🍿 2022-09-28 19:02:50 – Paris/France.
The lives of the rich and famous continue to fascinate audiences. That's why Netflix has launched a program on the life of Tamara Falcó that allows us to watch the exclusive mansions and events between which her life takes place. However, there is one sign of richness that viewers won't see: paintings by well-known artists appear pixelated or blotchy.
Some media have started to speculate about the reasons for the removal: preventing theft or avoiding paying taxes could be some of them. But the most probable is that it is simply about the intellectual property of the paintings and the payment of the rights of public communication of the works. This is defined by Article 20 of the Intellectual Property Law (LPI) as “any act by which several people can have access to the work without prior distribution of copies”.
For the son of Tapiés, one of the stained artists, “it is understood that to play music you have to pay certain rights. Well, it's the same thing”. It would simply be a way for program producers to save money. In the end, we will end up knowing all the details of the life of someone who has done little to remember, but the public will be prevented from knowing the works of relevant authors who decorate their properties.
conflicting rights
The experts who provide their opinion shed light on the payment obligations and the safeguarding of authors' rights. Only occasionally do they criticize intellectual property regulations. But they systematically forget that these authors' rights are not absolute and have limits. These are established in the law itself (Chapter II of the LPI).
It is true that a painter must receive remuneration for the dissemination of his work. But is this also the case when this dissemination takes place in the context of information? The rights, too often, are opposed, and this is why the law ranks them. The right to education or information is superior to the rights of authors; this is why the law limits them when in practice the two collide. And it could be reality show from Netflix.
The law establishes that “any work that can be seen or heard on the occasion of information on the news may be reproduced, disseminated and communicated to the public” (art. 35 LPI). It seems that the life of the Marchioness of Griñón is topical; Otherwise, no one would risk their money to produce a show about her figure. And, therefore, the works that are part of its environment would be protected by this limit.
quoting is legal
One of the experts consulted in the article linked above points out that the user fees for some museums are exceptionally high and that "if you have to include a work of art in your doctoral thesis, you have to pay hundreds of euros”. Museums are likely to claim these payments, but the truth is that the law protects researchers and allows the inclusion of fragments of others' works (and complete plastic works) in new works "by way of citation" and “for teaching or research purposes” .investigation” (art.32 LPI).
The systematic blurring of works in television programs or the limitation of the use of quotations that publishers tend to demand from authors (especially in the Anglo-Saxon sphere) is a tortuous use of intellectual property rules.
It is implied that any use of a work without remunerating the authors is an infringement, but the part of the law which protects the rights of the public is ignored. If well estos no aparecen referidos en las normas (salvo en las más modernas que regulan los “contenidos generados por los usuarios” en internet), las leyes de propiedad intelectual reconocen sus limitaciones cuando se ponen en juego derechos de mayor calado como la información y education.
Publishers and producers routinely take a break by not respecting authors' rights to use these images. They thus set aside the activities for which the law grants them, in certain cases, intellectual property rights.
Of course, you have to be prepared to resort to lawyers to argue that the program on Tamara Falcó is informative or current content. You also risk being sued by a museum for using an image of a work for which you claim payment in a research book.
But, until these controversies reach the courts, neither debate nor case law will be generated. And limits to copyright exploitation rights will become a dead letter, regulated by law, but with no one to claim or defend them.
As much as this annoys the heirs of Tapiés, the Marchioness of Griñón should be able to show her painting to all the spectators. It's part of mainstream information: banal, superficial and perhaps insubstantial. But the right to know does not just protect major political or economic news, but simply what the public wants to know.
SOURCE: Reviews News
Do not hesitate to share our article on social networks to give us a solid boost. 🍿