In the audiovisual industry, it is still common to refer to“the rights to a song”as if they were a single license. However, one need only analyze how music circulates today within audiovisual productions—TV series, advertising, digital formats, branded content, or content for streaming platforms—to see that this notion is inadequate. Music does not function as a single license, but rather as a system of overlapping rights, the management of which has become a strategic issue for producers, agencies, and creators.
The first issue that often causes confusion is the legal nature of music itself. From a legal standpoint, a song is not an indivisible unit. On the one hand, there is copyright in the musical work—the composition and the lyrics—which is held by the authors or their publishers. On the other hand, there are related rights in the specific recording—that is, the phonogram—which belong to the phonographic producer and the performers.
In practical terms, this means that an audiovisual production may have authorization for the work itself, but not for the master recording that is ultimately played on screen—or vice versa.
Added to this two-tiered structure is a second level of complexity: the various acts of exploitation. Music incorporated into an audiovisual work simultaneously triggers rights of reproduction (fixation in image form), public communication (broadcasting or exhibition), making available (on-demand streaming), and synchronization—a key contractual concept in industry terminology that governs the authorization to incorporate the musical work into an audiovisual work. Not all uses are equivalent, and a license valid for one broadcast network may not cover other channels, territories, or time periods.
The paradigm shift in audiovisual consumption has intensified this reality. Today, a production is no longer conceived for a single channel. A piece of content can premiere at a festival, air on television, circulate on social media, be broken down into promotional clips, and remain available for years on digital platforms.
Each new use may require different legal protection. In this context, music ceases to be a purely creative element and becomes a contractual asset whose management determines the commercial life of the work.
Furthermore, the fragmentation of responsibilities adds another layer of complexity. In many productions, various parties assume different rights depending on the contractual division of responsibilities among the producer, agency, platform, or content operator: the content operator may cover public communication in certain contexts, while the audiovisual producer or creative agency must ensure the global exploitation of the content. This distribution of responsibilities, which is common in practice, explains why music clearance processes have become increasingly exhaustive and are integrated from the early stages of project development.
The challenge becomes even greater when music is adapted to an audiovisual medium. Medleys, cuts, mixes, or rearrangements designed to fit the visual narrative may constitute transformations of the original work. In such cases, a standard authorization is not sufficient: a specific license from the copyright holder may be required, and in certain legal systems, the moral right of integrity comes into play, allowing the author to object to modifications that they consider harmful to their creation.
This situation has led producers and studios to incorporate music rights management as an essential part of the financial and legal framework for their works. Incomplete authorization can result in content being blocked on platforms, unexpected territorial restrictions, claims of intellectual property infringement, and, in some cases, the total or partial removal of the works. In a market where monetization increasingly depends on multiplatform distribution, legal certainty regarding the use of music has become a competitive factor.
There is also a paradox that the audiovisual industry knows all too well: the more iconic the music, the more complex—and usually more expensive—its legal management tends to be. Historical catalogs, multiple rights holders, and contracts fragmented by territory and distribution window complicate the clearance process and prolong production timelines. That is why many companies opt for pre-cleared music libraries or original compositions, not only for creative reasons but also because of the need to ensure the project’s long-term commercial viability.
Ultimately, understanding that behind every song lie the creative work, the recording, and multiple forms of exploitation allows us to anticipate risks and design more robust production strategies. Because in an environment where content travels without borders or single points of entry, music rights management is no longer just an administrative formality, but a key component of the creative and business process itself.
Jesús Nogués, attorney in the Media & Entertainment practice group at Elzaburu
A song can start in a thousand different ways, from jottings in your notebook to an improvisation during a rehearsal with your band. But when it seems like it’s finally finished, the big question arises : How do you register a song to protect it?
In Spain, a song is protected by copyright from the moment it is created. It does not need to be registered anywhere for that protection to exist. Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, which enacts the Consolidated Text of the Intellectual Property Law, recognizes that the author of a work holds a series of moral and economic rights from the moment the work is created.
Therefore, registering a song is not mandatory. That said, it can be highly recommended. Above all, because when a dispute arises, it’s not enough to simply say, “I wrote this.” You have to be able to prove it.
The primary purpose of registration is to establish the authorship of a work, providing evidence of ownership with a declared title and a certified date. Pursuant to Article 145 of the Consolidated Text of the Intellectual Property Law, it is presumed—unless proven otherwise—that the registered rights exist and belong to their owner as reflected in the registry entry.
And in the world of music, this can be quite significant. Many works are created collaboratively, without much (or any) documentation. One person comes up with a melody, another writes the lyrics, another creates the backing track, and yet another adds arrangements that end up being recognizable in the final song.
As long as everything is going well, no one usually dwells too much on those details. The problem arises when the song starts generating revenue, when a synchronization proposal comes in for a campaign, when a label asks you to sign a contract, or when someone leaves the project.
At that point, properly documenting authorship ceases to be a mere formality and becomes a practical matter.
When discussing the registration of a song, it is important to keep in mind that a musical work may incorporate various protected elements, and that not all of them give rise to the same rights.
A song may include lyrics, a melody, an instrumental composition, arrangements, a performance, and a recording. From a legal standpoint, each of these elements may have its own significance.
Musical works (the composition and, where applicable, the lyrics) are protected by copyright. These rights belong to their creators or to those who have lawfully acquired them through a contract.
Protection applies to the intellectual creation itself, regardless of the specific version that is subsequently performed or recorded.
When that musical work is performed and captured on a recording, rights other than copyright come into play.
On the one hand, performers may hold rights in their performance. On the other hand, the resulting recording (known as a phonogram or master) may give rise to rights in favor of the phonogram producer, if any.
This distinction is particularly important in the field of music: a musical work is not the same as the master recording we typically hear on digital platforms, the radio, or physical media. Each may belong to different rights holders and require different authorizations for its use.
One of the common ways to register a song in Spain is to file with the Intellectual Property Registry, a process that requires:
When a song is composed as a group, it is advisable to agree in the contract on who contributed what and in what percentage, to avoid problems in the event of future conflicts.
An internal agreement helps regulate situations such as:
Once the work is protected, the next question is how to manage the rights that may arise as the song is used, distributed, or commercially exploited.
Depending on the project, various stakeholders may be involved: collective management organizations, music publishers, phonogram producers, digital platforms, record labels, or companies interested in using music in advertising campaigns, audiovisual productions, or video games. In Spain, collective management is primarily handled by the SGAE (authors and publishers), AIE (performing artists), and AGEDI (phonogram producers), organizations responsible for collecting and distributing the royalties generated by the use of music.
It isn't necessary to resolve all these issues right from the start, especially in projects that are just getting underway. However, being aware of them helps prevent mistakes and make the most of any opportunities that may arise.
Protecting the song is essential, but it’s not always enough. If the music project has a stage name, a band name, a logo, or a recognizable visual identity, it may be worth considering protecting it as a trademark, as we saw in this analysis of the trademark strategy behind Rosalía’s latest album.
Copyright protects musical works. A trademark, on the other hand, protects a symbol that identifies a business’s origin. In practice, it can be useful for preventing third parties from using the same or a similar name for musical activities, entertainment, merchandising, or other products related to the project.
Furthermore, the trademark is territorial. If a group begins to expand outside of Spain or sells products associated with its name, the protection strategy must be considered with a long-term perspective.
Some of the most common mistakes include:
Registering a song can be a good first step, but it shouldn't be the only one. Truly protecting a musical work requires a comprehensive view of the project: authorship, ownership, contracts, recording, licensing, branding, and future exploitation.
Music has creative value, but it also has economic value. It can generate revenue, reputation, collaborations, business opportunities, and conflicts if not managed properly.
That's why, before releasing or licensing a song, it's a good idea to carefully review what has been created, who was involved, and what rights need to be documented.
At ELZABURU, we assist authors, artists, production companies, audiovisual firms, and creative projects in protecting, managing, and defending their intellectual and industrial property rights, from the creation phase through to the commercial exploitation of their works.
Jesús Nogués, Attorney in the Media & Entertainment Practice Group at ELZABURU
No. In Spain, a song is protected from the moment it is created. Registration is not required, but it can serve as proof of authorship, date of creation, and ownership.
One of the main avenues is the Intellectual Property Registry, where the authorship or ownership of rights to a musical work can be registered.
Yes. Lyrics can be protected independently. If there is also a musical composition, it is advisable to consider whether to register the complete work or each element separately.
It is recommended to identify all authors and determine their respective shares before registering or exploiting the work.
No. If you want to protect the name of the group or artist as a distinctive mark, it must be analyzed from the perspective of trademark registration.
In international sports competitions, music is an essential part of the show. In certain disciplines (such as figure skating and rhythmic gymnastics, among others), the choice of music not only influences the choreography and performance but also triggers a complex set of intellectual property rights.
In public debate, this reality is often oversimplified by referring to “the rights to a song” as if it were a single authorization. However, from a legal standpoint, the use of music in an event broadcast globally involves different layers of rights, rights holders, and forms of exploitation. Understanding this structure is key to avoiding legal, financial, and reputational risks.
When a song is incorporated into a workout routine, at least two distinct legal categories come into play.
A musical work (the composition and, where applicable, the lyrics) is protected by copyright. These rights belong to the creators or to those who represent them under contract.
Protection applies to the intellectual creation itself, regardless of the specific version used.
The specific recording heard on the track constitutes a phonogram. Related rights apply to it, which may belong to the phonogram producer (if any) and to the artists, performers, or musicians.
The “work” is not the same as the “master’s degree” we usually hear about, and that difference is crucial.
The use of music at a sporting event is not limited to simply “playing” a song at the venue. It is necessary to analyze the various legal acts that take place.
Music played in the pavilion constitutes an act of public communication. This use is typically governed by specific or general licenses granted by the relevant collecting societies, which in some cases are handled by the event organizer.
In modern sports, events are recorded and broadcast across multiple channels: television, streaming, social media, and on-demand platforms.
From an intellectual property perspective, this means:
In practice, this is handled through “synchronization” licenses (a contractual term) and, when a commercial recording is used, authorizations to use the master.
Therefore, what may be sufficient in a national championship may prove insufficient in an international competition. The change is not due to a change in regulations, but rather to the territorial scope and the multitude of broadcast windows.
In many workout routines, music is not used in its original, unedited form. It is common to use edited versions, medleys, or rearranged tracks.
From a legal standpoint, when such modifications exceed a sufficient creative threshold to be legally classified as transformations (arrangements) of the work, it is not enough simply to“have permission to play it.” Specific authorization from the copyright owner is required.
In addition, the moral right of integrity may come into play, which allows the author to object to alterations that affect his or her work.
The result is a paradox: the more iconic the music, the more likely it is that securing the rights will be a puzzle involving rights holders, territories, and windows. That is why federations and organizers are pushing for declarations and pre-authorizations: a risk management strategy that turns athletes into managers of music content with international reach. Spectator sports are a global audiovisual product. And music isn’t just one license—it’s several: the work itself, the master recording, and audiovisual exploitation. A single misstep regarding one piece of music is enough to force program changes, create reputational conflicts, or open the door to financial claims.
The use of music without the appropriate licenses or permissions may result in financial claims both domestically and internationally. These claims may come directly from the rights holders or from collecting societies if the rights have not been properly licensed.
The possible consequences will depend on the type of right infringed, the severity of the infringement, and whether it is a repeat offense. In some cases, a financial settlement may be reached; in others, if an infringement is found to have occurred, a judge will determine liability and any damages.
As for liability, it does not rest solely with the athlete. Sports federations and event organizers may also be held liable. However, the specific distribution and allocation of that liability will depend on the contractual terms and the risk management practices of the federations and organizers. In practice, it is common for federations to contractually shift the burden to the athlete to ensure that the music used complies with intellectual property requirements.
The use of music generated by artificial intelligence currently raises numerous questions from an intellectual property perspective, and it is a field undergoing regulatory evolution.
The legal analysis will depend on various factors, including:
In addition, there are debates regarding the possible existence of copyright protection for these types of creations, potential infringements arising from the training data used by the system, and the allocation of liability between the technology provider and the end user.
In this context, rather than a single answer, what exists today are various legal approaches that will depend on how the musical work was specifically created.
Not necessarily. Public communication in the pavilion does not automatically cover recording, rebroadcasting, or making content available on digital platforms.
Yes. A work and a master copy are subject to different rights and require separate authorizations.
If the modifications are of such a creative nature that they involve a transformation of the work, specific authorization from the copyright owner will be required.
Today, spectator sports are an audiovisual product with international reach. In this context, music is not covered by a single license, but rather by a set of distinct rights (work, master recording, and audiovisual exploitation), the proper management of which is essential.
Failure to obtain any of these authorizations may result in financial claims, contractual disputes, or the need to modify a routine at a critical moment. Therefore, legal planning regarding copyright must be addressed from the outset, especially when the competition involves global distribution.
Elzaburu has a proven track record in intellectual property and in advising the audiovisual and entertainment industries. Our team conducts a comprehensive analysis of rights ownership, the forms of exploitation involved, and the associated contractual obligations, with the goal of providing a clear legal framework in any context.
Jesús Nogués, Attorney in the Media & Entertainment practice group at Elzaburu.
Every April 23, we celebrate World Book and Copyright Day, a date established by UNESCO to highlight the role of books as a vehicle for cultural transmission across generations. Its origins stem from the symbolic date of April 23, 1616, the day Miguel de Cervantes was buried, and the day Inca Garcilaso de la Vega and William Shakespeare died.
Beyond the celebration, this day is an opportunity to reflect on something that often goes unnoticed: what lies behind a book from a legal perspective and how a work is actually protected.
Copyright law grants the creator of a work a series of rights to that work from the very moment of its creation. In other words, no registration is required for that protection to exist: simply writing the work is sufficient.
