Government submitted to the Corporative Chamber for
an opinion.
representations, performances, recitals or any other
form of presentation of his intellectual work, including
cinematographic work, carried out without due
authorization.
The subject was studied in detail and at length and
debated by the Corporative Chamber, which finally
approved a text on March 24, 1953, before referring
the matter back to the Government.
2.
The Minister of Overseas Territories, Joaquim Moreira
da Silva Cunha.
The circumstances at that time did not allow for the
draft, the fruit of meticulous work carried out in
several stages, to become law.
To be published in the “Official Bulletins” of all the
overseas provinces – J. da Silva Cunha.
However, with time, the need for reform only
increased. The reasons behind the outdated nature and
shortcomings of Decree No. 13 725, which had led to
the undertaking of its revision, became more evident as
the years passed. Thus, the issue of a new approach in
terms of the regulation of copyright became
particularly urgent.
Government Journal No. 286, 1st Series of December
7, 1971.
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL EDUCATION
It is clear that, fundamentally, the Corporative
Chamber’s draft is still an adequate regulatory
instrument which, when applied, makes it possible to
avoid undesirable delays. The subsequent changes
which have taken place in the technical field or in that
of international law do not serve as grounds for
sidelining this piece of legislation.
Directorate General for Higher Education and Fine Arts
The important issue of copyright, also commonly
known as intellectual property, is still fundamentally
regulated by Decree No. 13725 of June 6, 1927.
At the time of its publication, this legislation
represented significant progress, but understandably
over time it became outdated and the need to replace
it has been felt for some time.
Indeed, over the forty years or so that said decree has
been in force various events have occurred which have
highlighted the need for change. There has been
constant progress in terms of the discovery,
improvement and commercialization of technical
means of supporting or expressing works of the mind
and, consequently, specific regulation is required.
Furthermore, national legislation must be harmonized
with the international texts which have appeared in the
meantime. Such texts are the result of cooperation
between States, an approach which has become
evermore necessary in the field of copyright and which
has been has been highly productive. Without a doubt
the Berne Convention, the most significant
international instrument in this regard, was already
taken into consideration in Decree No. 13 725.
However, the Berne Convention was revised on two
occasions, Rome, in 1928, and Brussels, in 1948, the
latter version being ratified by DecreeLaw No. 38 304
of June 16, 1951.
With regard to the technical changes, they can either
be dealt with through small adjustments or are
essentially related to sectors which share many
elements in common with copyright. Socalled
“neighboring rights”, which were the subject of an
international convention signed in Rome on October
26, 1961 and which must be addressed in a separate
piece of legislation, fall into the latter category.
The Universal Copyright Convention, signed in
Geneva on September 6, 1952, stands out among the
new international legal instruments and was one of the
instruments approved for ratification by a ruling issued
by the National Assembly on May 11, 1956. The
Convention, the requirements of which were more
limited than those of the Berne Convention,, was an
attempt to enshrine a minimum of measures that would
satisfy all countries without prejudice to the maximal
approach of the Berne Convention, which retained its
preexisting scope. Understandably, given the
minimal requirements of the new Convention, the
Chamber’s draft may be maintained since it already
enshrines nearly all the requirements of the
Convention, minimal as they may be. Here too, all
that is required is a few amendments.
These developments led to the creation, through the
decree of June 6, 1946, of a commission tasked with
preparing a preliminary draft which would update our
national legislation on intellectual property and, most
importantly, harmonize it with international law. That
commission produced a preliminary draft which the
Along the same lines, a revision process was initiated
regarding this draft, looking at what was necessary to
bring it up to date, with the overriding concern always
being that of achieving a more balanced harmonization
of the various interests at stake in this fundamental
area of national life, in accordance with the opinion of
2