On January 25, 2023, the Supreme Court put an end to the controversy surrounding the long-running show “Cifras y Letras.”
The dispute began in 2016 with the lawsuit filed by the “expert” professor from the “Cifras y Letras” program against ARTISTAS INTÉRPRETES, SOCIEDAD DE GESTIÓN (AISGE)—the collecting society of which he was a member—demanding payment of the remuneration granted to performing artists under Article 108.5 of Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, dated April 12, which approves the consolidated text of the Intellectual Property Law, regularizing, clarifying, and harmonizing the legal provisions in force on the matter (LPI).
The defendant, for his part, argued that under no circumstances was the professor portraying a character; rather, he identified himself as an expert in literature, and therefore was not merely playing the role of an expert, but was, in fact, one.
Commercial Court No. 9 of Madrid, in its ruling of September 26, 2018, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that his appearance on the program “Cifras y Letras” constituted an artistic performance, thereby entitling him to the remuneration established in Article 108.5 of the Intellectual Property Law (LPI) pursuant to the provisions of Article 20. 2(f) of the LPI, and AISGE must therefore pay the amounts outstanding from the program’s first broadcast to the present date.
In light of the previous ruling, AISGE filed an appeal with the Provincial Court of Madrid. For its part, the Court, contrary to the rulings of the Commercial Court, held that the presenter’s performance should be “externalized” in such a way that the audience would perceive it as an artistic creation and not as a personal and spontaneous expression—that is, as a natural performance by the teacher.
As a result, the expert filed an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court alleging procedural violations and seeking cassation, in which he claimed a violation of Article 108.5 of the Intellectual Property Law (LPI) in conjunction with Articles 105, 120.1, 122.2, and 122.3 of the LPI.
Finally, the Supreme Court (Civil Chamber, 1st Section), in its ruling of January 25, 2023, held that “the appellant has not demonstrated a valid basis for cassation” and ruled to dismiss the extraordinary appeals for procedural violation and the cassation appeal filed by the plaintiff.
This ruling by the Supreme Court affirms and upholds the judgment handed down by the Provincial Court of Madrid, without addressing the merits of the case. It would have been interesting to hear the Supreme Court’s interpretation of this matter, since no similar case had ever been brought before the high court.
Given everything discussed so far, could it not be argued that a person whose behavior follows a script is not acting in a natural and spontaneous manner, and is therefore performing a role that is eligible for protection? If the answer to the previous question is yes, that person would be considered a performing artist within the meaning of Article 105 of the Intellectual Property Law (LPI) and would be entitled to the remuneration established in Article 108.5 of the LPI.
Claudia Fernández Rañón, Attorney at ELZABURU