Today we spoke with Carlos Morán, a partner at Elzaburu who specializes in industrial and intellectual property litigation and unfair competition, about a recent Supreme Court ruling that has generated interest in the field of copyright and co-authorship in artists’ studios. Below, Carlos answers a series of questions that help clarify the practical scope of this ruling and the implications it may have for artists, collaborators, and professionals in the sector.
The September 30, 2025, ruling by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court addresses, for virtually the first time, the issue of determining the authorship of works of art created in the context of an artist’s studio, but the reality is that the appeal had very little room for maneuver, and the Supreme Court essentially upheld the appellate ruling issued by Section 28 of the Provincial Court of Madrid on March 21, 2021. The case before the Supreme Court was already weighed down by the evidence presented at the trial court level and by the forcefulness of the appellate ruling. The Supreme Court adds little to it. The cassation ruling accepts as valid the facts found to be proven in light of the evidence presented and the legal rulings of the Provincial Court. The limitations inherent in the cassation appeal did the rest.
Rather than legal principles, the Supreme Court has taken into account the facts that emerge from the evidence presented, namely:
The Supreme Court’s ruling notes on several occasions that, according to the Provincial Court—whose assessment of the facts and evidence must be respected—the tasks performed by the plaintiff were “extremely important” and not merely “ancillary” or “complementary” to those of the defendant.
The existence of an employment relationship between the parties, as established in a prior labor court ruling, was not taken into account by the Supreme Court due to a procedural issue: labor court rulings are not binding on civil courts. In a sense, the facts and evidence directly presented in the civil lawsuit take precedence over the precedents derived from the labor court ruling.
That said, it stands to reason that the existence of an employment relationship does not prejudge—for better or for worse—the facts of the case, which must be proven on a case-by-case basis. It is another matter entirely that the employment contract, as we will discuss later, may specify or emphasize certain conditions or characteristics that refute the notion that the tasks performed by the assistant or collaborator involve creativity.
The fact that the co-author created the work on her own is yet another circumstance that demonstrates to the court— when considered in conjunction with all the other factors—that she imbued the works with her own personality or was in a position to do so. The ability to make choices is best exercised in solitude.
This is essentially a declaratory judgment (recognizing the plaintiff’s status as a co-author of the 221 works) that includes a single order of relief: the defendant must publish, at his own expense, an announcement in a nationally circulated art magazine stating that the plaintiff has been recognized as a co-author of the 221 works listed in the judgment.
Artists’ studios have been a constant feature in the history of art and are not called into question by this legal precedent. The Supreme Court’s ruling, in fact, expressly addresses any misinterpretation of its decisions and any attempt to extrapolate or generalize its doctrine to the current situation of any artist’s studio. On this point, the ruling expressly states: it is not a matter of saying that any technical assistant in a studio can be considered the author of an artistic work in which they participated, but rather that “in this particular case,” the plaintiff, in the solitude of the studio, was capable of giving form to the defendant’s ideas by making her own decisions based on her personality.
That doesn't mean we can't learn from this situation:
From a practical standpoint, it does not appear that the ruling will have any effects on the artist beyond the reputational aspect. All indications are that the paintings were commissioned and had already been sold, so their commercial exploitation has been virtually exhausted.
Otherwise, the artist has not lost his status as the author; it is simply that he must share that status with the plaintiff. In practice, this means only that if the artist wishes to refer to those 221 paintings, he would have to state (make it clear) that the plaintiff is a co-author.
It appears, as we have already noted, that the witness testimony and the defendant’s cross-examination may have been decisive for the Provincial Court in determining how the plaintiff worked at the defendant’s workshop. These cross-examinations seem to have taken precedence over the expert opinion submitted by the defendant, the content of which is not sufficiently addressed in the judgment.
The ruling does not constitute“case law”in the strict sense, as it is practically the first of its kind. It is a ruling that relies largely on the CJEU’s doctrine regarding authorship/originality and cites a foreign precedent (the French ruling in the Renoir case). The Supreme Court itself also rules out a broad interpretation extending to other cases and emphasizes that its decision is based on the specific circumstances of this case.
However, the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the collaborator rather than the artist could lead to the mistaken belief that the floodgates have opened and that any“assistant”can follow the plaintiff’s example. It is necessary to guard against this kind of interpretation.