From that point on, two types of rights come into play:
One of the most common questions is whether a work must be registered in order to be protected.
The answer is no: copyright arises automatically upon creation. However, registration may be advisable in certain cases.
The Intellectual Property Registry allows you to record the authorship and date of creation, which can be particularly useful in the event of a dispute or if you need to prove ownership of the rights.
Therefore, when a work is to be commercially exploited or rights are expected to be transferred to third parties, having this backing can provide greater legal certainty.
The value of a work lies not only in its creation, but also in how its exploitation is managed.
Economic rights may be assigned or licensed to third parties, such as publishers or other entities, which are responsible for the work’s distribution and commercialization. This means that, in many cases, the author does not directly exploit the work but instead authorizes its use under certain conditions.
In this context, contracts play a key role, as they make it possible to define aspects such as:
Proper regulation of these matters is essential to prevent conflicts and ensure the proper operation of the project.
Book Day is, above all, a celebration of reading and of those who make stories possible.
But it is also a good time to remember that creativity needs protection. Copyright not only recognizes the author’s work, but also allows works to be disseminated, exploited, and continue to generate value over time.
To wrap up this Book Day, we’d like to share some recommendations from the ELZABURU team that reflect different ways of approaching reading:
In the evolution of intellectual property law in Spain, Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, dated April 12— the 30th anniversary of its enactment falls today—is a perfect example of the phenomenon that has been plaguing this field for some time now. We are faced with a system under constant revision, whose laws lack the most basic aspiration of any legal norm: durability.
Let us recall that this is the Consolidated Text of the Intellectual Property Law, which led to the repeal—barely nine years after its enactment—of the landmark Law 22/1987 of November 11; the latter, in turn, had brought an end to more than 100 years ofthe reign of its predecessor, the historic Law of January 10, 1879.
The 1987 Act was not to prove particularly long-lasting. During its nine years of existence—before it even came of age—the Act had undergone no fewer than five amendments to its provisions and as many as eight supplementary legislative measures. It is therefore not surprising that lawmakers opted for the tried-and-true method of a consolidated text to try to harmonize the legal framework and give it an appearance of cohesion. Nothing wrong with that, of course.
What is indeed paradoxical is that the 1996 Consolidated Text did not provide intellectual property with the sense of stability (that is, legal certainty) that everyone had expected. The fact is that, since its enactment in 1996, the Consolidated Text has been the subject of no fewer than 22 legislative amendments (to modify, repeal, or add provisions) and more than 11 regulatory implementing measures.
Throughout this tumultuous evolution, intellectual property has experienced— whether willingly or not — every possible variation from the wide array of legal instruments offered by the national legislative landscape (Laws, Decree-Laws, Legislative Decrees, Decrees, Ministerial Orders) and the international landscape (WIPO/WTO Treaties and European Union Regulations/Directives). It has also been subject to corrective action through actions for annulment before the Supreme Court, constitutional challenges before the Constitutional Court, and preliminary rulings before the Court of Justice of the European Union. It has certainly seen it all.
Following the transposition of the latest Copyright Directive for the Digital Single Market through Royal Decree-Law 24/2021, one might think that we have entered a period of regulatory calm. But let’s not be naive.
On March 10, 2026, the European Parliament adopted a report titled“Copyright and Generative Artificial Intelligence: Opportunities and Challenges,” the text of which is nothing less than a call for regulatory action by the European Union in a field fraught with uncertainties.
So the birthday gift for the Consolidated Text of the Intellectual Property Law on its 30th anniversary may well be the announcement of…new reforms! We’ll be here to tell you all about it.
Mabel Klimt, managing partner at Elzaburu
April marks World Intellectual Property Day on the calendar, which this year focuses on sports as a driver of innovation and economic development. In this context, basketball has established itself as a clear example of how a sport can transcend competition to become an ecosystem of intangible assets.
To explore this issue further, we spoke with Blanca Palacín, a trademark attorney at Elzaburu, about the role that intellectual property plays in this industry.
Basketball is playing an important role in the development and protection of intellectual property in the sports world, serving as a key example of how intellectual property rights are used to protect and commercialize intangible assets.
The NBA was a pioneer in promoting an economic model based on the exploitation of audiovisual rights, brand protection, and merchandising licenses, which is managed on a global scale and generates significant revenue.
This practice has encouraged other sports leagues to adopt similar approaches, creating complex legal structures to protect content and brands internationally, ensuring the exclusivity of rights, and preventing their unauthorized use (such as illegal streaming or the sale of counterfeit products).
In short, basketball contributes to the development of intellectual property by creating high-value brands (teams, leagues, players, etc.), relying on audiovisual rights for its funding, and requiring legal protection to prevent the misuse of distinctive marks and content.
