A renowned rapper from Marseille, in conflict with his label, sought to have a music publishing contract annulled in court. Among the arguments raised for this annulment, he highlighted the presence of a clause transferring audiovisual rights inside the publishing contract.
According to him, this violated the provisions of Article L.131-3 of the Intellectual Property Code, which states that the transfer of audiovisual rights must be formalized in a separate contract from that governing the original work, and not within a music publishing contract.
As a result, the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence had to examine the sanctions for non-compliance with the formal requirement that impose a distinct contract for the transfer of audiovisual adaptation rights.
I. Reminder of the formalism imposed by Article L.131-3 of the Intellectual Property CodeThis article states: “Transfers concerning audiovisual adaptation rights must be the subject of a written contract on a separate document from the contract relating to the actual publication of the printed work. The recipient of the transfer undertakes by this contract to seek the exploitation of the transferred right in accordance with professional practices and to pay the author, in the event of adaptation, a proportional remuneration based on the revenues received.”
Thus, under this article, a distinction between the publishing contract and the audiovisual adaptation contract is required to protect authors by distinguishing the various forms of exploitation of their works.
II. Decision of the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence
The Court of Appeal ruled that, although the clause transferring audiovisual rights within the publishing contract was irregular, it could not lead to the invalidation of the entire publishing contract.
Indeed, the Court, in its ruling, indicated that “the written form is required solely for evidentiary purposes, and not for validity, so that the nullity of the transfer, if established, reflected in the publishing contract, does not affect the contract itself, as it does not concern an essential element.”
In other words, the presence of a clause transferring audiovisual rights in a publishing contract, even if irregular, does not nullify the contract.
Conclusion
The non-compliance with the formalism imposed by Article L.131-3 concerning the transfer of audiovisual rights only affects that specific transfer, without calling into question the validity of the entire music publishing contract.
This case highlights the importance for artists to seek some legal advice when signing publishing contracts to ensure that their audiovisual adaptation rights are properly protected.