Given that the ruling should not cause anyone alarm, it is advisable for artists who work in a studio setting with collaborators to take this opportunity to review their contractual and factual situations to determine whether or not there is any risk to them arising from the ruling’s findings.
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
For the first time, the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) has recognized copyright protection for an image generated by artificial intelligence. The work, titled *A Single Piece of Cheese*, marks a milestone in the history of intellectual property and sparks a debate about the future of copyright in the age of AI.
Kent Keirsey, CEO of Invoke—the platform used to generate the image— announced this historic achievement on his social media accounts:
"We have played a small role in the history of U.S. copyright by securing the first copyright for a single image created exclusively with AI-generated content."
This case is significant because, until now, the U.S. Copyright Office had refused to register works generated by artificial intelligence, citing the lack of human involvement in the creative process.
The key to legal recognition in this case lies in human intervention within the creative process. Specifically, the selection, coordination, and arrangement of AI-generated elements have been recognized, demonstrating a level of involvement that has transformed the work into something distinctly human.
The creation of "A Single Piece of Cheese " was not limited to simply having an AI automatically generate the image. Using the Invoke platform, the original image was modified and retouched through the following process:
It was this series of artistic interventions that led the USCO to reconsider the protection of the work in January 2025 (following the rejection of the application in September 2024).
The U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) has previously reviewed copyright applications related to works created using artificial intelligence, although with different results than in this case:
Jason Allen used the Midjourney tool to create the work *Théâtre D’Opéra Spatial* (2022), but his application was rejected because he failed to demonstrate a sufficient level of human involvement.
In 2023, Kris Kashtanova was granted rights recognition for the story and visual composition of her graphic novel *Zarya of the Dawn*, but not for the AI-generated illustrations.
That same year, in the Rose Enigma case, protection was granted only to the portion based on a prior hand-drawn sketch by Kashtanova, while the elements added by artificial intelligence were excluded from protection.
In all of these examples, the USCO reaffirmed that artificial intelligence cannot be considered an author in its own right and that protection is granted only when there is clear and significant human involvement in the creation of the work.
In the European Union, there is still no official ruling by courts or intellectual property registries recognizing copyright in works generated by artificial intelligence. However, the recognition of copyright in A Single Piece of Cheese marks a turning point in the relationship between AI and intellectual property.
In this context, it is likely that European case law will, in the future, gradually define the interpretive criteria for determining the minimum level of human involvement required for a work generated by AI to be protected.
At ELZABURU, specialists in intellectual property, we closely monitor these developments and are ready to advise creators and companies on protecting their rights in the digital environment. Contact us for more information on how to protect your creations under current law.
Agustín Alguacil, Associate in the Legal 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.
April 26 marked the 100th anniversary of the publication of *The Trial*, one of Franz Kafka’s most iconic works. Its story, as relevant today as it was when it was first published, offers an unparalleled opportunity to reflect on the role of copyright and the value of intellectual property as safeguards of the author’s creativity, integrity, and artistic vision.
The Kafka case is one of the most hotly debated in the world of copyright law. The Czech writer left clear instructions to his friend Max Brod: to destroy all his manuscripts after his death. However, Brod disregarded that wish and published works that are now part of the universal literary canon.
From a legal perspective, this act constitutes a violation of the author's moral rights, particularly with regard to the rights of publicity and the right to object to defamatory works. Despite this, the result was the preservation of an invaluable legacy.
*The Trial* starkly depicts a judicial process in which the defendant is unaware of the charges against him, has no access to an effective defense, and is ultimately executed without ever having been heard by a visible judge. Rather than a traditional legal critique, the play presents a deeply unsettling vision of depersonalized power and the absurdity to which a judicial system can descend when it loses sight of the individual.
A century later, the “Kafkaesque” remains present, albeit in more subtle forms. It is not far-fetched to apply that adjective to current situations such as the prolonged failure to renew the General Council of the Judiciary, the proliferation of procedural reforms that create legal uncertainty, or even legislative initiatives aimed at circumventing court rulings of historic significance (handed down in proceedings conducted with impeccabledue process). It can also be evoked by the tensions that arise in the field of copyright law with every attempt to reform intellectual property law, when creators perceive the risk of diminishing protection.
