The quill and the brush: the Law Project
of Pedro Américo about Artistic and Literary Property and the dialogue between
Politics, History and Art
Madalena
Zaccara [1], Valéria
Augusti [2] e Marcílio
Toscano Franca Filho [3]
ZACCARA, Madalena; AUGUSTI,
Valéria; FRANCA FILHO, Marcílio Toscano. The quill and the brush:
the Law Project of Pedro Américo about Artistic and Literary Property and the
dialogue between Politics, History and Art. 19&20, Rio de Janeiro, v. XI,
n. 1, jan./jun. 2016. https://doi.org/10.52913/19e20.XI1.01b
[Português]
* * *
About laws and arts - an
introduction
1.
For
many and varied reasons, the State always has been very close to the arts and
the artists, be it as patron, promoter or supporter, be it as a regulating
agent, censor or even collector. The relationship between art and State would
surely give cause to a large encyclopedia that would include whole areas of
Public and Private Law, not to mention other extensive fields of knowledge
connected to Sociology, Political Science, Anthropology and Aesthetics.
2.
Taking
only the specific field of the Legislative Power in Brazil, it is noticeable
that it isn’t just today that the Brazilian State worries about defining,
regulating and protecting the interest of aesthetic works’ authors. Already in
the Law of August 11th of 1827, that created the legal courses in the country
and the Criminal Code of the Empire (Law of December 16th 1830) there were
references to the regulations in the civil and penal spheres. As a matter of
fact, still referencing a “privilege” and not a “right,”[4]
the Article 7 of the Law that instituted the first Colleges of Law in Brazil
(one in the city of São Paulo and the other in Olinda),
3.
Art. 7.º - The professors will do the
choice of the compendiums of their professions or will arrange them, not
existing any already made, as long as the doctrines are in accordance to the
system sworn by the nation. Those compendiums, after approved by the
Congregation will serve temporarily; submitting iself then to the approval of
the General Assembly and the Government will print them and provide them to the
schools, giving their authors the exclusive privilege of the work for ten
years.[5]
4.
Three
years later, the Criminal Code of the Empire included among its legal
descriptions against property the following device:
5.
Art. 261. Print, record, lithograph or
introduce any writings or pictures that were made, composed or translated by
Brazilian citizens, for as long as they live and ten years after their death,
if they leave heirs. Penalty - loss of every exemplar to the author or
translator or their heirs; or in their absence, of their value and another
equal sum and a fine of thrice the value of the exemplars. If the writings or
pictures belongs to a Corportation, the prohibition to print, record,
lithograph or introduce will last only for a space of ten years.[6]
6.
As it can
be seen, made independent in 1822, Brazil already showed, since its youth, a
growing, albeit ineffective, worry about regulating the author’s rights. Prof.
Carlos Alberto Bittar points that that worry had just foundation:
7.
Edited the mentioned texts, in both
planes, it was felt in the bosom of the Legislative, the need to regulate
legally the author’s rights in the civil scope, through specific diploma, in
which their basic lines were traced, following the example of other countries,
such as Belgium and Italy, that mid last century [18th Century], already
counted with a particular law for the topic. Of that our legislator gained
conscience through the finding that the intellectual progress of the country
was depending on this regulation, as a stimulus for the creation of new
productions in the domains of literature, art and science.[7]
8.
It is
in this environment that emerges not only the first law projects to regulate
the authorial issue - such as those of the congressmen Aprígio Guimarães
(1856), Gavião Peixoto (1858), of the also novelist José de Alencar (1875), the
senator Diogo Velho (1886), the congressman Augusto Montenegro (August 7th of
1893) and of Pedro Américo de Figueiredo e Mello (July 12th of 1893) -
but also some international deals about the topic that Brazil becomes part of -
such as the one celebrated with Portugal in September 9th of 1889 (internalized
by the Decree nº 10.353, of September 14th of 1889)[8]
and the literary convention celebrated with France in January 31st of 1891
(that wasn’t admitted by the Brazilian parliament.[9]
9.
The
present article has no other goal than to shed some light over that law project
signed by the painter and congressman from Paraiba, reflecting over his
performance, in the parliament, in the area of copyright. This goal is
justified by the prominent position that Pedro Américo occupies in the
Brazilian artistical panorama. Author of paintings that compose the very own
visual identity of the nation (such as O
Grito do Ipiranga [Figure 1] and Tiradentes Esquartejado [Figure 2]), Pedro Américo de Figueiredo e Mello was born in
the city of Areia in Paraiba, on 29th April of 1843 and passing in
Florence (Italy) in October 7th of 1905.
10.
When
the French naturalist Louis Jacques Brunet arrived in his home city, in the
humid region of the Brejo of Paraiba, leading a scientifical expedition that
was doing research for the National Museum, he meet the boy known for doing
portraits with great technical accuracy of a capuchin friar deemed saint by the
inhabitants of the region. It was thanks to those portraits that Pedro Américo
joined the expedition for approximately 20 months.[10]
From this meeting resulted the recommendation of the youth to the President of
the Province of Paraiba and, following this, a recommendation to the Emperor,
which made possible his enrollment in the Imperial Academy of Fine Arts, in Rio
de Janeiro, in the year of 1854.
11.
Five
years later, Pedro Américo requested to the Emperor a scolarship in the ammount
of 400 réis monthly to go study in Europe. He had at that time 16 years old and
carried in his pouch a letter from his old teacher, the important painter Manoel de Araújo Porto-Alegre. After a season of studies in France and in Italy,
Pedro Américo returned to Brazil, in 1864, against his well, to minister
classed in the Imperial Academy of Fine Arts. It didn’t took him long to ask
for an unpaid leave and return to Europe, obtaining in three years a doctorate
degree, in the Science College of the University of Brussels, with a thesis
about “Science and the Systems: Questions of History and Natural Philosophy,”[11]
being asked to become a professor in the University of Brussels. In 1869,
returned again to Brazil, but not without oscillating many times still over the
Atlantic, towards the Old Continent, until his death.[12]
12.
It was
precisely in one of those periods that he left the Europe he so adored, right after
the Proclamation of Republic (1889), that Pedro Américo was elected a
congressmen through the Republican Party of the Province of Paraiba. It is
about this final stage of his life, as a parliamentarian of the Republican
regime and legitimate representative of the artistical classes in the Brazilian
parliament, that the present work focused from now on.
Pedro Américo, the Republic and his reinvention as a
parliamentarian
13.
