Criminal Lawyers in Plagiarism

Plagiarism and Intellectual Property Offences: Concept, Modalities and Penalties (Arts. 270-272 CP)

Offences against intellectual property typified in Arts. 270-272 CP protect copyright over literary, artistic, scientific or any other original intellectual creation works, as well as related rights (performances, phonograms, audiovisual recordings, computer programs, databases). The protected legal interest is double: the exclusive rights of the author or holder over the work (moral rights of paternity and integrity, patrimonial rights of reproduction, distribution, public communication and transformation), and the integrity of the cultural market with the consequent protection of the creative industry. Consolidated Supreme Court case-law and CJEU doctrine have developed technical criteria on the typical elements: existence of protected work (originality), unauthorised reproduction, plagiarism or communication, intent to obtain direct or indirect economic benefit, and effective harm to third party.

The methods of commission are extraordinarily diverse and have evolved with digitalisation. Plagiarism in the strict sense consists of the unauthorised reproduction of literary or scientific works with appropriation of authorship (books, academic articles, monographs). Digital piracy includes the unauthorised distribution of music, films, series, e-books, software and video games through download sites, illegal streaming, P2P networks or specialised applications; Art. 270.2 CP specifically sanctions the facilitation of access or location of protected works on the internet by link page administrators. Manufacture, import or distribution of pirate physical media (CD, DVD, USB with protected content) integrates the classic type. Unauthorised commercial use of images, photographs, musical brands or graphic creations in advertising, social media or commercial products. Elusion of technological protection measures (DRM) and trafficking of means for such elusion (Art. 270.6 CP) configure autonomous modalities. Academic plagiarism is generally sanctioned administratively except in the concurrence of profit motive.

The penalties are significant. The basic offence of Art. 270.1 CP carries 6 months to 4 years prison and 12 to 24 months' fine. The aggravated modality of Art. 271 CP (when the benefit is of special economic significance, the facts affect works of special value or are committed in criminal organisation) reaches 2 to 6 years prison and 18 to 36 months' fine. Civil liability ex delicto demands compensation under Art. 140 of the Intellectual Property Act: the injured party may opt between loss of earnings (benefits they would have obtained), benefits obtained by the infringer or hypothetical royalty (what they would have charged for license), adding moral damages. Confiscation of pirate media, reproduction equipment and advertising elements is usual, together with the removal and destruction of products. The publication of the judgment at the convict's expense is frequent. The liability of the legal entity is applicable when offences are committed by administrators for the benefit of the entity.

The technical defense is built on four axes consolidated by case-law. First, the absence of originality of the work whose supposed infringement is claimed: the protection of Intellectual Property Law demands original creation with personal expression of the author; generic, derivative or public domain works do not deserve criminal protection. Second, the absence of profit motive: Art. 270 CP demands intent to obtain direct or indirect economic benefit; downloads for personal use or private consumption without commercial purposes and without mass distribution do not integrate the offence (without prejudice to civil liability); the Supreme Court has consolidated the "commercial profit motive" doctrine to distinguish criminally relevant conducts. Third, the legal exceptions: right to quote for teaching, research or criticism purposes (Art. 32 LPI), parody and transformation works (Art. 39 LPI), private copying (Art. 31 LPI), use by persons with disability. Fourth, the tacit or express authorisation of the holder when concurring, especially relevant in cases of creative commons licenses, exploitation contracts or verbally documented consents.

In current forensic practice, proceedings against intellectual property concentrate on four typical scenarios: massive digital piracy (link sites, illegal streaming platforms), commercial distribution of pirate software or unauthorised copies, unauthorised commercial use of protected images or content in advertising and social media, and qualified academic plagiarism. Organic Law 1/2025 on Justice Service Efficiency, the Consolidated Text of the Intellectual Property Act (RDL 1/1996) with its successive reforms, Act 21/2014 modifying the TRLPI on service providers, the EU Directive 2019/790 on copyright in the digital single market (transposed by RDL 24/2021), the EU Regulation 2022/2065 on Digital Services (DSA) and consolidated Supreme Court and CJEU case-law configure the normative framework. Cooperation with the Intellectual Property Section of the 2nd Commission of the Intellectual Property Commission and the collective management entities (SGAE, CEDRO, VEGAP, AISGE, AIE) orients prosecution. At Alonso Sala, with 15+ years' experience, we undertake technical defence of creators, platforms, distributors and individuals accused, articulating technical-comparative expert evidence, profit-motive analysis and application of legal exceptions; we also act as private prosecution for rights-holders with exhaustive procedural strategy.