Currently, the most valuable assets in the basketball industry are primarily broadcasting rights, brands, players' image rights, and sports analytics and data technology.
Broadcasting rights for games and related content are a crucial source of revenue, protected by copyright and licensing agreements.
Leagues, federations, teams, and players register trademarks to protect their image and generate revenue, either on their own behalf or through licensing. The commercialization of sports trademarks is one of the industry’s main sources of revenue. Some examples of trademarks registered with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) include: Euroleague, Liga U, VALENCIA BASKET, and Santi Aldama.
In addition, sponsorship by other brands plays a crucial role in the economic ecosystem of sports, helping to enhance the brand image of both the sponsors and the league, team, or player in question. Endesa’s sponsorship of the ACB and the Women’s League is a clear example of how a brand can link its image to a sports league.
The commercial use of players' images is a key asset in every sport, including basketball. It allows for control over the commercial use of their names, faces, and other identifying features.
Data protection and technology in basketball have become increasingly important in recent years due to the growing use of big data, advanced technologies, and performance analytics. These tools not only help improve the game and the fan experience but also create valuable assets that require adequate legal protection to prevent unauthorized use, information theft, and unlawful exploitation. Their use is primarily governed by licensing agreements, copyright laws, and personal data protection regulations.
Registering players' names, celebrations, or iconic gestures as trademarks grants them, on the one hand, an exclusive right to use them and , on the other hand, allows them to prevent unauthorized use by third parties.
This exclusive right not only protects their commercial identity but also gives them control over its commercial exploitation, thereby ensuring a steady stream of income that extends beyond their athletic careers, even after they retire.
Players such as the Gasol brothers and Santi Aldama have established distinctive traits linked to their identity, solidifying their legacy both on and off the court.
Without a doubt, basketball has become a true intellectual property industry, as its economic value depends largely on intangible assets such as trademarks and audiovisual rights. The exploitation of these rights across various platforms, video games, and merchandise demonstrates that basketball transcends the realm of sports to become a global business based on the creation and management of intellectual property.
Basketball reflects how the sport has gradually incorporated an economic dimension that is increasingly linked to intangible assets. Beyond competition, the creation, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property rights are now an essential part of the sport’s development and sustainability.
In this environment, the proper legal management of trademarks, audiovisual rights, technology, and image rights is key to maximizing the economic and reputational value of clubs, leagues, and athletes. As in other innovation-intensive sectors, intellectual property not only protects but also shapes the business model.
At Elzaburu, we assist companies, sports organizations, and professionals in identifying, protecting, and strategically leveraging their intangible assets, tailoring each strategy to an increasingly global and competitive environment.
Every year on April 26, World Intellectual Property Day is celebrated—an initiative promoted by WIPO to highlight the role of innovation, creativity, and intangible assets in various economic sectors. In 2026, the celebration revolves around the theme “IP and Sports: On Your Marks, Get Set, Innovate!”, focusing on how intellectual property drives technological development, creativity, and branding strategies in the world of sports.
Professional sports is an ecosystem where patents, industrial designs, trademarks, and copyrights all come together. For this reason, we wanted to take a closer look at the case of Joma and its colorful soccer cleats—an innovative move that broke with traditional soccer aesthetics.
For much of the 20th century, soccer cleats were very similar: black, simple, and functional. The priority was on the durability of the material and athletic performance.
In that context, the idea of adding color to soccer cleats seemed, to many, nothing short of an extravagance. However, Fructuoso López, the founder of Joma, decided to take a different approach: to break away from soccer’s monochromatic tradition and turn athletic footwear into a visually distinctive element.
His vision gave rise to the “Color in Football” campaign in the mid-1990s. The idea was to launch soccer cleats that would be a radical departure from the traditional black.
The first ones were white boots, followed shortly afterward by models in more eye-catching colors, such as red. To promote them, the brand enlisted two rising stars in Spanish soccer: Alfonso Pérez and Fernando Morientes.
At a time when all the players wore black shoes, the visual impact was immediate, as the player stood out on every play, in every TV replay, and in every photograph from the game.
The boots didn't change in terms of their structure or materials (many were made of kangaroo leather), but the simple change in color completely altered the perception of the product.
At first, they encountered countless obstacles. Many stores were reluctant to sell them, convinced that no one would want to play in colored cleats. In fact, to generate initial visibility, the brand even gave away a few pairs to be displayed in store windows.
There was also criticism from the sports world. Some journalists questioned the product's aesthetics, and the national team coach at the time even joked that defenders could spot the player wearing white cleats more easily.
However, the gamble paid off, and the cleats stood out on the field, becoming an instantly recognizable feature on television. Young fans wanted to copy them, and almost immediately, everyone knew those cleats were made by Joma.
