By Eduardo Neves & Rafael Garutti
The answer lies in the difference between the existence of the right and the ability to prove it. Although registration is not necessary for copyright to exist, it can play an important evidentiary role in an eventual dispute, especially to demonstrate prior existence and to assist in proving authorship and ownership.
In Brazil, copyright protection does not require registration. This rule is expressly provided for in Article 18 of Law No. 9,610/1998 (the Brazilian Copyright Act) and is consistent with the Berne Convention.
Although the Brazilian legal system allows various means of evidence, pursuant to Article 369 of the Code of Civil Procedure, registration constitutes relevant documentary evidence to confer greater legal certainty regarding the identification of the work and the date on which it was presented.
In Brazil, the traditional registration of certain works may involve documentary requirements and formalities that make the process highly bureaucratic, particularly for foreign right holders. In this context, blockchain registration emerges as a practical alternative for documenting a creation and its prior existence.
Why register copyright if I already own the trademark?
Trademark law and copyright law are different legal frameworks and can provide complementary protection for the same asset.
Trademarks protect visually perceptible signs used to identify and distinguish products or services in the marketplace, whereas copyright safeguards original intellectual works expressed through any medium or fixed in any tangible medium of expression, such as texts, music, photographs, videos, illustrations, characters, designs, computer programs, and other creations.
Additionally, copyright is not subject to the Nice Classification. For this reason, when the visual element possesses sufficient originality to be protected as an intellectual work, copyright protection may extend to unauthorized reproductions or uses even in activities not covered by the classes of the trademark registration, provided that an infringement of the work is established.
The Brazilian Industrial Property Law itself recognizes the coexistence of these regimes by establishing, in its Article 124, XVII, that literary, artistic, or scientific works protected by copyright, as well as their respective titles susceptible of causing confusion or association, are not registrable as trademarks, except with the consent of the author or right holder.
Thus, copyright registration does not replace trademark registration, nor does it automatically expand its exclusivity, but it reinforces the legal protection of the visual asset and provides an autonomous and complementary basis for measures aimed at preventing its unauthorized reproduction, adaptation, or use.
Copyright registration in Brazil
Brazilian legislation allows for the registration of works before competent institutions according to their nature, as provided for in Article 17 of Law No. 5,988/1973, which remains applicable by virtue of Articles 19 and 115 of Law No. 9,610/1998. Among these institutions are, for example, the Brazilian National Library, the School of Music, the School of Fine Arts of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, and the Federal Council of Engineering, Architecture, and Agronomy.
For computer programs, Law No. 9,609/1998 provides a specific protection regime, allowing registration before the Brazilian National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI). Although registration is also optional, it constitutes an important instrument for proving authorship and ownership, especially in the event of a dispute.
Although optional, registration is extremely relevant when the right holder needs to demonstrate that a particular work already existed on a specific date.
In practice, the traditional registration procedure before the above-mentioned institutions may require identification documents, powers of attorney, assignment agreements and, in the case of foreign companies, corporate documents, legalizations (or apostilles), and sworn translations, as the case may be.
Beyond documentation, there is also the matter of timing. For a client who needs to quickly document a creation before its commercial launch, an advertising campaign, or a potential dispute, the delays inherent in an administrative procedure may pose a practical challenge.
It is in this context that blockchain technology may offer an alternative.
What is blockchain?
Blockchain is a technology that allows information to be recorded in a chronological, verifiable, and tamper-resistant manner. In the context of copyright, a given digital file can be associated with a cryptographic identifier known as a hash (a kind of “fingerprint” of the file) and a timestamped record.
It is important to note that blockchain does not create copyright. Its function is to document the existence of and establish the prior existence of a given file, but this does not automatically attest to the authorship of the work, which, under Brazilian law, belongs to the natural person who created it and who holds the corresponding moral rights.
Blockchain is not a copyright registration
Blockchain registration does not, in itself, mean that the person who made the registration is necessarily the author of the work, nor does it automatically determine who holds the economic rights to it.
For example, a company may register on a blockchain a logo created by a designer it has hired. The registration may help demonstrate that the file existed on a given date, but the legal relationship between the designer and the company, as well as any assignment of the economic rights, must be substantiated.
Likewise, blockchain does not transform an idea, method, or concept that is not protected by copyright into a protected work.
Thus, blockchain should be understood primarily as a tool for documenting prior existence, rather than as a substitute for copyright itself.
What about Brazilian courts?
Brazilian case law highlights the importance of proving authorship in a potential dispute. For example, in its decision in Special Appeal No. 2,196,790/DF, issued in August 2025, the Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice, with Justice Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva as rapporteur, explained that registration of a work is optional, but emphasized the importance of establishing authorship when it is disputed. In that case, the Superior Court held that the absence of a signature, registration, or other sufficient evidence of authorship undermined the party’s claim to economic rights in the work, which the panel characterized as an “anonymous work,” as opposed to a “signed work.”