The fall
of the Brazilian monarch in 1889 wasn’t a surprise. In its roots the country
did not had a true monarchic tradition and the republican ideal was always
present in a way or another. Besides this, the Brazilian monarchy was always an
exception to the South America panorama. On the other hand, the keeping of
colonial features, based on the slavering monoculture estate represented a
serious obstacle to the urban-industrial progress of the country. The growth of
the abolitionist process and its strengthening worked against the monarchic
regimen and the interest of the oligarchy that was based on slavery. The
antagonism of the new (urban-industrial and abolitionist) with the old
(agricultural export and slavery), tied to other structural matters, such as the
restrictions that the church and the army started to do towards the monarchic
centralism, determined the passage from Monarchy to Republic, through a state
coup executed on November 15th of 1889. In that moment, the traditional
oligarchy, supporters of slavery, despite an appearing contradiction, adhered
to the coup, since the empire had abolished slavery without a single
restitution to the owners of this kind of labor.
14.
The
conflicts between the two parties that alternated the power during the empire,
the Liberal and the Conservative, also contributed to the fall of the regimen.
Some unhappy liberals brokered an alliance with the republicans, still little
organized, and created the Republican Party in 1870. The press, in general,
took advantage of the tolerance of the emperor and a liberal constitution to
make propaganda of the republican system.
15.
Brazil’s
victory in the Paraguay War was also decisive to the ascension of Republic, the
military, proud of their accomplishments, wanted a bigger political participation.
Summing up all those multiple circumstances, a rupture with the imperial
government system became thus inevitable. The population, however, did not
participate in the birth of the Republic. The people had no interest for those
changes. Pedro II was well seen by great part of the society, exempting certain
middle classes (urban, abolitionists, industrials and merchants) and the
transformations, as usual, arrived from top down. The emperor and his family
were banished. They exiled themselves in Europe, the Empress Tereza Cristina
dying in December of 1889, in the city of Porto and the Emperor in Paris, two
years later. It was only in September 3rd of 1920 that the banishment decree
was revoked, by the then President Epitácio Pessoa, another citizen of Paraiba
as Pedro Américo.
16.
The
proclamation of the Republic in Brazil was, therefore, a product of the elites.
It was necessary, however, a sort of legitimization o the new power through the
popularization of its ideals and the forming of a republican image to internal
consumption, which became the first goal of the First Republic. Three currents
disputed the definition of the ideological nature of the new regime: the
American liberalism, the French jacobism and the positivism.[13]
Those three ideologies opposed themselves intensively since the beginning of
the Republic. All ended, however, with the posterior consolidation of the first
alternative: the liberalism.
17.
The
positivists formed the most active and pugnacious groups in the attempt of
turning the republic regime not only accepted by the populace but loved by the
people that, at first, did not wish it. Their weapons were literature and civil
symbols. The lack of republican identity provoked the need of the creation of
an iconography of persuasion of the population that had as main goal educate
the “soul” of the people spreading political and moral values that would
contribute to the affirmation of the regime in a solidification process.
Similarly to what was seen in Italy and Germany of the first half of the 19th
Century, this need reflected itself in favoring a thematic related to the
history of the national with large usage of an allegoric language. Between the
symbols used in the retina education to the acceptance of the Republic, one of
the most important was the figure of Tiradentes,[14]
who represented the Christ, the civic hero, the martyr and the libertarian, civil
and military, a symbol of the country and, at the same time, of the republican
subversion. This projected iconography was part of the battle to the
conquest of an image by the new political system.[15]
18.
Pedro
Américo participated actively of this process. He worked for the republic as he
had worked for the monarchy. His artistical conceptions will also reflect this
Brazilian political change. In 1889, the military coup that instituted the
republic surprised Pedro Américo, in Florence about to start a celebratory
painting of the abolishment of the slavery commissioned by the imperial
government of D. Pedro II. The works were, naturally, interrupted. Américo
needed, however, urgently, set himself free of his image of protégé of the
exiled emperor and take side along with the new power: it was a matter of
survival. His political abilities manifested once more under those
circumstances and he, that despite the fact of having been greatly benefited
under the empire had always kept his connections with the republicans, could
count on many friends established with the new government of Marshal Deodoro da
Fonseca. To secure a position in this picture of power, it was necessary to act
fast and, after all, Américo was never one to hesitate.
19.
One of
his first steps was to execute the painting that he had promised to do for free
a few years back to the old Regime. He painted it with great celerity. In April
1890, the secretariat of the new government accuses the reception of the canvas
Voltaire blesses in the name of God and
Liberty the grandson of Franklin [Figure 3].[16]. A work conceive with a thematic
politically correct to the new times
20.
The
first republican times were not favorable to the arts in a general manner. The
brazilian political elites were busy consolidating the regime and the patroning
of Pedro II no longer existed. On another hand, the Brazilian middle classes
were not enough informed or wealthy to interest themselves in the visual arts
in the sense of patronizing it. Pedro Américo faced this new reality: he had
painted, in Florence, a series of works involving a thematic turned to the
execution of exotic animals, probable fruit of his young years in Algeria. From
those works he set up, perhaps, one of the first exhibits made for the
Brazilian middle class, exposing in a store, La Glace Elegante, that sometimes
acted as a gallery of art in Rio de Janeiro. Nobody bought a single piece. Only
a thief, worthy of note if his identity was known, seemed to care for the
painting of the republican Brazil: he stole a small canvas.[17]
It was at least something in the way of “exit”. It is with this background of
“cooling” of the national market of art that Pedro Américo joins the Chamber of
Congressmen.
21.
In
truth, the political-partisanship vein of Pedro Américo started to gain more
expression still in the empire, in the end of the 19th Century, precisely after
the electoral reform of 1881 that democratized (slightly) the vote.[18]
In April of that same year, he wrote to his family and friends and asked for
help to a small candidacy.[19] Later, he sent a manifesto from
Florence, dated from June 20th of 1881, addressed to the political leaders of
his home province. In this document, he asked for the help of the
representatives of the Conservative Party to get a chain in the Parliament:
22.
[...] Knowing in this way the great service
done by the conservative party towards the public cause, as well as the justice
and equity with what they proceeded in the application of his program, it is
under the glorious banner of your representatives that since this moment I
place myself [...].[20]
23.
In
July 16th of 1881, he made another appeal, this time destined to the
inhabitants of his city of Areia. In it, he presented his political platform,
speaking of his love for his hometown and affirming that, at last, he could
collaborate to the development of the region, since the legislation had changed
and allowed for the popular vote of laborers such as him:
24.
