in the music and audiovisual sectors alone. This figure does not include losses to writers, photographers, interpreters or producers of phonograms. Another study by German and French collective management organizations estimated that music authors will lose 27% of the royalties due to generative AI by 2028, four years away. Similar negative effects have been estimated in Australia and New Zealand. Now, what are the causes of such losses? They will be due to the substitution of human labor for AI, the competition of AI produced content with copyrighted works and the lack of payment for the use of protected works in the training of AI systems. This raises a particularly important question relating to the long-term production of works. AI systems demand a diversity of cultural production, but how could we generate it without authors, performers, creators and humans? How can we continue to have the production of works if we don’t have the necessary economic incentives for human authors in the copyright system? Further, how do we differentiate authentic human work from AI-generated works? Considering this scenario, it is without a surprise that authors demand a fair remuneration for the use of the works. Many letters, public manifestations have proliferated with thousands and thousands of artists, performers and their associations signing. At the same time, tech companies argue this would stem innovation, but the individual market value of a leading AI company can reach 250 billion U.S. dollars. Reports in the media also indicate that companies such as Google and Microsoft spend every few months 10 billion U.S. dollars on data centers and AI infrastructure. Further, as I had mentioned, copyrighted works are one of the most important, if not the most important input for generative AI systems. It would be not only illegal but absurd if AI companies did not pay for other basic inputs such as energy, data centers, or software. Why would this be the case with copyrighted works? And according to reports by authors, artists and even representatives from AI companies in the media, use of protected works is happening without authorization from rights holders. As a consequence of this, companies developing AI systems may have violated in each work used at least five rights granted to authors by copyright legislation. The first

Blog, Latin America / GRULAC

Copyright, Cultural Rights and Research in the “Salvador da Bahia Declaration of the G20 Ministers of Culture”

/

Allan Rocha de Souza [1] and Luca Schirru [2] On November 18 and 19, the G20 highest representatives met in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, when they issued the 2024 conclusive document of the Brazilian Presidency, the Leaders of the G20 Declaration. It was preceded by different sector declarations, of which the Salvador da Bahia Declaration of the G20 Ministers of Culture is especially relevant and has been commented upon here.  There was a call for action on three main priorities: “(i) social inclusion and the fight against hunger and poverty; (ii) sustainable development, energy transitions and climate action; and (iii) the reform of global governance institutions.” (p. 03 – item 13). There are plenty of references to the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) of the 2030 Agenda, and the recognition that the actions to reach them are lagging behind. (p.01 – item 03) “Development” in general was linked to a variety of settings: Agendas, Goals, Frameworks, Cooperation, Trade, Banks, Funds, Policies, Programs and so on. Nonetheless, sustainability and climate are the main focus. And a broad concept of development and high goals guide the concluding remark, when the Leaders affirmed that “(We) remain resolute in our commitment to fighting hunger, poverty, and inequality, promoting sustainable development in its economic, social, and environmental dimensions, and reforming global governance.” (p. 22 – item 85)  There were serious concerns around the uses and social, economic and political effects of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. So much so it earned a chapter of its own. The impacts on labor and workers, gender gap, people in vulnerable situations and the digital divide were central preoccupations, but their worries were also extended to intellectual property, data protection, and privacy:   “As AI and other technologies continue to evolve, it is also necessary to bridge digital divides, including halving the gender digital divide by 2030, prioritize the inclusion of people in vulnerable situations in the labor market, as well as ensure fairness, respect for intellectual property, data protection, privacy, and security.” (p. 20 – item 78)  While the Salvador da Bahia Declaration of the G20 Ministers of Culture was intense on copyright and AI, the Leaders’ Declaration has been less assertive in its goals, broadly calling for “a strengthened and effective global engagement on the discussion of copyright and related rights in the digital environment and the impacts of AI on copyright right holders.” (p. 08, item 28)   Cultural workers were also acknowledged as the G20 Leaders, as they reaffirmed the “commitment to support policies that promote the contribution of those working in the culture, arts and heritage sectors and call on countries to strengthen cooperation and dialogue addressing social and economic rights and artistic freedom, both online and offline.” (p. 08, item 28)   Interestingly, IP and labor rights were conjugated to highlight concerns of fair pay and working conditions of cultural workers, as policies that promote their status should be deployed “in accordance with intellectual property rights frameworks and international labor standards, for the enhancement of fair pay and decent working conditions.” (p. 08, item 28).  While the G20 Leaders’ Declaration approach to IP and cultural rights was less assertive than the Salvador da Bahia Declaration, it underscores the importance of fair policies for cultural workers. With a stronger focus on sustainability and inclusion, it approaches development from multiple angles, tries to foster international cooperation, while reaffirming the commitment to achieving the SDGs. Looking ahead, South Africa holds the G20 Presidency in 2025. [1] Copyright Professor at the Graduation Program on Public Policy, Strategies and Development (PPED/UFRJ) and the Civil Law and Humanities Department of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (DDHL/ITR/UFRRJ), Brazil. He also teaches Copyright of the IP Specialization Course at Pontifícia Universidade Católica (PUC-RJ). Scientific Director of the Brazilian Copyright Institute (IBDautoral), a copyright consultant at Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ), and a lawyer. Contact: allan@rochadesouza.com – ORCID: 0000-0002-6549-0085. [2] Executive Director and Researcher at the Brazilian Copyright Institute. Postdoctoral researcher at INCC. Copyright Professor at the Specialization Program on Intellectual Property Law at PUC-RJ. Lawyer. Contact: luca.schirru@ibdautoral.org.br – ORCID: 0000-0002-4706-3776. 

Scroll to Top