The works of third parties and current events. A false limit to copyright?

Julia Martínez Zaragoza, lawyer at Bardají&Honrado, addresses the more than frequent use of third-party images in talk shows, magazines and other current affairs programs that populate the television grid.

It is a fairly common doubt among production companies that carry out type programs. magazine in which current topics are discussed: Is it necessary to request authorization for the inclusion of third-party works? As we already announced in our article Three myths about the use of foreign elements in audiovisual productions, the premise from which we must start is that the authorization of the rights holder to incorporate its content into another production. However, the Intellectual Property Law, in its article 33.1, provides an exception for “works and articles on current affairs”.

Although the Law does not specify what exactly the “works and articles on current affairs”, it is understood that these are contents related to current events that must be communicated to society. Since the purpose pursued with its use (or at least, that is how it should be) is inform the public of new events that may be of interest to you, the public's right to know takes precedence over intellectual property rights that about these works could exist.

Works on current affairs, beyond the news or event in question that is transmitted, include the personal contribution or opinion of the author, which is precisely what is protected by copyright and for whose use authorization would be necessary if it were not for the existence of this legal limit. It must be remembered that the objective fact in itself, the news or event that is communicated to the public, stripped of any type of evaluation, can be used freely in any case. Not because there is a limit that protects this use, but because the mere newsworthy fact is not protectable by copyright.

Photographs, videos and their literality

Within the concept of “articles or works” all types of columns, articles, editorials, interviews, chronicles, and included news and information programs. Likewise, it is possible to use the photographs and/or videos that form part of these articles or works, since This is how our courts have been interpreting it. In this sense, the reference in an audiovisual program to an interview previously collected in a magazine would be covered by the limit, or also the inclusion of fragments of television programs in which a current topic has been discussed or debated.

However, they must be taken into account the rest of the rights that could come into play in the use of photographs or videos, such as the image rights of the people who appear in them.

Regarding the extent of the content that can be used, the reality is that the article 33.1 LPI (unlike what happens with other limits, such as the citation limit) does not refer to it, from which it follows that the article or work may be used in its entirety.

In any case, the content must literally reproduce, without being subject to manipulation or transformation of any kind.

Requirements for current works and articles to be used in a production

In order to guarantee a minimum protection of the author's rights of the current article or work, the use must meet a series of requirements:

1. The content to be included must have been previously broadcast through social media and its inclusion must take place in productions of media of the same kind.

The purpose of the first part of this requirement (the prior disclosure) is to guarantee respect for moral right from the author of the article or work to disclose the content in question for the first time. “Social communication medium” means any medium capable of transferring information to the society in general (prensa, radio, televisión, internet…). La expresión “aquellos de la misma clase” ha de entenderse en sentido amplio en cuanto a su naturaleza, de modo que se permitiría, por ejemplo, la utilización en una emisión por televisión de una imagen publicada en un artículo de prensa.

Ahora bien, debe tratarse de medios cuya finalidad sea informativa. Es especialmente ilustrativa en este sentido la sentencia de la Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona de 3 de mayo de 2020 (posteriormente confirmada por sentencia del Tribunal Supremo de 14 de enero de 2013). El litigio involucraba a dos cadenas de televisión por el uso que una de ellas estaba haciendo en uno de sus programas (I know what you did) of content (mainly images and videos) of other programs on the plaintiff's schedule (Here is tomato, Ana Rosa's program, at your side, among others). These contents were comment object (generally in a humorous way) by the presenters and collaborators of the program. In its defense, the defendant invoked various limits to the right of author, among them this one we discuss here. However, the Provincial Court of Barcelona, ​​and later the Supreme Court, considered that neither the foreign content that was included in the program eran “trabajos y artículos sobre temas de actualidad” ni el programa de la demandada tenía una finalidad informativa. Antes bien, el contenido utilizado versaba sobre temas del corazón y la finalidad del programa no era tanto informar como entretener al espectador. Lo que deja claro esta sentencia es, en definitiva, que la utilización de fragmentos ajenos no es posible en programas de tipo magazine o de debate, donde el fin de entretenimiento prima por encima del carácter informativo.

2. Debe citarse the fuente y el autor.

En caso de que se conozca al autor, o pueda conocerse haciendo una actividad de investigación “razonable”, debe citarse tanto al autor como la fuente. Si la búsqueda conllevase un esfuerzo desproporcionado o simplemente el autor no fuera conocido, únicamente deberá citarse la fuente.

La finalidad de este requisito es, en primer lugar, garantizar el derecho de paternidad del autor y, por otro lado, no generar confusión en el usuario receptor de la información final acerca de la procedencia originaria del contenido.

3. No debe haberse hecho constar en origen the reserva de derechos.

He aquí el quid de la cuestión. Si el lector ha llegado hasta este punto del artículo, quien lo suscribe lamenta comunicar que aun cuando se haya cumplido con los requisitos anteriores, aún queda por superar el principal escollo for the application of this limit: that the author has not discarded its application at origin. And article 33.1 LPI is one of those so-called limits on copyright, since its application depends largely on the will of the author. If this stated the reservation of rights at origin, the work cannot be used without its authorization.

It was of no use to the defendant in the matter. I know what you did antes comentado alegar que es una práctica habitual del sector incluir fragmentos de otros programas en los propios sin el consentimiento expreso del titular de derechos en la medida en que es algo “tolerado” o tácitamente consentido. Lo definitivo para el tribunal fue que este tipo de actuaciones no pueden quedar amparadas por el límite del artículo 33.1LPI si hay una expresa oposición del titular de derechos, como era el caso.

Que la reserva conste “en origen” no significa necesariamente que sea el autor (persona física) quien lo haya hecho constar. En el caso de las obras audiovisuales, la reserva de derechos será incluida normalmente con carácter posterior por el productor o por el medio que lleva a cabo la emisión.

Los (falsos) límites

Dado que hoy en día lo más común es que todos los medios de comunicación (periódicos, cadenas de TV, plataformas on line…) hagan constar esta reserva de derechos, la realidad es que el límite de artículos y trabajos de actualidad tiene muy poco recorrido. Pese a que ciertamente esta excepción está prevista en la LPI, su utilización en la práctica es casi inexistente. De ahí que el título de este artículo haga referencia a esta posibilidad como un “falso límite”.

Pero no está todo perdido… Si la producción tiene un humorous character, siempre será posible acudir al límite de parodia o, incluso, al recién creado límite de “pastiche”. Pero sobre eso volveremos en otro artículo.

Julia Martínez Zaragoza

Lawyer at Bardají&Honrado