This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2025 WIPO IP Judges Forum.
Court of Appeal of São Paulo, Brazil [2024]: Igor Lott v Shopping Analia Franco, Case No. 1119021-41.2023.8.26.0100
Date of judgment: October 31, 2024
Issuing authority: Court of Appeal of São Paulo (Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (TJ-SP))
Level of the issuing authority: Appellate Instance
Type of procedure: Judicial (Civil)
Subject matter: Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights)
Plaintiff: Igor Lott
Defendant: Shopping Analia Franco
Keywords: related rights, copyright infringement, unfair use, artificial intelligence
Basic facts: The plaintiff is a voice actor, working primarily with advertisements.
The defendant used a AI generative tool (Microsoft Azure) to generate a ‘neutral’ voice for the advertisement of a special offer for Christmas at their commercial establishment, a famous shopping mall. It was shared on social media.
When the plaintiff saw the video on the defendant’s social media, he concluded that the voice used in the video was in fact, his voice and requested that the defendant stop disseminating the video. The defendant refused to take down the video, arguing that the voice in the video was generated by an AI tool, and any liability for infringement was attributable only to the AI developers.
The first Instance judge found the case without merit, and that the defendant should not be liable for any damages created by the AI tool.
The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the user of an AI tool has the duty to check if the product of the AI tool violates copyright related or personality rights, as in this case.
Held: The São Paulo State Court of Justice overturned the judgment, indicating that more evidence should be produced in order to determine the extent of similarities between the AI-generated voice used by the defendant and the plaintiff’s voice.
Relevant holdings in relation to Copyright Related Rights: According to the Court, the result should be reformed for three main reasons:
(1) According to art. 104, Act n. 9.610/98 (Brazilian Copyright Act), anyone who divulges content that violates copyright or copyright related rights should be liable for the damage caused to those rights.
(2) Generative AI tools, which are trained from databases of existing works scraped from the internet, can produce mere copies of protected works. As they may not create entirely “new” content, AI tools can cause damages at two points: during training, when the developer doesn’t remunerate the rights holders; and in their operation, if the product of the AI tool is a mere copy of a previously protected work.
(3) Those who use an AI-generated voice must be at least cautious about the content and whether its commercial use would be fair.
The court concluded that the fact that the voice used by the defendant had been generated by AI did not rule out the possibility that the voice used was in fact the plaintiff’s. The appeal was upheld and the case remanded to the first instance court for further investigation and subsequent proceedings.
Relevant legislation:
· Act nº 9.610/1998 (Brazilian Copyright Act)
· Civil Code
· Rome Convention on Related Rights