Mariana Valverde* October 03, 2022 | 06h00 Mariana Valverde. PHOTO: DIVULGAÇÃO The release of a ruling by the São Paulo State Court of Justice, in an appeal that discussed the occurrence of possible plagiarism in an architectural project, deepens the discussion on one aspect: the fine line between inspiration and copying. The court upheld the lower court's decision, which dismissed the case. The decision, like the lower court ruling, was based on expert evidence that did not identify any originality in the work that was the subject of the alleged plagiarism. Without going into the details of the specific case mentioned above, it is worth reflecting on the reasons for the increase in discussions on the subject and alternatives to avoid conflicts of this kind. In a world where inspiration drives markets and defines social groups, especially in Brazil where trends are followed to the letter, the challenge is how to differentiate between inspiration and copying. This differentiation is not simple, nor is it obvious, but the main point is to analyze the originality of the work and the elements that make up the novelty capable of differentiating it from what has already been created. In the case of architectural works, these are protected by the Copyright Law, regardless of registration, as set out in article 7, item X, which states that intellectual works are protected creations of the mind, expressed by any means or fixed in any medium, tangible or intangible, known or to be invented in the future, such as projects, sketches and plastic works concerning geography, engineering, topography, architecture, landscaping, scenography and science. In addition to the protection established by the legislation in force, it is possible to deposit the work with the Council of Architecture and Urbanism, as provided for in Resolution 67/2013 of the said council, as well as with the Copyright Office of the National Library. It is important to note that the deposit processes mentioned above are intended to formalize the content and date of creation of the project, and neither the Council of Architecture and Urbanism nor the Copyright Office analyse the originality and novelty of the deposited works. This is not to say that prior deposits have no practical effect, quite the contrary, when well instructed and documented, they can even contain the sources of inspiration, which is perfect for aligning inspiration with novelty capable of differentiating it from the ordinary. The process of determining originality and novelty in a dispute is more complex, and in most conflicts is carried out through technical expertise. Forensics in these cases tends to analyze elements and details of the project, ranging from shapes, colors and style to the construction techniques used, as well as the previous existence of a similar set. In short, the creative process and inspiration must go hand in hand, innovating and creating the individual nuances that enable them to differentiate and guarantee authorship. The creative process therefore requires time, research and construction, conflicting with the current trend towards immediacy, the expectation of rapid delivery of services and the pressure to reduce costs. This conflict certainly hampers the creative process and may be fostering the copying industry. *Mariana Valverde, lawyer specializing in intellectual property law and partner at Moreau Valverde Advogados