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.
Registering a trademark associated with a musical project has become an essential tool in the industrial property and intellectual property strategies of contemporary artists. Rosalía’s recent application for the European trademark “LUX,” months before the release of her new album, illustrates how trademark law can anticipate market trends and protect the commercial value of the intangible assets associated with artistic creation.
Filing an application for a European Union trademark before the launch of a cultural or musical product allows the applicant to establish a priority date and obtain a presumption of legal protection against third parties. In the case of “LUX,” the artist filed the application on June 6, 2025, for classes 9, 25, and 41, which include musical recordings, clothing, and entertainment services.
This strategy prevents potential opportunistic registrations by third parties seeking to profit from the commercial value of the mark and facilitates the drafting of licensing agreements ( merchandising, distribution, etc.) with greater legal certainty.
The application is currently under review by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). Once this stage is complete, a three-month period will begin during which holders of prior rights may file an opposition on relative grounds. Consequently, an opposition could still be filed if there are similar prior trademarks.
One of the fundamental principles of trademark law is its territorial nature. This means that the protection granted by a European Union trademark is effective only within that territory.
Failure to register the trademark in relevant jurisdictions may leave the owner vulnerable to unauthorized use or prior registrations by third parties. In this case, Rosalía has also applied for registration in the United Kingdom and the United States, a move consistent with the international significance of her previous Motomami World Tour.
However, at this time, there is no record of an application in China, where releasing the album before registration could have made it easier for a third party to beat them to it. Without a local registration, it would be more difficult to take action against potential infringements or misuse of the “LUX” mark in that market.
One of the key factors in granting a trademark is its distinctiveness. The EUIPO examines applications to rule out generic or descriptive signs in accordance with the absolute grounds for refusal set forth in the EU Trademark Regulation.
Although “LUX” means “light” in Latin and is commonly associated with luxury, this term does not directly describe the protected goods or services (such as clothing, musical recordings, or entertainment services). Therefore, there are no apparent legal obstacles to its registration.
At the same time, another trademark related to “LUX” is a symbol. These figurative trademarks may also be registered, provided they are not limited to generic shapes and possess sufficient distinctiveness.
Unlike word marks, their distinctiveness is assessed from a visual perspective, based on whether the graphic symbol allows the business or artistic origin of the goods and services offered to be identified.
In the case of European Union trademark applications, it is common for the timeline and information regarding potential oppositions not to be displayed until the application is published. This is because, while the application is under examination, the opposition period has not yet begun, and certain information is accessible only to the owner or the owner’s authorized representative before the Office.
The European Union Intellectual Property Office does not provide for the confidential processing of applications; therefore, this would not constitute a confidentiality strategy. Once the application is published, all essential information would become public.
In this case, for the record label to be able to claim a share of the revenue derived from the use of the trademarks, we must rely on what was agreed upon between the parties. In principle, without a formal licensing agreement with the record label, the artist herself will receive the revenue generated by the use of the trademarks registered in her name.
When it comes to developing a strategy to capitalize on an album release, various factors come into play, depending on the creativity of the artist or the team. An example of how to leverage intangible assets in this context is the case of Rosalía’s album cover, unveiled at a massive event in Callao. To create the cover, certain rights must be assigned by the collaborators involved—such as the photographer or designer—and these rights are typically owned by the record label, in this case, Columbia Records.
Another way to capitalize on a release—by leveraging intangible assets—is through “listening parties,” a format that originated in the United States and has been used by major artists such as Ye (a.k.a. Kanye West). These types of events serve not only as a promotional tool to generate buzz but also as a unique experience for fans, who can listen to the album for the first time alongside the artist. Rosalía, in particular, has opted for a more intimate format than other artists, thereby creating a more personal connection with her audience and enhancing the experience surrounding the release. This has undoubtedly made it necessary to consider a series of legal measures to protect such activities. For example, formalizing contracts with venues, obtaining public communication licenses, establishing data processing conditions, and managing access. In short, as with almost all music releases, it is the combination of legal measures that makes the difference in determining whether a product will be successful.
The first step in capitalizing on intangible assets to avoid future problems with an album release is to ensure that you have all the necessary rights assignments or licenses for phonographic and publishing exploitation, as well as trademark registrations and rights to other key elements such as artwork, cover designs, and any visual material associated with the release. It is essential to avoid any type of claim for rights infringement, both during the release phase and after the product has been distributed.
A common—and potentially costly—mistake is failing to formalize agreements with producers, performers, and collaborators. It is not uncommon, even today, to see albums released in both physical and digital formats that later lead to claims of copyright or moral rights infringement. These disputes can arise for reasons such as the unauthorized use of samples or rights assignments that were not properly signed. In addition, visual elements—such as the cover art or any other graphic material used in promotion—must be adequately protected to avoid conflicts related to intellectual property.
