The Court of Justice of Bahia has ordered the payment of copyright royalties and moral damages to an architect and urban planner whose designs were reproduced in 39 projects built across several Brazilian states. The Social Transportation Service (SEST) and the National Transportation Learning Service (SENAT), which used the designs without authorization in Integrated Care and Professional Centers for Transportation Workers (Capits) nationwide, were ordered to pay not only the inflation-adjusted copyright fees for the 39 projects, but also R$ 100,000 in moral damages. Furthermore, they must publish in a major newspaper, for three consecutive days in a prominent layout, the credit of architect Daniel Colina as co-author of the Capits' architectural design.
The case began in 1998, when architect Daniel Colina, in partnership with two other architects, developed typological designs for various types of care centers to be built across the country. These designs can be adapted to meet specific functional demands, climates, and diverse topographies, and were designed to be replicated in various situations. At the time, Daniel Colina received R$ 2,000 for each of the 50 contracted projects as copyright compensation.
However, at least 39 SEST SENAT care centers were built without crediting authorship, obtaining prior authorization, or paying Daniel Colina his corresponding copyright royalties. Daniel only discovered that his designs were being reproduced without his consent in 2008, while browsing a magazine published by the National Confederation of Transportation (CNT), the employer organization that controls SEST SENAT. “This is a very serious matter; we design architects live off of this, the transfer of the economic and intellectual property rights of our work,” says Daniel, who is represented in the lawsuit by attorney Rodrigo Moraes (OAB 16590/BA).
Daniel notes that cases like this are very common. “I have colleagues who have similar lawsuits in court. It is important to remember that this is a debate about property rights, not just an issue for architects and urban planners.” In the ruling, Judge Ana Karena Nobre highlighted that “the defendants chose to wrongfully appropriate third-party property for their own benefit, which constitutes a clear violation of rights, a behavior that warrants compensation for both moral and material damages.”
COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION
The lawsuit mentioned above was filed in 2012, before the CAU/BR issued Resolution No. 67, which regulates Copyright in Architecture and Urbanism, establishing guidelines and conditions for registering intellectual works with the Council. The regulation specifies two types of copyright: moral rights, relating to the authorship of the intellectual work; and economic rights, which cover the rights to use and exploit the work.
Therefore, designs and other creative technical works can only be replicated with the consent of the holder of the economic rights—which may be transferred by the author to another party. Moral rights, however, are inalienable. Any promotional material, signage, or communication medium produced by an architect or any other individual or legal entity, whether in the field of Architecture and Urbanism or not, that features a design or built work must specify the name of the original author, safeguarding their moral rights.
Resolution CAU/BR No. 67 defines what constitutes plagiarism in Architecture and Urbanism: the reproduction of the topological and structural design concept; functional layout; and volumetric or spatial form, whether internal or external (plagiarism is defined by similarity in at least two of these three characteristics). Architects and urban planners can also apply for Copyright Registration with their respective state's CAU/UF to protect their intellectual work. Registered materials can include designs, built works, and other creative technical works within the scope of Architecture and Urbanism, securing copyrights, moral rights, and economic rights for their author.
The Resolution also recommends minimum compensation amounts to be requested from courts in copyright infringement cases. For instance, if an architect wishes to sue a construction firm for plagiarism of a protected intellectual work, the CAU/BR recommends damages of at least four times the professional fees for moral rights violations, plus twice the value of those fees for economic rights violations.
Via CAU/BR
This article was written by CAU/BR. The translation is powered by AI.
