Supreme Court reinforces copyright in music publishing contracts
The Supreme Court has upheld an appeal in cassation brought by a composer, author of widely known songs performed by top artists, and has declared valid the termination of all his music publishing contracts, allowing him to recover the economic rights of 80 internationally exploited works. The judgment establishes doctrine on the essential obligations of the music publisher and strengthens the position of the author when such obligations are repeatedly breached.
Key points:
- Validity of the termination of the contract due to breaches by the publisher: the Supreme Court considers it accredited that the publisher continuously breached its legal and contractual obligations, especially the rendering of accounts and the provision of information to the author on the exploitation of the works, which legitimises the author to terminate the music publishing contracts.
- Doctrine on the duration of the music publishing contract: the judgment recalls that, unlike the general publishing contract, the revised text of the Law on Intellectual Property, regularising, clarifying and harmonising the legal provisions in force on the matter ("LPI") does not set a maximum time limit for the assignment of rights in music publishing contracts. This may lead to a loss of control by the author during the entire life of the work's protection, which requires a clear counterbalance in the form of enhanced obligations on the part of the publisher.
- Centrality of the obligation to render accounts: the Court underlines that the obligation to settle, report and render accounts is not ancillary or merely formal, but structural in this type of contract. The publisher must periodically report both the exploitations carried out and the absence of such exploitations, allowing the author to know the real performance of his compositions, including those with a massive dissemination.
- Difficulty of proof when there is no transparency: the publisher's refusal to provide data on exploitation prevents the author from knowing the income generated and even hinders the judicial claim for amounts, a circumstance that the Supreme Court expressly takes into account when assessing the seriousness of the breach.
- Application of the protective regime of the LPI: the Court confirms that the music publishing contract is governed by a specific termination system, stricter than the general regime of the Civil Code, designed to protect the author against breaches by the publisher in a contract of a quasi-associative nature.
- Print run control also in music publishing: in contrast to the criterion of the Provincial Court, the Supreme Court declares that the print run control regime of article 72 of the IPL is also applicable to music publishing, as an additional guarantee to prevent the concealment of relevant data from the author.
The ruling is not limited to the specific case, but unifies doctrine on music publishing contracts, reinforcing the requirement of diligence, transparency and accountability on the part of publishers towards authors, even in the case of works of great commercial and international success.
Access the information:
