There's a modern conflict that seems small, but can erupt into lawsuits, evictions, and legal proceedings. A photo used on a website. A video repurposed for a reel. An article copied for a blog. Music used in the background of an advertisement. A logo on a "just for testing" brochure.
It almost always starts with the same phrase: "but it's on the internet." And that's precisely where many people get into trouble, because the internet is a means of dissemination, not a license.
Copyright in Portugal has clear rules: whoever creates a work is protected, whoever wants to use it must have a legal basis, and whoever is harmed can demand removal, compensation and, in certain cases, there may be criminal liability. At the same time, not all use is illegal. There are free uses and limits to copyright, but they have conditions and require caution.
In this article we explain how legitimate use works, how to interpret licenses, how to safely request permission, and what to do when you need to remove content that violates copyright.
What are copyrights and what is protected?
Copyright protects original intellectual creations. The key idea is originality, that is, the creative expression of a person, not just "raw" information.
In practice, texts, photographs, videos, music, illustrations, design works, architectural works, computer programs, and many other creations can be protected. Registration is not required for protection to exist: protection arises with creation, provided there is originality.
What this means in everyday life is simple: if someone created something and you want to use, share, publish, adapt, translate, sync with music, or monetize it, you need a legal basis.
“Legitimate use” is not “fair use”: what exists in Portugal?
Many people use the expression "fair use" because they see it on American platforms and content. In Portugal, the logic is different.
The Portuguese system is based on clearly defined limits and exceptions. In other words, there are situations in which the law allows certain uses without the author's permission, but these situations have requirements and are not a carte blanche.
In practical terms, what exists is a set of free uses or exceptions, such as quotations, uses for teaching, reproduction for private use, parody or caricature, and news reports, among others.
The most important detail is this: even when an exception exists, the use must respect the purpose, cannot "replace" the original work, and must respect the author's attribution when applicable.
Quoting and using excerpts: when is it allowed?
The citation is one of the most used and most abused exceptions.
In Portugal, quoting can be legitimate when the objective is criticism, commentary, teaching, information, or analysis, and when only what is necessary for that purpose is used. In simple terms, quoting is not copying an entire text and putting quotation marks. It is using a proportionate excerpt to support an idea.
A good practice is to always identify the author and the source, and not to use excerpts that, as a whole, make the reader no longer need the original.
If your goal is to "republish" an article, citation rarely saves you. In that case, the solution is to use permission.
Images, photographs and screenshots: the most dangerous terrain
The most common copyright error is related to photography.
Many people think that a photo is "just an image." But a photograph can be a protected work, and the photographer's rights don't disappear just because the image is on Google.
Even screenshots can be problematic, especially when they include copyrighted works, layouts, interfaces, third-party images, or platform content.
If you use images in a commercial context, the rule of thumb is strict: use stock images with the appropriate license, your own images, or express permission. When image is central to your business, improvisation is risky.
Music in videos, ads, and social media: licenses and pitfalls.
Music is another point of contention.
The fact that a platform offers a music library doesn't mean the license covers every type of use. Many libraries are for personal use on social media and may not cover paid advertising, campaigns, corporate videos, websites, or content distributed outside the platform.
Furthermore, music can involve multiple rights holders: author, publisher, record producer, and performing artists. Therefore, licensing music is not simply a matter of "asking the singer.".
If the content is commercial, the safest option is to use music with a clear advertising license, or specific libraries for commercial use with transparent terms.
Licenses: the difference between authorization and assignment
There are two classic ways to permit the use of a work.
A license is an authorization to use the product, under the agreed terms. It can be exclusive (only you can use it in that context) or non-exclusive (the author can license it to others).
Assignment is the transfer of rights, in whole or in part. Here the risk is greater, because it involves ownership and requires extreme care in drafting.
In companies, it is most common to work with well-defined licenses, because they provide security without "buying" the entire right.
What should a license state to ensure safe use?
A typical mistake is a vague email saying "you can use it." Then the person uses it in a campaign, adapts it, puts it on billboards, includes it in an advertisement, and months later, a conflict arises. A robust license should clarify, at least:
- Who grants the license and who receives the license;
- Which project is covered, with clear identification;
- For what purpose (website, social media, advertising, packaging, etc.);
- In which territory (Portugal, EU, world);
- how long;
- on what media and in what formats;
- It can be adapted, cut, translated, or derivative works created;
- It can be sublicensed to agencies and partners;
- Compensation and method of payment;
- rules regarding attribution, when applicable.
When these points are unclear, discussion inevitably arises.
Creative Commons: useful, but it has rules.
Many pieces of content are published under Creative Commons licenses. This is positive, but it doesn't mean you "can do anything.".
Each license has its own conditions. Some require attribution (indicating the author). Others prohibit commercial use. Others prohibit derivative works. Others require sharing under the same license.
A common mistake is to take a "CC" image and use it in a paid campaign, without realizing that the license prohibits commercial use.