Lucía Palomino, Attorney in the Trademark Practice Group at Elzaburu, & Jesús Nogués, Attorney in the Media and Entertainment practice group at Elzaburu.
Image: Rosalía's website and EUIPO.
Did you know that on November 6, 1975, after four years in the making and overcoming all kinds of obstacles, the rock opera “Jesus Christ Superstar” premiered at the Alcalá Palace Theater in Madrid?
The musical, produced and starring Camilo Sesto throughout, had a huge impact on the world of culture and copyright in Spain at that time. Let’s look back at some of its milestones and lessons.
"Jesus Christ Superstar" was created in 1967 by the young Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, and its commercial success followed a classic trajectory: first, it was recorded on an album (October 1970, featuring Ian Gillan of Deep Purple as the lead singer!); then it premiered on stage (Broadway in 1971, London in 1972); then it was made into a movie (1973); shortly thereafter, the movie’s soundtrack was released on record (1973); the musical then began touring the world with various productions and stage revivals that continue practically to this day; and finally, the title was registered as a European Union trademark (….)
The musical’s reception in Spain, due to the political and market situation, was quite different. The film premiered at the Valladolid Film Festival on May 5, 1974, but did not reach commercial theaters until February 1975; the stage premiere took place in November of that same year; and the Spanish-language soundtrack, sung by the lead trio (Camilo Sesto, Teddy Bautista, and Ángela Carrasco), hit record stores during the Christmas season of 1975.
The musical in Spain was an entirely privately funded production. “The tax structures and AIE programs that exist today didn’t exist back then, and Camilo Sesto was unable to find any sponsors,” Mabel Klimt tells us. Camilo Sesto risked his personal fortune on the project.
In order to secure the rights, the organizers traveled to London to meet first with the record label, then with Lloyd Webber's agent, and from there with his lawyers. The Spanish version of the libretto also had to be authorized later.
It must have been quite a feat for a Spanish company to obtain the license, because the legislative differences regarding copyright compared to the UK were significant. Although Spain had ratified the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in 1973, our law dated back to 1879. It was not until Law 22/1987 that Spain began to modernize its legal framework.
Even in Spain, the musical's production had to contend with the censors of the time. There were changes to the script, cuts to the necklines, and adjustments to the staging. And it took a lot of ingenuity to get around the obstacles!
Camilo Sesto's live performance of the legendary theme song "Getsemani"—as well as his appearances on several television shows—raised many people's awareness, scandalized a few, and for others marked the very beginning of Spain's political transition.
As Antonio Castán points out: “If a melodic artist like Camilo Sesto was capable of embracing the cause of rock in a religious opera, what wouldn’t have been possible in Spain back then!?”
For anyone interested in exploring the topic further, we recommend the documentary “Jesus Christ Superstar: A Milestone in the History of the Spanish Musical,” by Marta García Sarabia, produced in 2018 and still available on Filmin. It offers a fascinating look at the trials and tribulations the producers endured to obtain the license, circumvent censorship, and build from scratch a musical that was groundbreaking in every respect (technical, artistic, social, political, and spiritual).
In the meantime, let's sing, if you'd like, "Hosanna, hey-sanna-sanna-sanna / Hosanna, hey-sanna, hosanna …"
Recent legal reforms have significantly improved funding for the cultural sector. Today, theatrical, musical, and audiovisual productions can benefit from tax incentives that promote their development and dissemination and have a significant positive impact on society.
These measures not only ease the tax burden on those who support cultural projects but also open up new funding channels for producers, making the system beneficial for promoters, creators, and investors alike.
Access to funding remains one of the main challenges for those involved in producing cultural projects. In recent years, tax regulations have incorporated measures that partially alleviate this obstacle, opening up new possibilities for certain projects to access other sources of funding with the greatest possible legal safeguards.
Currently, various types of cultural productions—such as audiovisual works, plays, concerts, and dance performances—can benefit from a system that recognizes the right to claim tax deductions against corporate income tax. Producers may claim these deductions themselves or, under certain conditions, transfer them to third parties interested in participating in the project—that is, to investors.
The audiovisual sector has traditionally enjoyed the most favorable tax treatment, as the first specific incentives were introduced in 1995, although they were limited and unattractive measures. They were consolidated following substantial changes to the regulations in 2015 with the corporate income tax reform, which established an attractive framework for domestic and international productions. In recent years, this favorable treatment has gradually been extended to other disciplines, such as the performing arts and live music, which did not have their own tax regime until 2015, when a specific deduction was introduced for the first time. Although differences in scope and rates still persist across sectors, the regulations have evolved toward a broader and more inclusive approach to cultural activities as a whole.
