UGC in Brazil: who owns user-generated content

When a brand DM's you with "we'd love to repost your video," what is actually happening legally? The market has normalized practices that, under Brazilian copyright law, are barely defensible if challenged. Knowing the difference is what separates creators who get paid for their content from those who give it away.

This is not about being adversarial. It's about understanding what you actually own, what the brand actually receives, and what should be in writing before the content moves anywhere beyond the original post.

Who owns UGC by default in Brazil

Brazil's Copyright Act (LDA, Law No. 9,610/1998) is unambiguous on this point. Article 11 establishes that the author of an intellectual work is always a natural person — the human who created it. For audiovisual content (a creator's video, a photographer's shot, a musician's track), the author is the creator who produced it.

The author holds two sets of rights from the moment of creation:

• Moral rights (Art. 24): paternity, integrity of the work, the right to keep the work unpublished. These are inalienable and cannot be transferred.
• Economic rights (Arts. 28-29): the exclusive right to use, reproduce, distribute, modify, and publicly communicate the work. These can be assigned or licensed.

When a creator posts UGC tagging a brand, neither set is transferred. The post itself does not move ownership.

What a brand actually receives by default

Without a written contract, a brand mentioned or tagged in UGC receives, at most, an implied license — and only for the specific context of the original posting.

If the creator films a video for their Instagram and tags the brand, the implied license covers that Instagram post. It does not extend to:

• Paid advertising amplification by the brand
• Use on the brand's owned channels (website, email, retail)
• Repurposing in other formats (cropping for TikTok, vertical reels)
• Reuse months or years later as part of a different campaign
• Cross-territory use beyond the original audience

Each of those uses requires explicit authorization. Article 49 of the Copyright Act sets the bar: assignment must be in writing, with defined scope (term, territory, modality, exclusivity).

What a written UGC agreement should cover

When a brand is serious about UGC — at scale, with real budget, for ad amplification — a written agreement should address at minimum:

1. Identification of the work — which content is being licensed (specific posts, raw files, or future deliverables)
2. Scope of rights — display, reproduction, modification, distribution, public communication
3. Term — definite (6 months, 1 year) is preferable to "perpetual"; perpetual licenses without time limit have specific issues under Brazilian doctrine
4. Territory — Brazil only, LATAM, global
5. Channels — only the brand's owned social, or extending to paid ads, retail, OOH, broadcast
6. Exclusivity or non-exclusivity — does the creator commit not to use the same content for competitors during the term
7. Compensation — fixed fee, performance bonus, residuals on amplification
8. Moral rights protections — credit format, prohibition against modifications that damage the creator's image
9. Image rights if the creator appears on camera (separate from copyright — see image rights post)
10. Termination and post-termination obligations — takedown windows, residual licenses for material already produced

Brands operating below this bar are running unwritten exposure on legacy practice. It works until it doesn't.

When the brand uses UGC without authorization

This is the most common dispute. Three steps tend to be effective:

Documentation. Capture the original creator post and the unauthorized use side by side, with timestamps. Save the URLs. Screenshot context.

Formal notice. A written notice to the brand demanding takedown or compensation has evidentiary weight and resolves most good-faith cases. Brand legal teams understand the LDA — once a violation is documented and notified, internal escalation is usually fast.

Platform takedown. Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube have copyright takedown mechanisms that tend to be efficient when documentation is solid. This is parallel to the formal notice — the takedown removes the unauthorized use; the notice preserves the legal claim.

If the brand refuses, judicial action under Articles 102-110 of the Copyright Act is available, with potential for both material and moral damages. Damages calculation considers, among other factors, the unauthorized commercial benefit obtained.

What this means operationally

For brands working with creators in Brazil:

• Treat every UGC opportunity as requiring written agreement before content moves beyond the original post
• Standardize a UGC license template; make it clear and creator-friendly
• Train social and marketing teams on the difference between "this is a great post" and "we have rights to use this in our ad"

For creators:

• Read every brief carefully — UGC briefs that ask for "perpetual rights to all uses" without compensation are not market practice; they are negotiation positions
• Ask for the written agreement before delivering content; not after
• Document everything; even when the relationship is friendly

The Brazilian Copyright Act is favorable to creators by default. The question is whether the contract reflects that default or whether the creator gives away more than the law would allow as silent.

FAQ

Author

Monika Hosaki

Managing Partner and founder of Hosaki Advogados. Practice in intellectual property, digital law, and creator economy. Over 10 years at the intersection of technology and law.

Meet Monika Hosaki →