The innovation wasn't just aesthetic—it was also an extremely effective marketing strategy.
The impact of this innovation was particularly notable when considered in the context of the time. In the late 1990s, there were no social media platforms or viral digital campaigns, so outreach depended primarily on television, the sports press, and visibility at games.
Even so, the colorful boots became a media sensation. Appearances on magazine covers, comments during broadcasts, and growing demand among fans established the product as one of the brand’s biggest hits. This marked a turning point in athletic shoe design.
From the perspective of intellectual property and marketing, the Joma case illustrates several key aspects of how value is created in the sports industry:
The Joma case illustrates how innovation, creativity, and brand strategy can redefine an industry.
From patented materials used in sports equipment to industrial designs, trademarks, and image rights, intellectual and industrial property plays an essential role in the development of the sports industry.
In a global market where sports intersect with fashion, media, entertainment, and consumer goods, adequately protecting these intangible assets is key to driving innovation and strengthening companies' market positions.
I must confess that for the past couple of months, I haven’t been able to get that line by Robe Iniesta out of my head—the ill-fated artist who, as a child, was raised to be a wealthy man but who, as an adult, chose to sing:“But now, I’d rather be an Indian / than an important lawyer”(“Ama ama ama y ensancha el alma,” Extremoduro, from*Deltoya*, 1992)
The thing is, the relationship between the world of rock ’n’ roll and the legal profession has always been bittersweet. I remember that George Harrison, fed up with the legal squabbles that the creation of the Apple label brought about among the members of The Beatles —and the plagiarism lawsuit he had to face in the wake of the success of“My Sweet Lord”—wrote that charming song,“The Sue Me, Sue You Blues.” In it, he sang, without mincing words:“Bring your lawyer / And I’ll bring mine / Get together, and we could have a bad time…”. He then capped it off with some rather blunt lyrics:“But in the end we just pay / those lawyers their bills.”
Well, legal disputes in the world of rock come in many different forms: plagiarism among artists, conflicts with managers, clashes with record labels, and disputes among band members. At the heart of any conflict are almost always copyrights—if not trademarks—which, whether we like it or not, determine the financial well-being of any artist.
The issue of plagiarism—to start somewhere—has become a spectaclewithin the spectaclethat rock carries with it as a hallmark. And no one is safe from facingaccusationsof this nature, amplified by the state-of-the-art loudspeakers that are the media and social media.
Take, for example , the recent cases involving the sacrosanct Rolling Stones, with an alleged lawsuit over the song“Living in a Ghost Town”; or the untouchable Taylor Swift, whose“Actually Romantic”may have been inspired by“Where Is My Mind”by the Pixies, a cult band at the polar opposite of Swift’s musical tastes.
Accusations of plagiarism have dogged iconic bands in connection with some of their most acclaimed anthems: Led Zeppelin (the timeless“Stairway to Heaven”), Radiohead (the hypnotic “Creep”), and Coldplay (the weddingsong—paradoxical as it may seem—“Viva la Vida”).
So much so that a singer-songwriter as iconoclastic as Morrissey, in The Smiths’ song“Cemetery Gates,” issued a stern warning to plagiarists:“If you must write prose-poems / The words you use should be your own / Don’t plagiarize or take “on loan” / Because there’s always someone, / somewhere / With a big nose, who knows / And who trips you up and laughs / When you fall.”
The back-and-forth between artists and record labels, the music industry, and their managers has become almost a recurring theme over the decades. Paul McCartney was already complaining that they never gave him his money, that they only gave him “your funny paper,” and that“in the middle of negotiations / you break down” (The Beatles,“You Never Give Me Your Money,” from*Abbey Road*, 1969).
Joe Strummer and The Clash—a band as rebellious as they come—denounced the record labels’ abuses right from the start with unmistakable lyrics:“They said we’d be artistically free / When we signed that bit of paper / They meant ‘Let’s make a lot of money / And worry about it later’” ( The Clash, “Complete Control,”single, 1977). And it wasn’t just a pose or a stunt for the cameras: it’s worth remembering that the band forced the record label to sell their most iconic doublealbum,“London Calling,” for the price of a single album, and then imposed the same condition on their triple vinyl album“Sandinista.”