For many filmmakers, these film tax incentives have provided an additional source of funding, making it possible to carry out projects that would otherwise be more difficult to bring to fruition, thereby contributing significantly to the industry's development.
As we previously announced, tax regulations also provide benefits for those who choose to contribute funds to cultural projects carried out by third parties; under certain conditions, these benefits may be available to private investors.
This model allows companies and professionals to contribute to cultural development while potentially qualifying for a corporate income tax deduction or, in some cases, a personal income tax deduction. These are not subsidies, but rather a system that channels a portion of tax revenue toward cultural activities with social and economic impact.
Investor participation in these types of initiatives has increased in recent years, driven by regulatory clarity and the appeal of combining a cultural purpose with tax optimization.
Although there are still many areas for improvement—such as ensuring equal tax treatment across different disciplines and models—the current framework offers an increasing number of tools that can contribute significantly to access to, production of, and preservation of culture in its many forms.
Inés de Casas, Senior Associate in the Media & Entertainment Practice
In the audiovisual industry, every frame counts… including from a legal standpoint. A film or television production may include elements that, if not properly managed, could lead to claims, distribution delays, or even legal action. That is why legal clearance is an essential step in any production.
Clearance is the process of legally reviewing an audiovisual work to identify elements protected by third-party rights (such as musical works, trademarks, artistic works, or personal data), verify whether those rights are still in effect, and, if necessary, obtain the necessary authorizations for their legal use.
This work includes:
If you're interested in learning more about what clearance is and how it's applied in practice, you can watch this explanatory video: What Is Clearance in Fccine? – Video by Elzaburu
Various types of rights may come into play during the development of an audiovisual project. The most common are:
They apply to any preexisting work of art:
License plate numbers, phone numbers, or real documents may be considered personal data. At Elzaburu, we always recommend avoiding the use of real personal data because, even if we obtain the owner’s consent during recording, ownership may change later.
This is particularly relevant in productions based on real events, true crime, or docu-reality shows, where people may be directly or indirectly identifiable.
Clearance must be part of the project from the very beginning:
This monitoring helps minimize legal risks, optimize resources, and avoid costly last-minute changes.
Elements that may be protected by third-party rights (music, trademarks, artistic works, identifying information, etc.) to determine whether they require the necessary authorization or license.
Starting with the script. The sooner risks are identified, the easier it will be to avoid them and adapt the production without incurring additional costs.
It depends. If the brand is not used in a prominent or promotional manner, it may not be necessary to obtain authorization. However, each case must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
Even short excerpts require a license if they are not in the public domain. Synchronizing music requires authorization from the copyright holder, unless the work is in the public domain or covered by an applicable free license.
Although they may seem random, they can be considered personal data. As a precaution, it is best not to use real data.
This can lead to legal claims, distribution disruptions, problems with insurers, and lost business opportunities.
It is not a formal legal requirement, but it is an essential legal practice. In fact, many platforms, distributors, and insurers require it as part of the delivery process.
At Elzaburu’s Media & Entertainment Department, we assist producers, platforms, and studios in identifying and managing all third-party rights involved in their projects, minimizing risks from the script stage through to the premiere. Our expertise combines technical knowledge of intellectual property, industrial property, and image rights with a practical understanding of how audiovisual productions work.
Claudia Fernández, Junior Associate in the Media & Entertainment at Elzaburu
Cultural and folk festivals are gathering places that promote cultural diversity and blend historical traditions with contemporary artistic expressions.
From live music to graphic design, including the performing arts, audiovisual arts, and traditional art forms, intangible assets are a cornerstone of these festivals, making them high-risk legal environments if appropriate preventive measures are not taken.
Implementing an effective industrial and intellectual property strategy is not only crucial for protecting the interests of the organizers and participants, but also contributes to the protection of the festival’s culture, sustainability, and recognition.
In the following article, we outline five key points you should consider as part of your strategy for protecting and leveraging intangible assets if you're thinking about organizing a cultural or folk festival:
The first step in protecting intangible assets is trademark registration. Both the festival’s name and logo are distinctive marks, and protecting them is essential to prevent unauthorized use that could damage the event’s reputation or cause confusion among the public. In addition, it is advisable to register the corresponding domain name and create official social media profiles.
Cultural festivals involve the extensive use of copyrighted works: music, videos, stage performances, visual arts, and others. Therefore, it is essential that organizers enter into agreements with the rights holders or their representatives.