The rule of thumb is simple: read the license, keep proof of the license you saw on the download date, and comply with the terms. Without proof, the dispute becomes difficult.
Works created by workers and freelancers: ownership is not always obvious.
Another source of conflict is authorship within companies.
Some people assume that because they paid for it, "it's mine." With copyright, it doesn't always work that way.
When working with freelancers, it's essential to define in writing what is being licensed or assigned. Without this, the freelancer may retain ownership while the company has limited access to the license.
In a work context, there are specific rules for certain projects, but the best practice is always to have a contract: clarifying rights, scope of use, and remuneration.
If this is causing business conflict, reading might help. Conflicts between partners: how to resolve them. when the problem arises within the business and begins to contaminate decisions.
What should you do when you find your content has been copied?
When you discover a violation, an emotional reaction is normal. But the effective response is methodical.
The primary goal is to preserve evidence.
Take screenshots with the URL, date, and time visible. Save the source code when relevant. Archive the page from archiving services. If it's a video, save the link, description, and profile.
Next, identify the offender and the intermediary: the website, the hosting provider, the platform, the domain, the marketplace.
Finally, choose your path: amicable request, formal notification, removal request to the platform, or legal action.
Content removal: the quickest way is usually through the platform.
In many cases, the quickest removal is achieved through internal reporting mechanisms.
Video platforms, social networks, and marketplaces have forms for filing copyright complaints. Many operate on a "notice and takedown" system: if sufficient evidence is presented, the content is removed or restricted.
The critical point is the quality of the order.
A vague request, without identifying the work, without proof of ownership, and without clear links, is usually ignored.
A well-structured request, with attachments and a clear description, is much more likely to be successful.
What should a well-written removal request contain?
To reduce back-and-forth communication, a removal request should include:
- identification of the rights holder;
- Description of the original work and proof of authorship or ownership;
- Link to the infringing content and, if available, multiple links;
- A clear comparison of what was copied;
- explicit request for removal and cessation of new publications;
- Declaration of good faith and contact information for response.
When content generates revenue, it may also make sense to request data from the infringer and preservation of logs, because this can be useful in court.
When is it worthwhile to send a formal notification?
The platform doesn't always solve the problem. Sometimes the content is on its own website. Sometimes the offender replaces it. Sometimes the platform asks for more.
In these cases, a formal notification can be crucial. The goal is to present the other party with a clear risk: continuing the infringement could result in compensation, costs, and, in specific scenarios, criminal liability.
A well-written notification is not an empty threat. It is a document containing facts, evidence, and a clear request.
When the conflict involves payments, contracts, and liability disputes, it may be helpful to also frame the issue of proof and breach of contract within this framework. Breach of contract: what to do legally.
Compensation: what could be at stake?
Many people only think about "I want it deleted." But, in copyright law, there may be more at stake than just removal.
There may be property damage, such as lost profits obtained by the offender, loss of licenses, and loss of business opportunities.
There may be non-pecuniary damages, such as violation of authorship of the work, abusive alteration, association with contexts that harm reputation.
The value depends on the case, the evidence, and the impact. Therefore, preserving evidence of reach, views, sales, and commercial use can be crucial.
Criminal liability: when does a case move from civil to criminal?
There are situations in which copyright infringement can have criminal relevance, especially when there is counterfeiting, usurpation, reproduction, and distribution with the intention of obtaining economic benefit.
This does not mean that "any copying is a crime." It means that, in certain scenarios, the penal system can be activated.
If you need to understand the criminal aspects and how a case might unfold, it may be helpful to see Criminal and Administrative Offenses Law.
How can you protect your content before the problem occurs?
The best strategy is prevention.
On the website, include clear terms of use, with a copyright notice and licensing contact information.
When delivering work to clients, draw up a contract with detailed specifications.
When purchasing content, keep invoices, licenses, and proof of purchase.
When publishing on social media, keep original manuscripts and working files, as this helps prove authorship.
And, in larger projects, consider discreet watermarks, version control, and usage tracking.
A quick guide for those using third-party content safely.
If your concern is avoiding problems, a simple guide helps.
- Identify whether the work is protected and who the copyright holder is.
- Check if a license exists and if it allows the intended use.
- If there is no clear license, request written authorization.
- Keep proof of everything: license, date, source, and terms.
- Avoid "adapting" without permission, because derivative works may be infringing.
- When in doubt, use your own content or content licensed for commercial use.
This method avoids the most common pitfall: using first and asking questions later.
Conclusion
Copyright is not a detail "for artists." It's a market rule that protects creation and defines limits of use. Legitimate use exists, but it has conditions. Licenses provide security, but they must be read and well-written. And content removal can be quick when the evidence is organized and the request is well-structured.
If you are facing copying or misuse of images, videos, or texts, or if you need to securely license content for a commercial project, it's worth acting early. A bad decision today can lead to costs and lawsuits tomorrow.
For support in license analysis, sending notifications, removal requests, and protection strategies, speak with our team. CSG Lawyers.
