Copyright of AI Music in Brazil — what Law 9.610 says

#music #musicdistribution #brazil #indie

Copyright of AI Music in Brazil — what Law 9.610 says

Brazil's Copyright Law dates from 1998 and does not mention artificial intelligence. But the interpretation consolidated by lawyers specializing in intellectual property in 2026 defines with clarity who owns a piece of music generated by AI — and who can make money from it.

Fundamental premise — authorship requires human spirit

Article 7 of Law 9.610/98 defines a protected work as "creation of the spirit, expressed by any means or fixed in any medium". Brazilian jurisprudence consistently interprets that "creation of the spirit" presupposes human authorship.

Direct consequence: music generated entirely by AI, without significant human creative intervention, is not a work protected by Law 9.610. It has no owner. De facto public domain.

The paradigm case — Zarya of the Dawn in the US

In 2023, the American Copyright Office analyzed the case of the comic "Zarya of the Dawn" (author Kris Kashtanova). Decision: the human text is protected, the illustrations generated by Midjourney are not. This decision paved the way for the global position: copyright only exists where there is measurable human authorship.

In Brazil there is still no specific jurisprudence from the STJ or STF on the subject, but opinions from the IBDA (Brazilian Institute of Copyright) and the OAB Copyright Commission follow the same line.

Human creative contribution in AI music

The key point is defining what counts as significant human creative contribution on material generated by AI. Brazilian doctrine recognizes as protected autonomous creation:

Human technical mixing — spectral balance, stereo positioning, artistic EQ
Professional mastering — loudness definition, dynamics, sonic identity
Timbre curation — conscious choice of instruments and textures
Addition of original stems — vocal layer, real percussion, solos
Structural editing — cutting, reorganization, creative transitions

Each of these steps is considered "autonomous creative contribution" under article 5, section VIII, paragraph b of Law 9.610.

Co-authorship and royalty splits

When there is significant human creative contribution on AI material, a derivative work is configured (art. 5, VIII, g of Law 9.610). The derivative work is protected independently of the ownership of the original source.

This grounds the co-production split model used by systems like HUMANIZE: the humanizing processing constitutes creative contribution that gives the right to a percentage of royalties from the processed work. Typically 5% for mastering + professional curation.

This split is declared in distributors (DistroKid, Tunecore, RouteNote, CD Baby) at the time of upload, and is recorded in the release history.

Responsibility for declaration on platforms

Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube, TikTok and other platforms require AI usage declaration at the time of upload. The responsibility for correct declaration is the uploader's (artist or distributor), not the platform's or the mastering system's.

False declaration can result in:

Track removal
Artist account suspension
Future upload blocking
In extreme cases, civil liability for violation of terms of service

Recommendation: declare works processed with AI as AI-Assisted, with explanatory note about the human processing applied. Keeps the work eligible for monetization and protects against penalties.

Related rights — phonogram producer

Beyond copyright on the musical composition, there is the related right of phonogram producer (art. 90 and following of Law 9.610). Whoever fixes the musical work on medium (master, MP3, WAV) is considered a phonogram producer and has their own rights.

HUMANIZE, when processing and generating the final master at -14 LUFS with true-peak limiting, fixes the work in distributable format. This configures the right of phonogram producer, separate from the author's right.

In international distributions, the ISRC (International Standard Recording Code) is assigned to the fixed master — another way to identify who holds the related rights of the phonogram.

Competent forum in disputes

For Brazilian artists distributing via international DSPs, possible forums in royalty disputes:

Rio de Janeiro District Court — standard forum for contracts entered into in Brazil
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (Geneva) — specialized chamber in copyright, recognized by the Rome Convention
Forum of the distributor's domicile — some distros have mandatory clauses (DistroKid: California; Tunecore: New York)

Brazil is a signatory to the Berne Convention and the Rome Convention — protections applicable in all member countries (172 countries in 2026).

Practical conclusion for artists in 2026

Practical summary:

100% AI music without human intervention = no copyright, but can still be monetized (with correct declaration)
AI music + significant human processing = AI-Assisted work with copyright on the human part
Co-production splits (mastering, curation) have legal grounds in derivative work (Law 9.610 art. 5 VIII g)
Declare AI-Assisted on platforms — protects against removal and maintains monetization
Keep records (timestamps, SHA-256 hashes, OpenTimestamps blockchain) of applied processing — serves as evidence in disputes

HUMANIZE automatically records SHA-256 hash + OpenTimestamps of each processed track. In case of dispute, this record is admissible as technical evidence in national and international forums.