These contracts must specify the terms of use for the works, including the duration of the license, the authorized territory, the means of exploitation, and any financial compensation.
Sponsorships are a crucial source of funding for these types of events, but they also involve the shared use of trademarks and other intangible assets, which requires clear and detailed regulations. Sponsorship contracts must specify the terms of use for trademarks, as well as any licenses for copyrighted works used in promotional activities.
It is also advisable to establish control and oversight mechanisms within the organization, during the creation of advertising materials, and throughout the event to ensure:
At cultural events, it is common to capture images and sounds. However, when the event involves works protected by copyright or image rights, clear guidelines regarding image rights and reproduction must be followed.
Organizers must post visible notices on the premises informing the public and the media of the permitted purposes for recording and distributing content. In addition, they must ensure compliance with these regulations to protect creators’ rights and maintain the integrity of the event.
Another aspect to consider is respect for traditional cultural expressions—those unique to traditional communities that form part of their cultural identity and have been passed down from generation to generation. It is always important to ensure that there is no misuse of cultural expressions.
Organizing festivals involves both exposure to risks—such as piracy, counterfeiting, or the misappropriation of content—and the potential to generate financial and reputational benefits through proper management of intellectual and industrial property.
A preventive strategy not only protects organizers from potential violations but also allows them to make the most of intangible assets—through licensing or controlled transfer—thereby transforming cultural value into real opportunities for development.
At Elzaburu, we assist organizers, rights holders, and public and private entities in designing and implementing legal strategies that ensure effective protection of industrial and intellectual property at all types of cultural events. Our team of experts enables us to offer a service that safeguards the value of intangible assets and contributes to the sustainable development of culture.
Cristina Espín, Senior Associate in the Legal Department (Business and Contracts) at Elzaburu.
In recent years, film tax incentives have played a key role in Spain’s audiovisual industry. These incentives have not only fostered the creation of domestic productions but have also attracted major international co-productions, making Spain a prime destination for film shoots.
In this article, we will discuss what tax incentives in the film industry are and how tax deductions work, as well as the importance of Economic Interest Groups (AIE) in this context, with a special focus on recent legal developments affecting these entities.
Tax incentives for the film industry are a key tool for financing film productions, which are helping to boost the audiovisual sector—both domestically and in terms of its ability to attract international film shoots.
One of the main tax incentives available in the country is the film tax credit, which allows film production companies to recoup part of their investment in audiovisual projects. These deductions, regulated by the Corporate Income Tax Law, are structured through a system that allows producers to deduct a percentage of the expenses incurred in the production of a film, series, documentary, short film, or animated film; they also apply to performing arts and musical productions.
The tax deduction varies depending on various factors, such as the type of production (domestic or international), the filming location, the use of local resources, and the involvement of Spanish companies in the production. These benefits allow the Spanish film industry to remain competitive in a global market where tax incentives are a decisive factor in choosing a filming location.
Economic Interest Groups ( EIGs ) are nonprofit entities created to facilitate cooperation among various companies or professionals in order to carry out a common project. In the film industry, EIGs bring together different stakeholders to finance and produce films.
The AIE is established as a production company, carrying out production as part of its business activities; and, thanks to its legal status, it can pass on the tax consequences of production to the partner on the books as of December 31 in exchange for obtaining financing for the project. In other words, a taxpayer who wishes to take advantage of the tax benefits generated by audiovisual production and live performances pays a fee to become a partner in an AIE and thereby be able to claim the favorable tax results associated with it—provided, of course, that there is a return on investment that makes the transaction attractive to these investors.
Film production companies (AIE) play a crucial role in the film industry, as they not only provide access to tax incentives but also facilitate the financing of large-scale productions. Because they are registered with the Institute of Cinematography and Audiovisual Arts (ICAA), these companies can benefit from tax deductions for investments in film production, which significantly reduces production costs.
Tax deductions in the film industry through AIEs serve as a vehicle for tax transparency; an AIE is an entity that passes on any tax consequences arising at its level directly to its resident partners based on their percentage of ownership, so that investors or producers participating in an AIE can receive a percentage of the deduction generated by the film’s production.
The advantages of using an EIT for film investments stem from all of the above, including the following:
For AIEs, the tax treatment is in accordance with the regulations in effect at any given time. AIEs must meet specific requirements established by the ICAA to qualify for tax benefits. These entities are an attractive option for producers, as , in addition to tax incentives, they offer a more flexible and efficient structure for financing projects.
