AI music copyright in Brazil — what Law 9.610 says

Fundamental premise — authorship requires human spirit

Article 7 of Law 9.610/98 defines protected work as "creation of the spirit, expressed by any means or fixed on any support". 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 protected work under Law 9.610. It has no owner. Effectively public domain.

The paradigm case — Zarya of the Dawn in the US

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

In Brazil, there is still no specific STJ or STF jurisprudence on the matter, but opinions from the IBDA (Brazilian Institute of Copyright) and 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 over AI-generated material. 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
• Original stem addition — vocal layer, real percussion, solos
• Structural editing — cuts, reorganization, creative transitions

Each of these steps is considered "autonomous creative contribution" under Article 5, item VIII, sub-item b of Law 9.610.

Co-authorship and royalty splits

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

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

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

Responsibility for declaration on platforms

Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube, TikTok, and other platforms require declaration of AI use at upload. Responsibility for correct declaration lies with the uploader (artist or distributor), not the platform or mastering system.

False declaration can result in:

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

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

Neighboring rights — phonogram producer

In addition to copyright over the musical composition, there exists the neighboring right of phonogram producer (art. 90 and following of Law 9.610). Whoever fixes the musical work on a support (master, MP3, WAV) is considered phonogram producer and has their own rights.

HUMANIZE, by processing and generating the final master at -14 LUFS with true-peak limiting, fixes the work in distributable format. This constitutes phonogram producer right, separate from copyright.

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

Competent jurisdiction in disputes

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

• Rio de Janeiro Court — standard jurisdiction for contracts signed in Brazil
• WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (Geneva) — specialized chamber for international copyright, recognized by the Rome Convention
• Distributor's domicile jurisdiction — some distros have mandatory clauses (DistroKid: California; Tunecore: New York)

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

Practical conclusion for artists in 2026

Practical summary:

1. 100% AI music without human intervention = no copyright, but can still be monetized (with correct declaration)
2. AI music + significant human processing = AI-Assisted work with copyright over the human portion
3. Co-production splits (mastering, curation) have legal basis in derivative work (Law 9.610 art. 5 VIII g)
4. Declare AI-Assisted on platforms — protects against removal and maintains monetization
5. Maintain records (timestamps, SHA-256 hashes, OpenTimestamps blockchain) of applied processing — serves as evidence in disputes

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