SAP Madrid, November 6, 2020 (JUR 2020, 334621)
The Hearing determines that he did not play any character, so his participation in the program cannot be comparable to that of an actor, with the consequent denial of the collection of remuneration rights for public communication.
Voices: Intellectual property, remuneration, protected acting performance.
Assumption of fact
Mr. Elegido, a partner of AISGE since October 30, 2012, sued the association for not paying the remuneration provided for in art. 108.5 TRLPI, which corresponded to him as artist and interpreter of the program «Cifras & letras». For its part, AISGE acknowledged the intervention of Mr. Elegido in the program “Cifras & Letras”, but understood that he did not do so as an interpreter of any character, but as an expert in letters, as he presents himself to public opinion. Consequently, the defendant considered that the actor did not perform any protected artistic performance.
In the first instance, the court established in its sentence as proven that the plaintiff assumed the obligation to interpret an established script and to follow the instructions of the director of the program. The judge also highlights that the contracts contemplate the transfer of copyright to the producer, so it understands that such rights should exist. Consequently, the judge «a quo» considered that AISGE should reward the actor for his intervention in the program «Cifras & Letras».
Oh the reason for the decision criterion
From the outset, the Audience establishes that the existence of a script for the program does not make all those who participate in it into artists, so it must be specified whether the figure of the «expert in lyrics» contains any specific element that authorizes a different treatment to the rest of the participants in the contest, so that we can consider that they carry out a protected artistic activity that must be paid.
Regarding the signed contract, the fact that it is commercial or labor is irrelevant. Yes, on the other hand, the fact that the exclusivity they contemplate is relevant, since it refers to the prohibition of playing the role of expert in letters in other media. In court this is indicative of the different existing regime with respect to actors since it would be an unnecessary stipulation in the case of artists, performers and performers, since the transfer of rights for the interpretation of a certain character is presumed, in accordance to the provisions of article 108.2 LPI. This does not prevent the actor, unless otherwise stipulated, from playing any other character in other places.
Thus, the figure of the «literary expert» was not shown to the public as a fictional character but rather as his own personal profile. This profile would go bankrupt if the Chosen One had been able to display an antagonistic profile in any other public appearance. Therefore, there was a specific contractual stipulation by which Mr. Elegido agreed to present a certain personal image in the media that was not incompatible with the indicated profile, which affected his own physical appearance.
For all these reasons, it determines that “the professor” of the aforementioned contest cannot be considered as an actor with the right to remuneration by virtue of the protected acting figure of the LPI.
Related documents
Art. 108.5.2 ° and 108.2 of Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, of April 12 (RCL 1996, 1382)
SAP Madrid 182/2009 of 2 July. AC 2009 1914
–
