This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2026 WIPO IP Judges Forum.
Session 1: IP and Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Court of Appeal of Santa Catarina, Brazil [2025]: Spitz Park Aventuras LTDA v Escritório Central de Arrecadação e Distribuição, Case No. 5032376-37.2025.8.24.0000
Date of judgment: July 31, 2025
Issuing authority: Court of Appeal of Santa Catarina
Level of the issuing authority: Appellate Instance
Type of procedure: Judicial (Civil)
Subject matter: Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights)
Plaintiff/Appellant: Spitz Park Aventuras LTDA
Defendant/Respondent: Escritório Central de Arrecadação e Distribuição
Keywords: Collective management; Copyright infringement; Artificial intelligence (AI); Use of AI-generated music; Public communication of training data
Basic facts: The lawsuit was brought by a theme park located in the State of Santa Catarina, Brazil. In order to avoid paying licensing fees for copyrighted music, the park had started to use music generated by artificial intelligence and communicated the artificial intelligence products (AIP) to their public. The Brazilian collective management organization, Escritório Central de Arrecadação e Distribuição (ECAD) continued to assess the theme park monthly charges for the use of its artists’ works, and prepared a study about those songs, showing resemblances between the AIPs and the copyright-protected music of their associates. Spitz Park alleged that because the songs it played were produced by AI, they were not copyright protected and sought provisional injunctive relief to suspend the enforceability of the fees levied by ECAD.
Held: Santa Catarina Court of Appeal rejected the park’s arguments, finding the claim that the songs were AI-generated does not negate the presumption of legality of ECAD’s acts regarding fees for public performance and communication, which have a statutory presumption of legitimacy and of truthfulness. The Court also pointed to ongoing litigation in the United States that have dealt with AI generated music and acknowledged that some AIPs may generate substantial similarities with copyright-protected artwork. It also noted that it will be necessary to evaluate the songs produced by AI (the AIP), but the burden of proof will be Spitz Park’s to clarify whether the AIPs are a result of an autonomous creative process that doesn’t violate copyrights.
Relevant holdings in relation to IP and artificial intelligence: AI works may be considered by some a kind “free territory” from copyrights, a mechanical composer, song creator without originality, and, as such, an alternative to paying copyrights. The AI uses original works and assembles its parts to generate a product, without the same creative process of a human being. Sometimes, it even copies the entirety of the protected artwork/song in its AIP. The public communication, therefore, is not only of this AIP, but also of the protected works used in the assemblage, legitimating the fees imposed by ECAD.
Relevant legislation: Law No. 9.610 of February 19, 1998 (BR359); Civil Procedure Code (BR358)