Shuddering child of the North Parahyba,
from where powerful circumstances has distanced me from, [...] I wouldn’t for
sure cease the thread of my aesthetics occupation and my scientifical research,
the work of a civilizing and pleasurable time that I took, I wouldn’t attend to
the voice that summons me to the arena of political disputes, if in me the
patriotic feeling didn’t rise above personal considerations. [...] The
legislation, however, of this country that I had fixed in my mind as a star of
courage, was an invincible obstacle so that I,, simple laborer of the true and the
beautiful, was allowed to collaborate directly as the statesmen and the soldier
in the perfecting of exhortation of the Country.[21]
25.
A few
months after having written to the conservatives, he communicated again with
his family, affirming that he would also accept the offer of the liberals to
represent them, should that happen “or introduce me as a candidate through the
circle that would be best fitting”.[22] His actions in that regards would, thus,
demonstrate great “pragmatism” and little adhesion to any political ideology.
26.
Created
in 1870, the Republican Party, in which he had numerous friends and through
which he would be elected during the First Republic, already existed at that
time. However, it is not known any public manifestation of Pedro Americo in
regards to the republicans, during the second reign. This dubious behavior
resulted in several misunderstandings with his friends. In response to a letter
of Daniel Ferro Pedro Cardoso, staunch republican, Américo defends himself from
the accusations in which he repproaches him of his servitude towards the
imperial family. The painter denies the accusations and says that in the royal
palace he is accused of exactly the same: being republican and ungrateful in
regards to the favors received by
27.
You accuse me of cajoling the imperial
family, of looking too differently from you and our friends of forward ideas [...],
they painted me in the court with republican and ungrateful colors. Ungrateful
I was, because to some of my best acquaintances I did not curse the monarchy,
ungrateful I was called by the monarchist for not breaking with my old
affections.[23]
28.
Indeed,
Américo was a public persona that sometimes declared himself available to the
conservative, sometimes to the liberals, accepted support of the monarchists
and republicans and took no sides to any of the factions. There was, thus, any
ideological coherency in his political behavior.
29.
From
Florence, Pedro Américo wrote a manifesto dated from February 15th of 1890 in
which, among critics to the old regime and praising of the new, he proposed to
represent in the new constituent assembly the artisans and laborers in general:
30.
I don’t know among the old directors of
the politics of our country a single man that understands the importance of the
brazilian artist. Used to the strictly partisan disputed and the sophisms of
the imperial demagogy mother of the national disbelief and lack of exigent,
almost all have distinguished themselves by the disdain towards the
representatives of the artistical activity and reward with the most absolute
despise most of those of whom, many times, they owed their triumphs. [...] The
proclamation of the democratical regimen in Brazil must banish from our soil
even the last remnants of this immoral and dissolute spirit, to which the
Brazilian owes the dismay that paralyzes it, and this State it’s backwardness,
poverty and absolute decadence [...] Used to the disputes of thought, the
combats and adversity, the independency of the words and action, strong for the
security in living honestly in any part of the world without having ever
weighted upon the coffers of my country nor needing to deceive the public opinion
to obtain the glory that I have only waited from my labor, I have thus reason
to wait from you the highest distinction of representing you in the bosom of
the next Constituent Assembly [...][24]
31.
His
words, albeit written in a moment of fight for survival, do not convey an image
of loyalty. He not only poses himself in a positive manner in regards to the
new regime, but also denies his previous ties with the empire and attempts to
disparage them, maximizing a personal independency that never really existed,
since, ever since his childhood, he had depended upon the kindness of the
imperial regime. After those emergency measures, Americo departs to Brazil.
32.
In
that same year he is elected constituent congressman through his home province,
the North Parahyba, through the Republican Party, having the future president
of the republic, Epitácio Pessoa as his bench colleague. He packed, leaves
Florence with his family and installs himself in Rio de Janeiro, in the Rua do
Lavradio n. 69[25] to perform his new functions.
During his term, he presents some projects connected to arts and culture. Among
them, the proposal of the foundation of a National Gallery of Fine Arts
(independent, artistically and financially, from the proposal of the National
School of Fine Arts), the proposal of the creation of a national theater, a
project about the creation of universities in Brazil and that project of law
about author’s rights.
33.
But,
in truth, Pedro Américo was much more a spectator than the actor in the
Brazilian political scenario. The country never did attract him not during
monarchy nor during the new regime, because at each recess of the Assembly and,
sometimes, even during its full activity, he would flee Brazil and return to
Florence. After the marriage of his only daughter, Carlota, with his future
biographer Cardoso de Oliveira, Pedro Américo left the country, returning only
in 1892, to temporarily occupy his position. In 1893, finished his term as
congressmen, nothing further motivated him to remain in Brazil. He did not wish
to live in a place that he did not love and that didn’t offer him better
possibilities, in the sense of a copious market for his work. He returned to
Italy definitely.
The congressmen Pedro
Américo and the Project of Law about Copyright
34.
In an
edition of September 1892, it is read in the newspaper “Le Droit d'Auteur”, the
official organization of the then Union Internationale pour la Protection des
Oeuvres Littéraires et Artistiques, that in January 31rst of 1891, in the city
of Rio de Janeiro, the governments of Brazil and France signed a Literary
Convention that yielded vivid debate:[26]
35.
[...] Le 31 janvier 1891 un projet de convention,
littéraire, artistique et scientifique, était signé, à Rio de Janeiro entre M.
Bocayuva , alors ministre des affaires étrangères du gouvernement provisoire de
la République du Brésil, et M. Blondel, notre chargé d'affaires en ce pays. Dès
l'abord le projet qui protégeait les droits de nos nationaux fut accueilli de
façon favorable par la presse brésilienne, et par la jeune école littéraire du
pays, qui comprenaient, quels immenses services notre littérature avait rendus
et devait rendre encore au Brésil, et appréciaient le dommage subi par nos
auteurs, dramatiques, et par nos romanciers qui ne retiraient aucun profit de
la vulgarisation considérable de leurs oeuvres soit dans les théâtres, soit
dans lés journaux du pays. D'un autre côté, le projet de convention rencontra
une assez vive opposition dans le vieux parti brésilien, opposition qui, sans
aucun doute, ne saura avoir une influence sérieuse dans la discussion générale
qui doit avoir lieu le mois prochain devant le Congrès, des, députés tenu à Rio
de Janeiro. Un dès, esprits les plus éclairés du Brésil, M. Alberto de Carvalho
se fit le porte-parole du parti opposé à la convention littéraire et, dans le
courant de l'année dernière, il faisait paraître un libellé intitulé Imperio et
Republica dictatorial dans lequel il entassait force arguments, cherchant à
démontrer aux membres du prochain Congrès que la ratification du traité de
protection, passé entre MM. Bocayuva et Blondel serait: non seulement une
erreur, mais encore une faute grave.[27]
36.