This methodology has been approved and endorsed by the administration, which recognizes the AIE as a producer; it is also supported by the Film Act, which states in Article 21:
“To make better use of the tax incentives provided for in tax regulations (…) the Institute of Cinematography and Audiovisual Arts (ICAA) will promote:
Recently, the Spanish audiovisual sector has seen a significant landmark ruling that reinforces the stability of tax deductions in the audiovisual sector and endorses the use of Economic Interest Groups (AIE) as a driver of investment. The National Court issued a ruling in January 2025 confirming that EIGs can indeed obtain tax benefits for film productions, overturning a previous decision by the Tax Agency (AEAT).
This court ruling stems from a dispute between the AEAT and an AIE that had requested a tax deduction for its investment in the production of a film. The AEAT had argued that the AIE did not meet the requirements to be considered a legitimate production company and, therefore, was not eligible for the tax deduction. However, the National Court overturned this ruling, establishing that AIEs, as vehicles for production and financing, are entitled to the tax benefits provided for in Spanish film legislation.
The National Court reaffirms that the Tax Administration cannot contradict its own actions or those of other administrative bodies, such as the ICAA, which is responsible for classifying AIEs as production companies. Furthermore, the ruling establishes that the ICAA’s film producer certificates are fully valid for tax purposes as well, and that the AEAT cannot arbitrarily disregard them.
The ruling not only affects film production companies (AIE), reinforcing their legitimacy as a vehicle for production and financing, but also improves the economic framework of the audiovisual sector in general, maintaining an attractive tax regime for international production and reaffirming Spain as a reliable destination for tax-related investments in the entertainment sector. Furthermore, this ruling is particularly significant for productions filmed in the Canary Islands, a key destination for audiovisual co-productions, as tax incentives have driven an increase in the number of film shoots in the region. In 2024, film shoots on the islands increased by more than 17%, generating direct revenue of approximately 218 million euros and creating more than 14,000 local jobs.
Tax incentives for the film industry have been a key tool in the development of the audiovisual industry in Spain. Tax deductions and the role of film production companies (AIEs) have facilitated the financing of both domestic and international film projects. The recent ruling by the National Court confirms that film production companies are entitled to benefit from these tax incentives, further strengthening the competitiveness of the Spanish industry. Such measures will continue to be essential for attracting investment and creating jobs in Spain’s audiovisual sector.
Jaime Hormeño, Junior Associate in the IP, Media & Entertainment practice at Elzaburu.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has been transforming our lives for decades through automation and mechanization. From personalized ads to algorithms on platforms like Netflix, this technology is already part of our daily lives. However, generative AI has brought about a paradigm shift by being able to create content on its own, sparking a revolution in the creative and cultural industries, especially in the audiovisual sector.
The film industry, as an industry based on intellectual property, faces significant challenges posed by generative AI—challenges that experts have not yet been able to resolve.
Some argue that creations produced by this technology are not eligible for protection, since the regulations require human intervention for intellectual property to be protected. Others, however, maintain that the author is the person who provides the prompt. Nevertheless, under current regulations, the person who formulates an idea is not considered its author; therefore,this debate over authorship remains open and has profound implications for the future of the industry.
Faced with uncertainty, film professionals have chosen two main paths:
The recent entry into force of the European Artificial Intelligence Regulation raises questions about how this issue is regulated in other key markets, such as the United States, the mecca of cinema. Although the differences are minimal, the EU focuses on protecting privacy and preventing intrusiveness, reflecting a concern shared globally.
The film industry, as a globally oriented sector, cannot ignore the impact of generative AI. Major platforms are already promoting local productions with a global reach, demonstrating that these technologies have the potential to transform current dynamics.
One of the most promising aspects of generative AI is its ability to democratize content creation. Now, individual creators can also access advanced tools, lowering the technical and financial barriers that previously limited high-quality production.
Professionals in technical fields are exploring these tools in pre-production and post-production, achieving surprising results. However, this raises new questions about intellectual property rights in an environment where human-machine collaboration is redefining the boundaries of creativity.
The relationship between generative AI and intellectual property is particularly sensitive in the audiovisual sector. For example, some actors are including clauses in their contracts to prohibit the use of their likeness in AI training or the generation of content without their authorization.
In this regard, many platforms are already includingrestrictions in their contracts, adopting a cautious stance as the law evolves.
The development of a balanced regulatory framework will be key to ensuring the sustainability of the audiovisual sector. Such regulation should take into account the interests of creators, companies, and viewers, allowing this technological revolution to foster creativity without jeopardizing the industry’s economic viability.
The combination of human talent and generative AI tools can lead to an unprecedented explosion of creativity, provided that legal and ethical challenges are addressed responsibly.
Mabel Klimt, managing partner at Elzaburu