With a touch of nostalgia, the late, beloved Tom Petty expressed his disappointment at some artists’ surrender to the demands of the market in these meaningful verses:“If you reach back in your memory / A little bell might ring / ‘Bout a time that once existed / When money wasn’t king / If you stretch your imagination / I’ll tell you all a tale / About a time when everything / Wasn’t up for sale”(Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers,“Money Becomes King,” from*The Last DJ*, 2002)
Controversies can be just as bitter when they involve an artist’s personal relationship with the person to whom they have entrusted the financial management of their rights. It doesn’t matter if you’re a star as respected as Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, or Leonard Cohen—at some point, disagreements over that management can surface, destroying long-standing friendships or ruining fortunes amassed over long and arduous careers. And in some cases, the complaint may come from the other side and be based on reasons that border on the esoteric. Take, for example, the news reports about the lawsuit filed against Guns N’ Roses by a former manager over alleged “repeated threats”that are supposedly preventing him from publishing his memoirs under the witty title“Sound N’ Fury: Rock’N’Roll Stories.”
It’s important to realize that a music creator has to deal, at the very least, with a producer, a music publisher, arecord label, online music platforms, various collecting societies, and concert organizers and venues. Nor should we overlook the relationship with band members when it comes to defining authorship,royalty distributions, or ownership of the brand that gives the group its name . All of this takes place against the backdrop of a constantly evolving regulatory landscape and a technological environment— such as the Information Society and Artificial Intelligence—that is challenging institutions and convictions once considered well-established and unshakable.
Whether to prevent conflict through proper contractual arrangements with various parties, to avoid litigation by reaching agreements when disputes arise, or to ensure a favorable outcome in court should a lawsuit ultimately become necessary, the role of the attorney—like that of intellectual property rights management organizations—becomes indispensable throughout an artist’s career.
Anyway, so we don’t end up with a bad taste in our mouths, let’s go back to Robe and find a little song to wash it all away—one that shatters our souls and tears us apart inside. Even though we know that by tomorrow we might have nothing left and nothing might matter anymore, perhaps it’s true, as the one-of-a-kind artist from Extremadura liked to think,“that the power of art / could very well save us / from a lifeless existence / from a sad life / from a miserable death” (Robe,“El poder del Arte,”from*Se nos lleva el aire*, 2023 ).
To achieve this, it will be essential for art and music to fall under the umbrella of intellectual property, for the artist to be aware of the importance of defending their rights, and for the lawyer to love rock ’n’ roll and know how to stand by the artist through all their storms. And above all… let’s hope the lawyer isn’t the one causing them!
Antonio Castán Pérez-Gómez, Honorary Partner of ELZABURU.
Organizing cultural and festive events often involves commissioning or using creative works, such as posters, illustrations, or graphic designs. These creations are protected by intellectual property laws, which require the author’s permission for their use.
A ruling handed down by a commercial court has reiterated that the substantial reproduction of a work without permission—even if formal variations are introduced—may constitute plagiarism and result in financial liability for the person who uses it.
The dispute arose after it was discovered that the promotional poster for the Don Benito (Badajoz) City Council’s Carnival had allegedly been plagiarized—or at least inspired by—the one designed by Torres Franquis for the same festivities, but nine years earlier (2016) and for the town of Santa Cruz de Tenerife, for which he was paid 1,630 euros.
The similarity concerned the main element of the design: a “chicharro” fish depicted in a distinctive graphic style that had become a visual symbol of the original event.
The poster used by the town in Extremadura retained that same central motif, changing only the colors, adding some decorative elements to the background, and substituting the typeface.
After sending several letters without receiving a response, the creator filed a lawsuit seeking:
The judge ruled that the modifications made by the city council lacked sufficient creative substance to constitute a new work.
Despite these modifications, the essential features of the original design remained: the same dominant element, a matching graphic configuration, and a substantially identical structure. The similarity was therefore recognizable and relevant from a legal standpoint.
On that basis, the ruling finds that the use of the poster without the author’s authorization constitutes a copyright infringement under the Intellectual Property Law. Furthermore, it also finds that moral rights have been infringed, in particular the right to the integrity of the work and the right to be identified as the author.
The Don Benito City Council argued that ownership of the rights belonged to the Santa Cruz de Tenerife City Council, since it was the entity that had commissioned the poster at the time. The judge rejected this argument and noted that the commission did not entail the acquisition of full ownership of the exploitation rights. Thus, the author remained the original owner of the rights, while the city council held only a right of use under the agreed terms, without the authority to freely dispose of the work.
The ruling set total compensation at 6,500 euros, distinguishing between two categories:
In addition, it was agreed that:
This case highlights that the concept of “inspiration” has clear legal boundaries in the context of intellectual property. When a new creation reproduces the essential and recognizable elements of a prior work—even if it incorporates incidental or decorative changes—it cannot be considered independent.
Simply changing colors, fonts, or minor details does not alter this conclusion if the substantial identity of the design is preserved. In such cases, the use of the work without authorization constitutes unauthorized exploitation and, therefore, a copyright infringement.
The ruling under review confirms this approach by finding plagiarism despite the changes made and by recognizing both the financial and emotional harm resulting from the institutional use of the poster.