According
to the newspaper, however, that convention french-brazilian was an instrument
of great importance to “consacrer l'émancipation dû prolétariat intellectuel du
Brésil, aujourd'hui sacrifiéà une féodalité de, spéculateurs, de copistes, et
de plagiaires - en même temps que le développement de la littérature
nationale.”[28] The deal, however, did not came in
effect, due to, by a narrow margin of votes, having been rejected by the Brazilian
National Congress, in a vote that took place in July 6th of 1893, after long
and strained debates. The specialized press thus reported the fact:
37.
Rejet du traité
littéraire avec la France - Dans la séance du 6 juillet 1893, la Chambre des
députés du Brésil refusa d'approuver le traité littéraire conclu le 31 janvier
1891 entre les Gouvernements français et brésilien représentés par MM. Blondel
et Araripe. Cette décision regrettable, précédée d'une discussion longue et
animée qui occupa plusieurs séances, fut prise par 67 voix contre 59, soit à la
majorité de 8 voix ; mais comme deux députés absents au moment du vote se sont
déclarés favorables au traité, la majorité des rejetants se trouva, de fait, réduite
à 6 voix. Nous regrettons beaucoup de ne pouvoir analyser ici, faute d'espace,
les brillants discours des défenseurs du traité, MM. Nilo Peçanha et José
Avelino, ni celui, très habile, de son adversaire principal, M. Augusto
Montenegro, ni les deux rapports de la minorité et de la majorité de la
commission des affaires diplomatiques et des traités, présentés par les mêmes
personnages. La question avait, d'ailleurs, été déplacée adroitement par les
ennemis du traité et transformée en un débat général sur les concessions
réciproques à stipuler entre les deux nations, et, sur ce terrain, ils
faisaient valoir des griefs qui compliquaient beaucoup la tâche des partisans
de la protection internationale des droits d'auteur:
38.
1° Ce sont
uniquement les auteurs français qui tireront profit du traité;
39.
2° La France a
établi, au préjudice du Brésil, des tarifs douaniers très rigoureux pour le
café exporté de ce pays ;
40.
3° La France
maintient la circulaire prohibitive de l'émigration au Brésil, qui constitue
une véritable mesure d'exception et consacre un régime odieux.[29]
41.
Six
days after the rejecting of that treatise, in July 12th of same year of 1983,
Pedro Américo, in his condition as congressmen of the Republican Party through
his home province, took the stand, requesting that the discussion about the
rights to literary and artistical property was resumed, since, in his view, the
question would have been “discussed poorly and incompletely”.[30]
Referring not only to the refusal of the Literary Convention of Brazil-France,
but also to the projects of law elaborated by the novelist and congressman José
de Alencar and by the senator Diogo Velho Cavalcanti de Albuquerque, he
proposed a new project with the goal of regulating the rights of property in
the art market.
42.
In
regards of this new project, the aforementioned newspaper, “Le Droit d'Auteur”,
thus manifested:
43.
Six jours après le
rejet du traité, le 12 juillet 1893, M. Pedro Americo de Figueiredo et seize
autres députés déposèrent un projet de loi très libéral réglementant les droits
d'auteur et assimilant les étrangers aux nationaux en tout, sauf en ce qui
concerne la durée de la protection, limitée à celle du pays d'origine de
l'oeuvre. M. [Augusto] Monténégro déposa à son tour un contre-projet, très
restrictif, destiné seulement à satisfaire les nécessités du moment et tiré en
grande partie, mais avec des modifications substantielles, de la législation
allemande. Le premier projet, dû à M. Americo, auteur de livres, de tableaux,
de quelques ouvrages scientifiques, habitué à traiter avec les éditeurs et les
marchands d'objets d'art, membre du Congrès de la propriété littéraire et
artistique de Paris en 1889, est - dit l'auteur lui-même - un travail en grande
partie original, inspiré par ma propre expérience et approprié à notre pays. Ce travail mérite
d'être consulté.[31]
44.
It is
well to remember that two years before, in 1891, with the proclamation of the
first Republican Constitution (to which Pedro Américo was one of the
constituents), the authors had some rights guaranteed about their creations,
according to the article 72, § 26, of the text of that Magna Charter: “To the authors of literary and artistical
works it is guaranteed exclusive rights of reproducing it by press or any other
mechanical process. The heirs of the authors will benefit from this right
through the time that the law determines.”
45.
The
project of Pedro Américo, that seeked to grant higher concreteness to the
aforementioned constitutional device, counted with streamlined eleven articles
and was signed initially by sixteen other congressmen: A. Fialho, Luiz Murat,
Conto Cartaxo, A. Cavalcanti, Martinho Rodrigues, J. de Serpa, J. Retumba,
Nelson de Vasconcellos, B. Carneiro, Oliveira Pinto,Antonio Olyntho, Mursa,
Seabra, Manuel Coelho Bastos do Nascimento, Homero Baptista and M. Caetano. In
the speech he made when forwarding to the Desk of the Congress Chamber in the
session of July 12th of 1893, under the guise of reason exposal, Pedro Américo,
with the intent of legitimizing his project, affirms that this is wouldn’t be
just “a compilation” of the projects that were done before, but rather “a work
in great part original”, because it was “inspired in his own experience in the
matter”.[32] Immodest, Pedro Américo takes the stand
to stress:
46.
Author of book and painting, cultivator of
the science in which I have also produced some brochures, used to treat
practically about the subject with editors and brokers of works of art, I
couldn’t stop to bring forward in this house the fruit of my experience and my
personal impressions, to submit it to the wise consideration of my peers, among
which exists so illustrious jurists, as well as brilliant literati.[33]
47.
It is
noticeable right at first the fact that the project does not establish, as some
of its antecessors did, any sort of distinction in regards of the nationality
of the author, which means that were the latter Brazilian or foreigner, they
would all benefit from the copyright protection, as can be seen in the articles
1 and 2 of the project of Pedro Am
48.
Of the copyright
49.
