From short to long: the importance of the Chain Of Title

On June 25, 2025, the ninth edition of the Fugaz Awards took place. These awards aim to recognise the talent and entrepreneurial effort involved in the short film industry in Spain. 

It is easy to appreciate, from the content of the distinguished works, that those years when this sector was exclusively destined for a few low-budget productions, generally linked to the academic sphere or to emerging talent, are long gone. 

So much so that in the resolution of the last call for Grants for the production of short films on projects convened by the Institute of Cinematography and Audiovisual Arts (an autonomous body attached to the Ministry of Culture), we observe the concurrence of short film projects with budgets exceeding 200,000 euros, a figure that differs from the short films that can be made in an educational environment. 

The short film as a bridge to the feature film.

The reason underlying this paradigm shift may lie in that the short film no longer only serves to help emerging talent with limited financial resources, but is also used by established producers wishing to enhance their reputation in the market –through the circuit of film festivals– or to carry out a first test for a more ambitious audiovisual project –such as a series or a subsequent feature film–.

Precisely, in the recent audiovisual industry, it is increasingly common for short films to serve as a starting point for developing feature films based on their plot or script. A good example of this can be found in the Spanish films “Mother”, “Cedita” or “Buffalo Kids” and, internationally, in the multimillion-dollar franchise “Saw”.

The perspective of copyright legislation.

However, the rise of the short film industry and its usefulness as a precursor to the production of a subsequent feature film has not been accompanied by the implementation of the proper legal practice during its production. 

In this way, it is not unusual to observe that, once the producer has produced the short film and has achieved the challenge of securing the necessary financing to carry out the filming of the next feature film, this production must be suspended for lack of the necessary rights to carry out its adaptation. 

As is well known, Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, of April 12, which approves the consolidated text of the Intellectual Property Law (“LPI”), grants the author of an original work a series of exclusive rights over their creation, including the right of reproduction (Article 18), the right of distribution (Article 19), the right of public communication (Article 20), or the right of transformation (Article 21). 

Precisely this last right –the right of transformation– allows the holder of a work to make any modification in its form from which a different creation derives. 

Transferred to the audiovisual sector, the exercise of the right of transformation translates into the possibility of carrying out, among other modifications, remakes, sequels, or prequels of a pre-existing audiovisual work –as indicated by the ruling of the Provincial Court of Madrid number 107/2007– or, as in the case at hand, to make a film based on that acclaimed short film.

Assignment of rights. Supplementary rules and legal presumptions.

In this way, to ensure peaceful exploitation of the audiovisual work, the producer must obtain the appropriate assignment of rights from all participants whose contributions generate intellectual property rights. 

This process of securing rights is commonly referred to in the industry by the English expression Chain Of Title.

In particular, the producer must acquire this assignment from the individuals who hold the status of authors of the audiovisual work. These individuals are the director, the screenwriter, the adapter, the scriptwriter, and the author of musical compositions, with or without lyrics, created specifically for this work (Article 87 LPI). 

Furthermore, it is crucial that the contractual assignment clearly specifies its temporal and territorial scope. In this regard, in the absence of express mention, the supplementary rules foreseen in Article 43 LPI come into play: “the lack of mention of time limits the transmission to five years and that of the territorial scope to the country in which the assignment takes place.” These limitations can be particularly detrimental to an industry oriented towards global and long-term distribution, especially when considering that the average production time for an audiovisual work ranges, on average, from one to four years.

As confirmed by the recent ruling of the Provincial Court of Madrid number 16572/2024, these supplementary rules would come into force even in cases where the intellectual creation is the result of a commission and there is economic compensation for its preparation. 

Furthermore, the LPI includes –within the special regime of audiovisual works– an additional presumption regarding the rights that are presumed ceded to the producer by its authors (Article 88 LPI). 

According to this legal presumption, in the absence of express mention, the rights of reproduction, distribution, and public communication, as well as those of dubbing or subtitling of the work, which the legislator deemed essential for the exploitation of the work, will be presumed to be ceded to the producer of an audiovisual work. 

It should be noted that, except for dubbing and subtitling, the right of transformation is not listed among the rights that are presumed to be ceded to the producer. 

Therefore, poor contractual practice during the production of a short film could prevent the producer from carrying out this anticipated feature film in the future, due to not owning the ownership of its right of transformation. 

Ultimately, it will be of little use to the producer to have the next “golden goose” in the form of a short film if they have not properly secured the Chain of Rights during its production. 

Consult the full article here.