Brazil's AI bill would let musicians block training and get paid, if the Chamber ever votes on it

Brazil has a bill on the table that gives musicians more say over AI training than almost anything passed elsewhere. Rightsholders could forbid AI developers from training on their work, and developers that do use protected work would have to pay for it. The Senate approved PL 2338/2023 on 10 December 2024. Nearly two years later it is stuck in the Chamber of Deputies, and the Chamber's own records show the committee handling it has not met in 2026.

What does the bill say about music?

The copyright chapter sits in Section IV of the text the Senate sent to the Chamber, Articles 62 to 66. In short:

• Disclosure (Art. 62). A developer that uses copyright-protected content must publish a summary of it on an easily accessible website, subject to trade secrets and later regulation. "Development" covers mining, training, retraining, testing, validation and application.
• A narrow exception (Art. 63). Text and data mining for AI research is not infringement when done by scientific, research and educational bodies, museums, public archives and libraries, provided access was lawful, the use is non-commercial and limited to what is needed. Institutions linked to or controlled by a for-profit AI provider are excluded.
• A right to say no (Art. 64). Outside that exception, the holder of copyright or related rights can prohibit use of their content in AI development. Withdrawing content after training doesn't free the developer from liability for damages.
• A duty to pay (Art. 65). An AI developer that uses protected content for mining, training or development must pay the rightsholders. They can negotiate collectively under Brazil's copyright law (Lei 9.610/1998) or directly, and may license for free or for a fee. The payment should be reasonable and proportionate, taking into account the developer's size and how far its outputs compete with the originals.
• Voices (Art. 66). Using images, audio, voice or video that identify real people must respect personality rights under the Civil Code.

Two details in Article 65 matter for anyone outside Brazil. Payment is due only to rightsholders domiciled in Brazil, or in countries that give Brazilians equivalent reciprocal protection, and the text bars collecting it where reciprocity isn't assured. And a rightsholder who chooses direct negotiation can do so without waiting for regulation.

The timing is unusual too. Under Article 80 the law as a whole takes effect 730 days after publication, but the copyright section applies after 180 days and the disclosure duty in Article 62 applies immediately. Fines under Article 50 run up to R$50 million per infringement or, for private companies, 2% of their gross revenue in Brazil. None of it is law yet. CASRAI's status tracker is blunt: nothing in PL 2338/2023 is in force.

Where is it stuck?

The Chamber received the bill on 17 March 2025 and set up a special committee to report on it. Deputy Aguinaldo Ribeiro (PP-PB) was named rapporteur on 20 May 2025, according to the Chamber's record, and Deputy Luisa Canziani chairs the committee. As of 23 October 2026 the bill's status is still "awaiting the rapporteur's opinion". The latest entries on the record are notices that other bills have been attached to it.

The committee was busy in 2025. Its event log shows hearings on generative AI and copyright on 2 and 9 September 2025 and a seminar on AI's impact on the creative, journalism and cultural sectors on 13 November. The last recorded event was a seminar on 24 November 2025. The log has nothing from 2026, which matches InterSpace's August report that the committee hasn't met since November 2025.

The deadlines keep moving. In May, Teletime reported a plan for Ribeiro to present his report on 19 May and a plenary vote on 27 May. Committee members called copyright one of the bill's main bottlenecks. Neither date was met. On 24 August Ribeiro told Mobile Time that the vote would probably come at the end of the year, after October's elections. He said the open issues, copyright included, are being worked out with the Senate rapporteur, Senator Eduardo Gomes, because the bill goes back to the Senate once the Chamber approves it.

The lobbying runs both ways. InterSpace reports that music, audiovisual, publishing and journalism groups, including Pro-Música Brasil, UBC and ECAD, wrote in May 2026 asking for the copyright chapter to survive intact. The journalists' federation Fenaj said Big Tech wants the section removed. Technology firms argue it would make training local models unviable.

Why Brazil matters

Brazil isn't a niche market. Recorded music revenue rose 14.1% in 2025 to R$3.958 billion, and IFPI ranked the country eighth in the world, up from tenth two years earlier, Agência Brasil reported from Pro-Música Brasil's figures. Whatever rule Brazil adopts will govern a big and growing catalogue, not a footnote.

What we think

On paper, this is one of the most pro-creator AI texts in any big music market. The UK dropped its opt-out plan under public pressure, without saying what replaces it. Brazil's Senate went further: a right to prohibit plus a duty to pay that applies even to work nobody opted out. That flips the model the UK consulted on, where silence meant free use. For an independent artist who will never find out which model trained on their catalogue, the payment duty matters more than the right to object.

But read Article 65 closely. Three things decide whether artists actually get paid.

First, reciprocity. Payment goes only to rightsholders in Brazil or in countries that protect Brazilians on equivalent terms. On our reading, a writer domiciled in a country with no comparable training-remuneration right could block training in Brazil but might not be able to collect for it. IP Global Guard notes that even how this applies to EU rightsholders is an open question. That is a lever to push other countries to match Brazil, but it could also make foreign catalogues cheaper to train on than Brazilian ones. Expect developers to notice.

Second, who collects. Collective licensing is the only practical route for most artists, so how much reaches them depends on the distribution rules of the bodies that collect. The bill says payment must be "reasonable and proportionate" but sets no rate and no minimum share for creators. If the Chamber keeps the chapter, the fight moves to those rules, and artists should be in that room rather than leaving it to labels and publishers.

Third, delay is a decision. Every month the committee doesn't meet, models keep training on Brazilian music with no AI-specific rule, and the 180-day clock for the copyright chapter hasn't started. Even if the Chamber voted in December 2026, the bill would still need to go back through the Senate and be signed into law, so the copyright rules would apply in the second half of 2027 at the earliest and the rest of the law not before 2029. Lobbyists who want the chapter gone don't need to win a vote. They only need the committee to stay quiet.

Our view: the Chamber should keep Articles 62 to 65 largely as written, add a clear, machine-readable way to register a prohibition, and require the collective route to publish how AI money is shared out. Without those, the strongest artist-rights text in the field turns into a payment system artists can't see into.

Sources

• PL 2338/2023, full text as sent by the Senate, Câmara dos Deputados, 17 Mar 2025
• PL 2338/2023, ficha de tramitação, Câmara dos Deputados
• Special committee events and officers, Câmara dos Deputados Dados Abertos
• PL 2338/2023 and process record, Senado Federal
• Marco da IA: votação deve ficar para o fim do ano, Mobile Time, 24 Aug 2026
• Parlamentares tentam retomar cronograma para PL de IA, Teletime, 4 May 2026
• Brazil's AI Bill Would Let Rightsholders Block Training Data, InterSpace Daily, 18 Aug 2026
• Brazil AI bill PL 2338/2023 and copyright, IP Global Guard
• Brazil AI bill PL 2338/2023: status, CASRAI
• Faturamento do mercado fonográfico brasileiro cresce 14% em 2025, Agência Brasil, 24 Mar 2026