Art.1° It is guaranteed the copyright to
all citizen, national or foreigner, that produces works of literature, art or
science by his own conception or
composition.
50.
§ 1° This right consists in that only he
can sign his name in the aforementioned work, alter it, modify it, hide it
whimsically, damage it or even destroy
it.
51.
§ 2° Such rights are only transmissible by
the author’s own express
52.
Of the rights of property of the author
regarding his
works
53.
Art. 2º. It is likewise guaranteed the
right of property to all citizen, national or foreigner, that produces work of
literature, art or science by his own conception or composition.
54.
§ 1°. Such rights consists that only the
author of a work of literature, art or science of his own conception or
composition can alienate it in its part or its sum, expose it, reproduce it or
authorize its reproduction and take from it whatever sort of advantages he
wishes.
55.
§ 2°. It is a right transmissible like
that of any other property.[34]
56.
In the
light of the above aforementioned instruments, it can be observed also that,
innovating in regards to the past projects, Pedro Américo anticipates a rather
important duality in the matter of copyright, that is, the reference, avant la
lettre, to moral rights (which he calls the “copyright in his first article)
and the ownership rights towards the created work (which he calls of “rights of
property of the author regarding his works” in his second article). Many
decades later, the current Law nº 9610 of February 19th of 1998, that alters,
updates and consolidates the Brazilian legislation about copyright, would
continue to use this division in its art. 22, in verbis “Art. 22. It belongs to
the author the moral and patrimonial rights regarding the work he created”. The
duality established by Pedro Américo in the arts. 1 and 2 of his project remains
confirmed and repeated in the art. 4º:
57.
Art. 4º. The forwarding of the literary,
artistical or scientifical property rights does not leads, unless there is an
express convention or accordance in a special contract, to the forwarding of
the copyright nor the authorization to the assignee of reproducing in whatever
manner, including translation, the alienated work.[35]
58.
In
other words, when alienating the patrimonial rights of his work, the author
does not cease to maintain a series of other rights (moral), in a way that, by
consequence, he keeps certain power over his artistical production, being
allowed to interfere, as mentioned above, in the process of reproduction or
translation of the alienated work. Based on this same dichotomy, the
transmission to a third party of the so called “copyright” (such as the
alteration or destruction of the work) relied in the express will of the author
(according art. 1º., §2º., of the project of law), which no longer exists today
(art. 24, §1º., of the Law nº 9.610/1998). The patrimonial rights, however,
were transmissible (and thus remain) such as any other property rights
(according to art. 2º., §2º., of the project of law).
59.
Comparing
the project of Pedro Américo with the one from José de Alencar, from 1874,
there is a disagreement regarding the duration of the cession of rights to
third parties that, for the novelist, has no limitation, while for the painter
Pedro Américo, it should, according to his art. 3, remain for as long as lives
the author or assignee and prolong itself for “50 years after his death in
benefit to his heirs, or the state on a permanent basis, should those not
exist.”[36] The current Law 9.610/98 defines, in his
Art. 41, that “the patrimonial rights of the author remains for seventy years,
counted from January 1rst of the subsequent year of his passing, abided the
order of succession of the civil law”. In the unique paragraph of the same
article, it adds: “It is applied to the post-mortem works the deadline of
protection that the caput of this article references”.
60.
Pedro
Américo, approaching the matter of the translators, establishes an important
terminological difference between those two social actors: the author and the
translator. The congressman from Paraiba does not gives the title of author to
the translator, but, just as it was done previously by José de Alencar in his
1875 project, he dictates that the translation work should, also, be protected
of undue misappropriation, according to the §4°, of the art 4º. of the Project
of Law of Pedro Américo:
61.
§4° The translator or mechanical
reproducer of literary, artistical or scientifical works will benefit from the
rights of property regarding his translation or reproduction, not being able,
however, o prevent that others publish or expose to sale other translations or
reproductions of the same object.[37]
62.
Observe
that, although the translator and the author are protected by the project of
law, they hold differences in their statute, in such way that to the first it
is given the right to alter, damage or hide his artistical or literary
production, while the second receives only the right regarding his copy or
translation, not being allowed to the latter to restrict by his own accordance
the social circulation of other copies or translations of the same work, unless
he has thus negotiated with the owner of the patrimonial copyrights. In
practice, that represents, in terms of bookselling market, the opening of the
free commerce, since the same work could suffer countless translations, as long
as the copyright is respected. In effect, the §2° of the art. 5º of the project
of law of Pedro Americo addresses that the rights of literary property
encompasses the exclusive right of do or authorize the translation of the work.
63.
Considering
that promise from the first speech of Pedro Américo, which was, of bringing his
personal experience in the elaboration of the aforementioned project, it can be
said that the inclusion of an article dedicated exclusively to the rights of
property in the figurative and plastic arts is its major differential. Thus,
the art. 7° of his project of law establishes that the “cession of a work of
art does not grant its acquirer, save from contrary adjustment, the right of
reproduction, whatever be its form”[38] To preserve the public interest, in the
paragraph §2° of the same article it is written, however, that “if, however,
the acquirer is the State, county or some public establishment and the
reproduction is deemed to be of blatant national interest, the right of the
author to fully forbid it ceases to exist, leaving the author only that of
choosing the reproducers and demand a proper monetary restitution”
64.
The
provisions of the art. 7 and his successive paragraphs from the project of
Pedro Américo did not extend itself, however to the “works of architecture that
does not have a blatant artistical purpose, to the explanatory plans and
pictures, geographical, topographical and other such similar maps, without
special merit, furniture to the usage of schools and other public
establishments and in general the anonymous works done to assist the teaching,
labor or to satisfy intellectual needs without transcendence”. In sum, Pedro
Américo, in this last paragraph, establishes, in a certain way, two opposing
fields in regards to the figurative production: one that would belong to the
domain of art, whose core attribute would be “transcendence” and another, part
of a domain tied to “practical” destination, aimed to the technical
reproduction, such as the educational or labor usage, supposedly lacking
finality or quality properly artistical.
65.
The
project does not finishes without, first, mentioning in the arts. 8º. through
11, the matter of plagiarism and the mechanisms of protection against the
violation of any of the copyrights, punished with fines and monetary
restitutions to the author. Particularly interesting is the protective trait of
the art. 10 that punishes the intentional debasement (by means of critic,
certainly!) of artistical or literary work with the clear or hidden purpose of
damaging the author.
66.
