With the advancement of digital technologies, streaming platforms, which have among the most popular examples YouTube and Spotify, are consolidated as the main form of consumption of musical and audiovisual content. This reality reignites legal debates about the limits of copyright transfers.
Although not an isolated case, the recent legal dispute between singer Leonardo and Sony Music has highlighted relevant concerns regarding the extent of the rights granted by the author of a work and the survival of this extension over time, especially in the face of new forms of exploitation of the work, such as streaming.
In this case, Leonardo, as author, questioned the validity of the contract signed in 1998 with Sony Music as to the possibility of dissemination of his musical catalog on streaming platforms, considering that the contractual clause that determines the extent of use of the work by Sony Music does not expressly include distribution by streaming.
The controversy revolves around the restrictive interpretation given to legal businesses (including contracts) that regulate copyrights. Since it cannot be assumed that which was not agreed clearly and expressly, and which could lead to the understanding that the current forms of exploitation were not provided for in the agreements concluded in the past and therefore were not authorized by the author. However, although it is undeniable the obligation to comply with the validity criteria of the transfer (eg that the contract is in writing, that determines the authorized forms of use etc.), it is essential that the analysis considers the technological context in which the contract was signed (in 1998, when Leonardo was still signed 1.
The major point of tension, both in this case and in other similar ones, is the validity of contracts signed before the internet is consolidated as a dominant means of content distribution. Strictly speaking, the music industry maintains that streaming is only an extension of traditional forms of execution or distribution, which legitimizes the use in accordance with existing contractual clauses.On the other hand, the authors argue that it is a completely new medium, which requires specific authorization and, in certain cases, renegotiation of contractual remuneration.
The discussion on the need for specific authorization for the use of musical works on digital platforms has already been analyzed by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) in the judgment of Special Appeal no. 1,559,264/RJ. On such an opportunity, the Court recognized that streaming can be framed in the hypotheses of use provided for in article 29 of the Copyright Law. However, it highlighted that this type of exploitation requires prior and express consent of the rights holder, in compliance with the principle of restrictive interpretation.
More than a specific conflict between specific parties, discussions like this reveal a structural issue: the urgency of reviewing contracts involving the transfer of copyright, regardless of the sector, whether the music industry, whether the educational sector is widely digitized, journalistic vehicles, in short, all who use and exploit content protected by copyright. Given the speed with which new technologies and distribution formats arise, especially in the digital environment -, it is essential that these contractual instruments specify, clearly and comprehensively, the authorized modalities of use. This is because the omission, which commercially presents itself as beneficial, because it gives ample exploitation of a content, can generate legal uncertainty, demands for prolonged moral rights and legal claims for prolonged legal claims for legal claims.