Proper management of intellectual property rights and respect for authorship are essential to preventing unauthorized use of creative works and the resulting financial and legal liabilities arising from their improper exploitation.
Elzaburu provides advice on the protection, defense, and litigation of copyrights and other intangible assets, drawing on constantly updated knowledge of applicable regulations and case law.
Carlos Morán, a partner at Elzaburu specializing in industrial and intellectual property litigation and unfair competition.
Intellectual property (IP) is not just a legal tool for protecting intangible assets: it is a structural economic driver for Europe. The latest joint report by the European Union Intellectual Property Office and the European Patent Office confirms that IP-intensive sectors account for a significant portion of the continent’s wealth creation, skilled employment, exports, and technological investment.
The study analyzes the 2021–2023 period and identifies 361 industries that are intensive in intellectual property rights, accounting for nearly 48% of the EU’s GDP, more than 30% of employment, and nearly 80% of European foreign trade. In addition, these industries attract more than 88% of private equity and venture capital investments in the EU directed toward IP-intensive startups.
These data not only provide macroeconomic evidence. They also offer a strategic conclusion for businesses: protecting innovation directly translates into competitiveness, financing, and growth.
Below, we analyze the report’s main findings and their practical implications for technology, industrial, and creative companies.
Industries are considered IP-intensive if they have a higher-than-average number of patents, trademarks, designs, or other intellectual property rights per employee compared to other industries that use intellectual property rights.
In simple terms:
An industry is considered intellectual property-intensive in the EU if, for at least one of the intellectual property rights under consideration, the number of such rights per employee exceeds the average for all EU industries that use that same intellectual property right.
These industries range from pharmaceuticals and electronics to software, fashion, food products with geographical indications, and creative services.
The report's premise is clear: when IP is used systematically, its economic impact is multiplied.
The study provides compelling indicators regarding IP-intensive industries:
These figures demonstrate a direct correlation between the protection of intellectual property and value creation. These are not marginal sectors or technological niches, but rather the backbone of the European economy.
The financial contribution varies depending on the type of right involved. The report breaks down the data by sector. Below, in addition to companies specializing in the leasing of intellectual property, are some examples by type of industrial property right.
One of the most significant findings of the report is the wage premium.
Workers in IP-intensive sectors earn, on average, 40.9% more than those in non-IP-intensive sectors.
This fact has clear implications:
IP not only generates business wealth, but also higher-quality, more specialized jobs.
Sectors that rely heavily on intellectual property rights are significantly more international.
According to the report:
This is because protected innovation facilitates:
One of the most innovative sections of the study analyzes the relationship between PI intensity and business funding.
The conclusion is clear: investors view intellectual property as a sign of quality and growth potential.
More than 88% of European venture capital and private equity investment goes to startups in IP-intensive sectors.
The reasons are clear:
For tech, deep tech, or biotech startups, having a solid patent and trademark strategy can be crucial for securing funding.
Beyond the macroeconomic figures, the report's message is practical:
Intellectual property must be integrated into business strategy from the very beginning.
Some key recommendations:
Registering patents, trademarks, or designs before expanding into new markets helps avoid risks and strengthens one's negotiating position.
It is not a matter of accumulating rights, but rather of aligning them through a protection strategy that includes:
Rights may:
European companies compete globally. Protection must cover the main target markets.
IP is not an administrative procedure, but a tool for gaining a competitive advantage.
The report by the EUIPO and the EPO confirms what business practice has been demonstrating for years: the knowledge economy is built on protected intangible assets.
Nearly half of Europe's GDP depends on sectors where patents, trademarks, designs, and copyrights are essential. These industries generate more skilled jobs, pay higher wages, export more, and attract greater investment.
For companies, the conclusion is clear: protecting innovation is not just a legal issue, but a strategic decision for growth.
At Elzaburu, we support technology, industrial, and creative companies in protecting, managing, and maximizing the value of their intangible assets, helping them transform intellectual property into a sustainable competitive advantage.
It is a company that registers more patents, trademarks, designs, or other intellectual property rights per employee than the average, indicating that its operations rely heavily on protected innovation.
They account for about 48% of GDP and more than 30% of total employment in the European Union.
Because it reduces competitive risk, protects exclusivity, and increases company valuations, which makes it attractive to venture capital funds.
Pharmaceuticals, technology, software, fashion, automotive, food products with geographical indications, and creative services, among others.
As soon as possible, preferably before launching products or seeking financing. Depending on the nature of the registration, launching a product may result in the loss of the novelty requirement, making it impossible to obtain subsequent protection—for example, through a patent.
David Hidalgo, Associate and European Patent Attorney in the Patent Department at Elzaburu.