The
project of Pedro Américo - and of the other many projects about copyright that
came before - did not came to pass. According to what writes Carlos Alberto
Bittar, this was the reason of the lack of success:
67.
Obstacles of doctrinaire aspect always
opposed itself to the many attempts made to endow Brazil of special law about
copyright: the one that, as property, it could not deserve monopolistic
attribution about ideas, since those belonged to the common collection of
humanity. Due to this reason is that, basically, none of the countless projects
of law presented in Brazil to the regency of the topic have not succeeded,
since 1856 [...][39]
68.
Only
in August 1898, five years after the proposal of Pedro Américo, would Brazil
have its first law of copyright: the Law 496, whose authoring was the
congressman.[40] However, this norm would be revoked in
1916, by the then new Civil Code, that destined a specific chapter about the
theme - “Of the literary, scientifical and artistical property” -, to approach
the questions related to the author’s rights.
Brief Conclusion Note: Talk of the advancements
69.
The end
of the monarchic system in Brazil represented also the vanishing of the
imperial patronage that guaranteed the dynamic of part of the world of art and
letters in Brazil. It is in this context, of “cooling” of the national market
of arts, that Pedro Américo joins the Chamber of Congressman, right after the
Proclamation of the Republic. Even with his participation in the Legislative
lacking meaning, due to the constant trips to Europe, the painter from Paraiba
inserted himself in an important debate about literary and artistical property,
that worried artists from both sides of the Atlantic, as can be seen by the
efforts of France in the sense of ensuring the signing of a convention between
both countries. Be it Brazilian, Portuguese or French, the problem of the
guarantee of rights about the artistical production in Brazilian soil worried
many because it was overextending itself, without resulting in significant
conquests. Not without reason, it is precisely six days after the rejection of
the Literary Convention between Brazil and Europe that Pedro Américo presents
his project of law to the legislative, in which is worth to mention the worry
in ensuring identical rights to any artist, despite country of origin or
residency. Were this not already a significant advance if compared to other
projects, the one from Pedro Américo established, as mentioned before, the
distinction between moral and patrimonial rights about the artistical
production, in order to guarantee the interference in the process of reproduction
or translation of the alienated work. Beyond that, the possibility of
transmission to third parties, theme of any and all project elaborated in that
century, would start to depend on the express will of the author (according to
art. 1º., §2º., of the project of law), which no longer exists nowadays (art.
24, §1º., of the Law nº 9.610/1998). Thus, it can be stated that the project of
law of Pedro Américo constitutes important piece to the history of the
copyright in Brazil, even if, as the ones that preceded it, it didn’t take the
form of law, it brought to the national scenery important elements to the
advancement of the discussion in the theme.
Bibliographical references
AMÉRICO, Pedro. Discurso sobre
o Plágio - Proferido a 25 de junho de 1880, em Lyão, perante a Associação dos
Dramaturgos. In: AMÉRICO, Pedro. Alguns
Discursos. Florença: Imprensa de l’Arte della Stampa, 1888.
AMÉRICO, Pedro. La Science et les Systèmes - Questions d’Histoire et de Philosophie Naturelle.
Bruxelas:
Gustave Mayolez, 1869.
ANNAES DO PARLAMENTO
BRASILEIRO. Câmara dos Srs. Deputados. Quarto anno da décima quinta
legislatura. Sessão em 07 de julho de 1875. Tomo III. Rio de Janeiro:
Typographia Imperial e Constitucional de J. Villeneuve & C, 1875.
ANNAES DA CAMARA DOS
DEPUTADOS. Terceira sessão da primeira Legislatura. Sessões em 12 e 18 de julho
de 1893. Volume III. Rio de Janeiro: Imprensa Nacional, 1894.
AUGUSTI, Valéria. Contrafação
e Convenção Literária no Brasil do Oitocentos. In: SALES, Germana Maria Araújo;
FURTADO, Marlí Tereza; NAZARD, Sérgio David. (Org.). Interpretação do Texto,
Leitura do Contexto. Rio de Janeiro: 7 Letras, 2013, v. 1, p. 187-202.
AUGUSTI, Valéria. Os
Fundamentos da Propriedade Literária por José de Alencar. Todas as Letras -
Revista de Língua e Literatura. v. 14, n. 1, 2012, p.
BITTAR, Carlos Alberto. O
Poder Legislativo e o Direito de Autor. Revista de Informação Legislativa do
Senado Federal. a. 26, n. 101, jan./mar. 1989, p. 135-146.
CARDOSO DE OLIVEIRA, J.M. Pedro
Américo, sua Vida e suas Obras. Rio de Janeiro: Imprensa Nacional, 1943.
CARVALHO, J. M. de. A
Formação das Almas: O Imaginário da República no Brasil. São Paulo:
Companhia das Letras, 1990.
CAVALCANTI, Ana Maria Tavares.
Os embates no meio artístico carioca em 1890 - antecedentes da Reforma da
Academia das Belas Artes. 19&20,
Rio de Janeiro, v. II, n. 2, abr. 2007. Disponível em: http://www.dezenovevinte.net/criticas/embate_1890.htm
DURAND, José Carlos. Arte,
Privilégio e Distinção: Artes Plásticas, Arquitetura e Classe Dirigente no
Brasil, 1855/1985. São Paulo: Perspectivas/Editora da Universidade de São
Paulo, 1989.
DUQUE ESTRADA, Luiz Gonzaga A
Arte Brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Lombaerts, 1888.
FERREIRA, Tania Maria T.
Bessone da Cruz. Direito de propriedade ou propriedade literária: os
debates sobre autoria no Brasil Imperial (1862-1889). Trabalho apresentado no I
Seminário Brasileiro sobre Livro e História Editorial. Realização: FCRB,
UFF/PPGCOM e• UFF/LIHED. 8 a 11 de novembro de 2004. Casa de Rui Barbosa, Rio
de Janeiro, Brasil.
FERREIRA, Tania Maria T.
Bessone da Cruz. Definindo Privilégios: A Questão da Propriedade Literária
nas Relações entre Brasil e Portugal (1862-1889). Trabalho apresentado ao NP IV
- Produção Editorial, no XXVII Congresso Brasileiro de Ciências da Comunicação,
s/d.
FRANCA FILHO, Marcílio
Toscano. O Silêncio Eloquente. Coimbra: Almedina, 2008.
MAMEDE, Gladston; FRANCA
FILHO, Marcílio Toscano; RODRIGUES JUNIOR, Otavio Luiz. Direito da Arte.
São Paulo: Atlas, 2015.
