Can rights to non-existent audiovisual formats be transferred?

Patricia Mariscal, lawyer at Bardají&Honrado, reflects on the transfer of rights in audiovisual formats and sheds light on the clauses that refer to formats that “may exist in the future.”

The vast majority of contracts signed in the field of audiovisual production contain a assignment of intellectual property rights: from the scriptwriter to the production company, from the production company to a television network, from television to an SVOD platform... This is logical, since it is a business, the audiovisual one, that is built around creations and benefits that generate intellectual property rights: from the bible of a television format, to the final product (the can), through the performances of the actors or the work of a director.

Las transfer of rights clauses They are usually very extensive and, in general, contemplate a whole range of faculties that cover not only the use that is initially intended to be made of the transferred object (the script, the format, the actor's interpretation...), but any other that may arise in the future.

The reason for these detailed enumerations of rights and powers is found in article 43 of the Intellectual Property Law, which provides that The transfer only covers the modalities of exploitation expressly provided. Given the possibility that a certain type of exploitation is not understood to be included in the transfer, it is reasonable that the acquirer of rights wants to leave all sides covered, even if this means the inclusion of powers whose exercise is remote.

Sometimes, the desire for exhaustiveness present in this type of clauses is such that they even include formats already obsolete (however it may be video-cassette or the laser-disc) or exploitation windows that are completely unrelated to the purpose of the transfer; for example, the exploitation of the rights to a script in theme parks.

Formats that do not yet exist

However, acquiring rights that we are not going to exercise can turn against us, since the Intellectual Property Law provides for the obligation to exploit when the transfer has occurred on an exclusive basis. Furthermore, the reform carried out by Royal Decree-Law 24/2021 last November introduces the possibility that the author revokes the authorization given to the transferee exclusively if, after 5 years from the transfer, the work is not being exploited. Although the Law always refers to the exploitation of the work as a whole, it can be interpreted that the same rule applies to each of the rights that are the subject of transfer. In this sense, if the acquirer of the rights to a television format is made to transfer all rights, including the possibility of creating foreign versions from the original format, and these adaptations are not produced, the author could - according to the text of the Law - revoke his authorization for this specific exploitation. It should be noted, however, that this power of revocation does not applies to works created by more than one author.

Y por si estas prolijas enumeraciones de derechos y posibilidades de explotación no fueran suficientes, es costumbre incluir en este tipo de cláusulas una coletilla en la que, a modo de cierre (y por si se hubiera escapado algo), se hace referencia a cualquier otro formato/medio “conocido o por conocer” o modalidades de explotación “existentes o que pudieran existir en el futuro”.

Resulta curioso el empeño del adquirente (o de sus abogados) en incluir este inciso, pues la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual (artículo 43.5) es absolutamente clara y tajante al establecer que la transmisión de los derechos de explotación no alcanza a las modalidades de utilización o medios de difusión inexistentes o desconocidos al tiempo de la cesión.

Una cláusula que carece de utilidad

Por lo tanto, a la pregunta de si es posible adquirir derechos sobre modalidades, formatos o ventanas de explotación que pudieran existir en el futuro, la respuesta es rotundamente no. Llegado el momento, cedente y cesionario tendrían que sentarse a negociar si esas nuevas formas de explotación se incluyen en la cesión inicialmente pactada y en qué condiciones.

¿Y qué pasa si incluyo este tipo de cláusulas en un contrato? Al ser una previsión contraria a una norma imperativa, deviene ineficaz y se tiene por no puesta. Therefore, although its inclusion does not have any major impact on the parties (since it does not make the assignment as a whole void), the reality is that has no use. Despite this, and although it is something widely known by lawyers in the sector, everything indicates that we will continue using this well-worn tagline in assignment contracts, as if it were a mantra, clinging to the possibility that one day the Law will change and allow the transfer of non-existent rights.