In 1962, Orson Welles adapted *The Trial* for the screen in a personal and atmospheric version that, although it introduced some narrative changes—such as reversing the order of certain episodes or a different ending—remained deeply faithful to Kafka’s spirit. What is significant from a copyright perspective is that this was the only film by Welles that was not subject to external interference during the editing process. The director himself acknowledged this: “It wasn’t tampered with, either in the editing or in anything else.”
Interestingly, Welles conceived a scene for this film that was never included, but which is remarkably relevant today: an episode in which Josef K. consults a fortune-teller who interprets his fate using a computer. In the screenplay, the protagonist reflects on the possibility of replacing a human judge with a machine. Although it was ultimately cut, this scene foreshadows current debates about the application of artificial intelligence in the justice system and its implications—including for intellectual property and the limits of human judgment in the creation and evaluation of works.
Kafka’s figure has also been reinterpreted in contemporary fiction. In *The Cockroach* (2020), Ian McEwan reverses the plot of *The Metamorphosis*: instead of a human turned into an insect, we witness a cockroach waking up transformed into the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Beyond political satire, this work raises an interesting question from the perspective of the right of adaptation, one of the forms of exploitation provided for in intellectual property law.
Although Kafka’s works are in the public domain—since more than eighty years have passed since his death—the reuse of elements from his works continues to raise purely rhetorical questions from a copyright perspective, except for issues that would affect the right of integrity or authorship.
In the wake of the publication of Kafka’s short stories, Jorge Luis Borges reflected on the fact that some authors wish to keep their works unpublished or even destroyed. He recalled that Virgil wanted the *Aeneid* to be burned, and that Shakespeare never considered compiling his plays. For Borges, perhaps these authors trusted in the “pious disobedience” of their heirs. But in Kafka’s case, he believed that “Kafka saw his work as an act of faith and did not want it to discourage people.”
The truth is that today, one hundred years after the publication of *The Trial*, its legacy remains as relevant as ever. On the contrary, in a world where challenges to creative freedom and legal certainty persist, Kafka’s work serves as a necessary reminder—an uncomfortable mirror, but also a symbol of the value of artistic expression and the need to protect it.
An analysis of Miguel de Cervantes’s work—particularly the Second Part of *Don Quixote*—offers a unique opportunity to reflect on the concept of copyright in today’s context, marked by the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and the challenges it poses for intellectual property.
The second part of *Don Quixote* is not only a seminal literary work but also a historical testament to the need to protect authorship.
Specifically, the episode in which Cervantes responds with his famous line, “Every pig has its St. Martin’s Day,” upon the publication of a fake sequel to his novel, signed by Avellaneda, can be interpreted as one of the earliest instances of what we now consider a copyright infringement.
Cervantes also openly criticizes the abuses committed by the printers and publishers of his time. By declaring that “I do not print my books to gain fame; I seek profit,” he highlights the importance of creators receiving fair compensation for the use of their works—a central principle of modern copyright law.
This approach remains relevant today, as the widespread distribution of content on digital platforms poses new challenges for the protection of copyright and the sustainability of creative work.
Miguel de Cervantes clearly expressed his view of authorship as a direct and personal relationship between the creator and his work. His writings reveal his conviction that a literary work springs from the author’s pen and constitutes an extension of his personality. This idea foreshadows the fundamental principle upon which modern copyright law is based : the protection of the work as a reflection of the intellectual and moral bond between the author and his creation.
Cervantes’s view of authorship—understood as a direct expression of the creator’s personality—takes on special relevance in light of the advances in generative artificial intelligence. When AI is used not as a support tool but as a substitute for human creativity, the very existence of true authorship is called into question. This sparks a necessary debate about the limits of copyright and the need to preserve the value of human creation in the digital environment.
Copyright should not be viewed solely as a legal instrument, but also as a way of valuing cultural creation, just as Cervantes showed us. Works protected by copyright contribute knowledge, emotion, and personal enrichment to society. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain an attitude of respect toward those who create them, ensuring a legal framework that protects their work from abusive use or unauthorized exploitation.
An analysis of Cervantes’s view of authorship provides a better understanding of the foundations of copyright law. His legacy highlights the need to protect creativity, recognize authorship, and ensure adequate compensation for those who contribute to cultural and social development through their work, even in an environment shaped by the digital transformation.