SOARES, Rogério Guilherme
Ehrhardt. Sentido e Limites da Função Legislativa no Estado Contemporâneo. In:
s/a. A Feitura das Leis. s/l: s/e, s/d.
TAVARES, Ana Maria Cavalcanti.
Os Embates no Meio Artístico Carioca entre 1890-1920: Antecedentes da
Reforma da Academia das Belas Artes, disponível em
http://www.dezenovevinte.net/criticas/embate-1890.htm
UNION
INTERNATIONALE POUR LA PROTECTION DES OEUVRES LITTERAIRES ET ARTISTIQUES. Le
Droit d'Auteur: Organe Officiel du Bureau de l'Union Internationale pour la
Protection des Oeuvres Littéraires et Artistiques. a. 7, n. 8, p. 109-120,
15 de agosto de 1894.
UNION
INTERNATIONALE POUR LA PROTECTION DES OEUVRES LITTERAIRES ET ARTISTIQUES. Le
Droit d'Auteur: Organe Officiel du Bureau de l'Union Internationale pour la
Protection des Oeuvres Littéraires et Artistiques. a. 6, n. 3, p. 25-36, 15
de março de 1893.
UNION
INTERNATIONALE POUR LA PROTECTION DES OEUVRES LITTERAIRES ET ARTISTIQUES. Le
Droit d'Auteur: Organe Officiel du Bureau de l'Union Internationale pour la
Protection des Oeuvres Littéraires et Artistiques. a. 5, n. 9, p. 105-118,
15 de setembro de 1892.
ZACCARA, Madalena. Pedro
Américo de Figueiredo e Mello, um Artista Brasileiro do Século XIX. Recife: Editora da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco,
2011.
______________________________
[1] Professor at the
Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE), where she teaches at the
Interinstitutional Program of Post-Graduation in Visual Arts. Graduated in
Architecture and Urbanism by the Federal University of Pernambuco (1976) and in
Law by the Catholic University of Pernambuco (UNICAP, 1975), Masters (DEA) in
History and Civilizations at the Université Toulouse II (1992), France, and
doctorate in History of Art, also at the Université Toulouse II (1995), through
the CAPES scholarship. Post-Doctorate by the School of Fine Arts of the
University of Oporto, Portugal (2014). Member of the National Association of
Researchers in Plastic Arts (ANPAP), of the Federation of Brazilian Educators
of Art (FAEB) and the Institute of Investigation in Art, Design and Society
I2ADS (Porto, Portugal). Leader of the research group “Art, Culture and
Memory”. Author of several articles and books
[2] Professor of Brazilian
Literature at the Post-Graduation Program of the Federal University of Pará
(UFPA). Graduated in Social Sciences through the University of Campinas (1990),
Masters in Literary Theory at the State University of Campinas (1998) e
doctorate in Theory and Literary History at the State University of Campinas
(2006). Post-Doctorate in the Universite de Versailles
Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, France (2013-2014)
[3] Post-doctor (European
University Institute, Florence, 2008, Calouste Gulbenkian Post-Doctoral
Fellow), Ph.D. (University of Coimbra, 2006, FCT fellowship), and Master of
Laws (UFPB, 1999). Professor at the Universidade Federal da Paraíba (UFPB) Law
School and Prosecutor at the Prosecution Office at the Audit Court of Paraíba,
Brazil. Member of the International Association of Constitutional Law, member
of the International Society of Public Law, member of the Instituto
Hispano-Luso-Americano de Derecho Internacional (IHLADI) and President of the
Brazilian Branch of the International Law Association. Former student
(Gasthörer) at the Free University of Berlin (Germany), visiting trainee at the
Court of Justice of the European Communities (Luxembourg), Legal Advisor of the
UN Mission in Timor-Leste (UNOTIL) and the World Bank (PFMCBP/Timor).
Coordinator of LABIRINT — International Laboratory of Investigations into
Transjuridicity (UFPB). The Portuguese version of this text was published in
Brazil in 2011. The current version brings minor modifications, carried out
after some insightful feedback. English translation by Caio Martino
(Universidade Federal da Paraíba)
[4] BITTAR, 1989, p. 137.
Traditionally, copyright and privilege are distinct institutions from the legal
standpoint. Throughout the history, privilege was a sort of license to print
that, for most part, did not even belong to the authors, that only sold their
originals to an editing bookseller in exchange of some copies richly decorated.
The Law of August 11th of 1872, however, explicitly grans the authors
(professors of the newly founded Law course) the mentioned privilege
[5] The text of the law
can be consulted in: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/LIM/LIM-11-08-1827.htm
[6] The text of the Code
can be consulted in: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/lim/lim-16-12-1830.htm
[7] BITTAR, 1989, p. 139
[8] FERREIRA, s/d, p. 3
[9] BITTAR, 1989, p. 139
[10] Those expeditions needed
skilled designers and painters to picture the explored flora, fauna and
geography
[11] The
doctorate thesis was published under the title "La Science et les Systèmes
- Questions d’Histoire et de Philosophie Naturelle" (1869)
[12]
ZACCARA, 2011, passim
[13]
CARVALHO, 1990. p. 9
[14] Joaquim José da Silva
Xavier, Tiradentes, (Pombal-1746 - Rio de Janeiro 1792). The movement named “Inconfidência Mineira” happened in 1789, in the
region of Minas Gerais, main producer of gold in Brazil at the time. The
revolutionary wanted exemption from the taxes, steep, paid to the Crown. They
also wanted the development of the manufactures and an incentive to the
agricultural production. That would mean the ending of the commercial monopoly
of Portugal and, technically, the Brazilian independency. Tiradentes, condemned
to death, was transformed into the first and greatest symbol of the republican
ideals
[15] CARVALHO, 1990, p. 141
[16] Museum D. João VI.
National School of Fine Arts. Dossier Pedro Américo. Doc. N. 139
[17] Cf. CARDOSO DE
OLIVEIRA, 1943, p. 180-181
[18] Known as Lei Saraiva,
the electoral reform proposed by Rui Barbosa and publicized in January of 1881,
constituted one of the most important measures of the Empire at that decade. In
an attempt to fulfill the desires of change, the reform established the direct
vote for the legislative elections, ending the elections in two degrees (there
was an electoral college) and the restrictive distinction between “voters” and
“electorates” that existed until then. In the first degree, the “voters”,
citizens with the minimum wage stipulated by law and indicated at each election
by a qualification group, voted in those that would, on the second degree,
participate as “electorates” of the ballot to the choice of members of
legislative assemblies. With the reform, it was established that the individual
itself would need to require his electoral enrollment, proving his right
through documents demanded in the law. It was thus created the elector title
and eliminated the system of list and the naming of “voters” by the
qualification group, minimizing the margin for errors and frauds. The minimum
wage requirement was kept, but the right to vote was extended to the
non-catholics, the naturalized Brazilian and the freeman. Articulated as an
instrument of moralization of the electoral process, the Saraiva Law seemed to
have reached their goals at that moment, since the Conservative Party, albeit
minor, elected an expressive bench of 47 congressmen. With the passing of time,
however, the old vices of fraud and the pressure over voters returned, burring
the hopes of consolidating the electoral candor
[19] Private Archives of
Monsignor Rui Vieira. Areia. Paraíba. Artist Journal. April of 1881. Note about
his intention to be a candidate and his request to help to his family. Dated by
April 19th of 1881
[20] Private Archives of
Monsignor Rui Vieira. Areia. Paraíba. Artist Journal. June of 1881. Copy of the
letter sent by Pedro Américo to the chief of the Conservative Party. Written in
Florence and dated by June 20th of 1881
[21] Private Archives of
Monsignor Rui Vieira. Areia. Paraíba. Letter to the voters of the city f Areia,
written in Rome and dated by July 16th of 1881
[22] Private Archives of
Monsignor Rui Vieira. Areia. Paraíba. Artist Journal. September 1881. Note made
in September 6th of 1881. In it, Américo states having recommended his family
to accept the offer of the Liberal Party to introduce him as a candidate
[23] Private Archives of
Monsignor Rui Vieira. Areia. Paraíba. Artist Journal. November of 1883. Answer
to Daniel Pedro Ferro Cardoso, his childhood friend and study companion in
Paris and Belgium. Dated by November 2nd of 1883
[24] Manifest of Pedro Américo
to the Brazilian Artists - edited and distributed as a pamphlet, whose
reproduction in the local papers at the time is unknown. The journal of the
artist transcribed it and it can be (or could be) found in the Regional Museum
of Areia (the House of Pedro Américo) in full. It is of note that, since the
late 19th century, the legislative work was seen, essentially, as inferring
rationally the great universal principles that should govern life in society,
therefore only very elevated spirits were apt to “communicate with the stars”,
according to the beautiful metaphor of Rogério Soares (SOARES, s/d, p.
436). Of this vision of the world, resulted the sublime respect that was
lent to the legislator, a man knowledgeable enough to, with especial devotion to
the truth and rare capacity of enlightened and unbiased thought, reach what was
the justice and the Law (SOARES, s/d, p. 436-437). Only the best and the most
independent could be legislators - and that would explain, for instance, the
presence of scholars such as Honoré de Balzac, Epitácio Pessoa or José de
Alencar in the parliament! In this fashion, it was “justified” the censual vote
and, in a tautological manner, the supremacy of the law as source of the Law,
after all, the law came from a body that sported a position of moral and
intellectual superiority in regards to the other agencies of the State and
society itself. Note that the supremacy of the law (the juricentrism), as
conceived by the French revolutionaries of 1789, did not admit any exception,
not even when facing the Constitution, understood then as a political document
that lacked normativity (FRANCA FILHO, 2008, p.114).
[25] Private Archives of
Monsignor Rui Vieira. Areia. Paraíba. List of the congressment and their
addresses
[26] UNION
INTERNATIONALE POUR LA PROTECTION DES OEUVRES LITTERAIRES ET ARTISTIQUES, 1892,
p. 111
[27] In truth the
convention was signed by Tristão de Alencar Araripe, check the news published
afterwards in UNION INTERNATIONALE POUR LA PROTECTION DES OEUVRES LITTERAIRES
ET ARTISTIQUES, 1893, p. 30
[28] UNION
INTERNATIONALE POUR LA PROTECTION DES OEUVRES LITTERAIRES ET ARTISTIQUES, 1892,
p. 112
[29] UNION
INTERNATIONALE POUR LA PROTECTION DES OEUVRES LITTERAIRES ET ARTISTIQUES, 1894,
p. 113. Similar news are found in Le Temps and in Le Figaro, of Paris. In the
previous year, a small note in the French newspaper Le Temps, in his edition of
September 20th of 1892, already anticipated this failure with express mention
about Pedro Américo: “Nous recevons une dépêche de Rio-Janeiro disant que, pour
desmotifs supérieurs, le Corps législatif du Brésil ne ratifiera pas, dans la
session de cette année, la convention littéraire avec la France. M. Nilo
Peçanha, rapporteur de la commission de traités et de diplomatie de la Chambre
des députés, aurait même suspendu l'élaboration de son rapport à ce sujet. Il
est à rapprocher de cette nouvelle que le Congrès brésilien a été saisi d'un
projet de fondation d'un théâtre national, signé de M. Pedro Américo et de
vingt autres députés” (Le Temps, a. 42, n. 114, September 20th of 1892, p. 4)
[30] ANNAES,
1893, p. 224
[31] UNION
INTERNATIONALE POUR LA PROTECTION DES OEUVRES LITTERAIRES ET ARTISTIQUES, 1894,
p. 113
[32] ANNAES,
1893, p. 224
[33] ANNAES, 1893, p. 224.
Few days after, in the session of July 18th of 1893, the Congressman Pedro
Américo again requests the stand to appeal to the Presidency of the Chamber of
Congressmen to put his project to vote (ANNAES, 1893, p. 300)
[34] ANNAES, 1893, p. 224
[35] ANNAES, 1893, p. 225
[36] ANNAES, 1893, p. 28
[37] ANNAES, 1893, p. 225.
The current Law nº 9.610/1998 protects explicitly the translation “Art. 7º It
is considered works intellectually protected the creations of the spirit,
expressed by any means or exposed in any support, tangible or intangible, known
or that can be invented in the future, such as: XI - the adaptations,
translations and other transformations of original works, introduced as a new
intellectual creation”.
[38] ANNAES, 1893, p. 226.
Currently, the Brazilian law of copyright regulates in a similar fashion the
subject “Art. 37. The acquisition of the original of a work or exemplar, does
not grant the purchaser any of the patrimonial rights of the author, save
contrary convention between the parties and the cases set in this Law”.
[39] BITTAR, 1989, p. 139
[40] BITTAR, 1989, p. 139.
FERREIRA, s/d, p. 3