After attempting to 'censor' a photo of Sugar Loaf Mountain, the park backtracks; 'Mountains are in a public place', says expert

The statement issued by Parque Bondinho accuses ITS of seeking "undue commercial advantage", with "parasitic exploitation and unjust enrichment". In the document, the lawyers state that the companies Companhia Caminho Aéreo Pão de Açúcar and Pão de Açúcar Empreendimentos Turísticos are the "sole and exclusive holders of the rights to exploit the commercial image and representations of the Parque Bondinho Pão de Açúcar". This statement is followed by requirements, such as a ban on the use of images of the site in future publications, and the signing of a term of commitment that prevents ITS from using, without prior authorization, "any intellectual property asset" of the park.

According to Luiz Fernando Plastino, a lawyer specializing in Intellectual Property, Privacy and Data Protection at BTLAW, there is no copyright on natural landscapes, but rather copyright on works created by human beings.

- There are prohibitions on photography inside parks or properties with natural beauty, but this usually stems from rules imposed by the owner or administrator of the place, in other words, it doesn't come from the law and only applies to those who are inside and have accepted these rules - he points out.

The copyright law itself reinforces that works of art and constructions made in public places can be represented in photographs, drawings and film footage without the need for authorization. However, there are exceptions when the images are used for economic exploitation.

- The use of graffiti in Batman's Alley in São Paulo, for example, is the subject of debate, as the scene is constantly used for advertising. There has also been controversy over the use of the image of Christ the Redeemer as the basis for jewelry. Each case needs to be analyzed individually. Architectural works also have the aggravating factor that authorization for the image should come from the architect who designed the project, and not the owner of the building. Copyright belongs to the person who developed the work, not the owner of it - he says.

Gustavo Kloh, a law professor at the Getúlio Vargas Foundation, argues that Parque Bondinho's demands regarding the use of its image by ITS-Rio are unfounded, especially since the tourist structure is built in a public place.

- Copyright law talks about works of art, but we can make an analogy in relation to Sugarloaf Mountain. The mountains are public property and are located in a public place. It's a landscape that is part of everyday life, it's accessible. Through the concession, the company is exploiting a tourist asset that belongs to everyone. The mountains are an international reference, they are a postcard, not the Bondinho Park - he explains

The institute's director, lawyer, professor and researcher, Ronaldo Lemos, points out that the cable car is a means of transportation and is therefore not protected by copyright.

- It doesn't make sense to think that a transport vehicle integrated into an urban landscape can be copyrighted. It's like having a boat passing between two mountains. That boat doesn't have those kinds of rights - he stresses.

According to Lemos, the publication that was notified was intended to publicize an international research program at no cost to attract talent to Brazil. He also states that the institute operates on a non-profit basis and the use of the image was "legitimate". Despite this, they have removed the publication from their social networks.

In response to Parque Bondinho, the institute pointed out that the use of the image of Sugarloaf Mountain was due to "geographical marking", since the site is "an international symbol of the city of Rio de Janeiro".

Also five pages long, ITS's challenge uses as a reference a decision by the Rio Court of Justice on the use of the image of Christ the Redeemer by the Assim Saúde Group. In it, the court allowed the use of the architecture without the authorization of the Archiepiscopal Miter, which manages the monument, arguing that the site "constitutes one of the main symbols of the city, forming part of its cultural, historical and landscape heritage".

On his X profile (formerly Twitter), Mayor Eduardo Paes commented on the case, classifying the notification of Parque Bondinho as "absurd", and added: "I'm going to start collecting royalties from these guys too".

Late yesterday afternoon, Rio's City Hall notified the Sugar Loaf concessionaire, saying that the case had left the city's representatives and the population of Rio "stunned" by the appropriation of one of the "most representative symbols of the city and, certainly, of Brazil".

The municipality also points out that although they have a concession to manage the cable car service, this title does not give them "the right to exclusive use of iconic images of public property". And that the centenary cable car is equipment that is naturally "inseparable from the image of Sugarloaf Mountain and its surroundings" and that it cannot fail to represent it in the midst of landscapes such as Morro da Urca, Enseada de Botafogo, Sumaré and so on.

Through the municipality's Attorney General, Daniel Bucar Cervasio, the city council notified the company to refrain from imposing restrictions on the use of the image of the Sugarloaf Mountain to any person or entity, "even if the cable car is represented in them".

In a statement, the company said that it had already had negative experiences with risks to its reputation by having its image used in professional and commercial activities and that, for this reason, it had "created a process aimed at preserving the company's image, as well as the unauthorized use of its intellectual properties, duly registered with the competent bodies".