In the context of blockchain, the São Paulo Court of Justice has previously considered a case in which the technology was used to preserve digital content in the context of a judicial dispute. In Interlocutory Appeal No. 2237253-77.2018.8.26.0000, the 5th Chamber of Private Law of the São Paulo Court of Justice noted that the appellant himself had arranged for the content to be preserved through blockchain technology, using the OriginalMy platform, arguing that the mechanism was capable of establishing its authenticity and existence. Although the Court did not examine, in that decision, the reliability of blockchain as a means of evidence, it took the preservation that had already been carried out into account in finding that there was no need to prevent the requests from being communicated to third parties. It is worth noting that the São Paulo Court of Justice did not equate blockchain with copyright registration, and the dispute in that case, which concerned allegedly defamatory posts on social media, did not involve copyright ownership per se. Nevertheless, the precedent demonstrates that the preservation of content through blockchain technology was considered by the Court to be a relevant circumstance in its analysis of the dispute.
More recently, a precedent was identified in which blockchain registration expressly formed part of the body of evidence used to establish authorship in a copyright dispute. The Fourth Appellate Panel of the Special Courts of the Bahia Court of Justice, in its decision of September 11, 2025, on Innominate Appeal No. 0055652-13.2025.8.05.0001, with Judge Maria Virginia Andrade De Freitas Cruz as rapporteur, in a case involving compensation for the unauthorized use of a photographic work, upheld a decision recognizing the photographer’s authorship based on reliable documentary evidence consisting of the original digital file in RAW format, its metadata, and the blockchain registration of the image. The rapporteur held that these elements, taken together, provided sufficient evidence of authorship and of the unauthorized use by the defendant, and even rejected the argument that the matter would require expert evidence incompatible with the procedures of the Special Courts.
The decision is significant because it shifts blockchain registration from the status of an ancillary piece of evidence to that of an integral part of the body of evidence used to establish authorship, alongside the original file and its metadata, in a copyright dispute proper.
The precedent also provides important practical guidance: the blockchain registration should not be preserved in isolation. It is advisable to retain the original file submitted for registration and its metadata, so that it is subsequently possible to establish a correspondence between the registered content and the work presented in a potential dispute. In the case considered by the Bahia Court of Justice, it was precisely the combination of the RAW file, the metadata, and the blockchain registration that constituted the documentary evidence deemed sufficient to establish authorship.
This remains an emerging body of case law, but it already provides a basis for supporting a protection strategy based on this technology before the Brazilian courts.
Official registration or blockchain?
The two alternatives should not necessarily be viewed as mutually exclusive.
Official registration remains a relevant option and, depending on the circumstances, may be the most appropriate alternative.
Blockchain, for its part, offers important practical advantages to the rights holder: greater speed, less bureaucracy, and the ability to document various digital formats, such as text, images, audio, and video.
For a foreign company that needs to quickly document a creation prior to its disclosure or commercial exploitation, this difference can be significant.
In certain cases, official registration and blockchain technology can even be used in a complementary manner.
Conclusion
In Brazil, registration is not a requirement for copyright protection. However, when a dispute arises, the ability to demonstrate the existence, priority, and authorship of a work can be decisive.
In this context, blockchain becomes more relevant. It does not create copyright, does not replace assignment agreements, and does not automatically determine authorship or ownership. It has a more specific function: namely, to document, in a rapid and verifiable manner, the existence and priority of a given file.
For foreign parties, particularly regarding digital works, blockchain can represent a practical alternative to traditional registration procedures, providing an additional layer of evidentiary security within an intellectual asset protection strategy in Brazil.
About the authors:
Dr. Eduardo Neves is a Brazilian Attorney at Law and Senior Partner at CNV IP Law Firm, where he co-leads the litigation practice. He has a solid background in intellectual property and extensive experience advising Brazilian and foreign companies on the enforcement of IP rights in Brazil. He has completed postgraduate studies in Data Protection Law (PUC Minas, 2024), Corporate Law (PUC Minas, 2019), and Industrial Property (UNICAMP, 2016). He also completed specialized training through the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), including an advanced course in copyright.
Dr. Rafael Garutti is a Brazilian Attorney at Law and Senior Partner at CNV IP Law Firm, advising Brazilian and foreign companies on intellectual property protection strategies in Brazil. He serves as Chair of the International Classification Subcommittee of the International Trademark Association (INTA), holds a bachelor’s degree in Advertising, and earned an LL.M. in Corporate Law (Fundação Getulio Vargas, 2023), an MBA in Intellectual Property, Law, and Ethics (Universidade Candido Mendes, 2020), and a postgraduate degree in Data Law and Data Use (PUC Minas, 2022).