Collecting cinematographic performers’ economic rights

On December 6, 2005, the National Civil Court of Appeals tried a case regarding a very controversial matter for intellectual property experts and judges, which is, if Argentine Association of Interpreters (Asociación Argentina de Intérpretes) (“AADI”) is entitled to collect cinematographic performers’ royalties on their behalf or not[1].

The court understood that AADI does not hold such competence and confirmed the Judge’s decision which admitted the defense of lack of proper standing (“defensa de falta de legitimación”) opposed by AADI against the economic compensation claimed by the plaintiff.

Unfortunately, the court did not make an exhaustive analysis of the matter, and restricted its opinion to pointing out the scarce and contradictory precedents on the subject.

The court’s opinion discussed two contradictory precedents resolved by the National Civil Court of Appeals several years ago relating to similar claims (“Lococo”, Tribunal E, of July 12, 1981 and “Martínez”, Tribunal A, of July 9, 1982). The court’s opinion adopted the reasoning set out in the “Martínez” case, where it was decided that the performer who deserves legal protection is the director of the work and not the actors who appear in it.

The court also understood that AADI’s right to collect and manage royalties for the performers exclusively refers to those “performances fixed on phonograms and reproduced on discs or other means.”

This court failed to definitively clarify the status of cinematographic performers, and as long as the status of cinematographic performers is not defined through local or international legislation, it is likely that courts will continue to issue contradictory opinions on the same subject in the future.