Post by account_disabled on Jan 11, 2024 12:24:56 GMT 1
Health clinic must pay royalties for use of televisions in rooms. The understanding is that of the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice, which ordered Samoc — Sociedade Assistencial Médica e Odonto-Cirúrgica, to pay copyright to the Collection and Distribution Office, Ecad, for the reproduction of audio-visual works in hospitalization rooms.
According to the STJ, charging in hospital Special Data centers is legal under the same terms as charging in motels and hotel chains. For billing, the important thing is to define whether works are being carried out in public places. The concept of collective attendance locations was established by Law 9,610/98. Before this law, the STJ did not allow charging in hotels.
For Samoc, the use of TVs in private rooms was intended solely for the entertainment of patients and not for indirect profit. Therefore, he defended the impossibility of charging. The first and second instances understood otherwise. Both considered that television in hospital rooms is not a determining factor for those seeking health treatment.
Ecad showed the STJ Court precedents according to which the concept of profit does not interfere with the collection of copyright. In one case, the STJ considered that charges were possible in relation to the public exhibition of a carnival spectacle. In another, the STJ recognized the legitimacy of the charge in cases of reproduction of works at an agricultural fair.
The 3rd Panel of the STJ accepted Ecad's appeal to charge from November 1998 until the moment when illegal reproduction ceases. Payment must be based on the average use of television sets within the clinic.
According to the STJ, charging in hospital Special Data centers is legal under the same terms as charging in motels and hotel chains. For billing, the important thing is to define whether works are being carried out in public places. The concept of collective attendance locations was established by Law 9,610/98. Before this law, the STJ did not allow charging in hotels.
For Samoc, the use of TVs in private rooms was intended solely for the entertainment of patients and not for indirect profit. Therefore, he defended the impossibility of charging. The first and second instances understood otherwise. Both considered that television in hospital rooms is not a determining factor for those seeking health treatment.
Ecad showed the STJ Court precedents according to which the concept of profit does not interfere with the collection of copyright. In one case, the STJ considered that charges were possible in relation to the public exhibition of a carnival spectacle. In another, the STJ recognized the legitimacy of the charge in cases of reproduction of works at an agricultural fair.
The 3rd Panel of the STJ accepted Ecad's appeal to charge from November 1998 until the moment when illegal reproduction ceases. Payment must be based on the average use of television sets within the clinic.