{"id":12942,"date":"2026-03-03T09:15:37","date_gmt":"2026-03-03T08:15:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/?p=12942"},"modified":"2026-02-27T10:27:08","modified_gmt":"2026-02-27T09:27:08","slug":"the-show-must-go-on-but-with-a-license-the-scope-of-musical-synchronization","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/intellectual-property\/the-show-must-go-on-but-with-a-license-the-scope-of-musical-synchronization","title":{"rendered":"“The show must go on”\u2026 but with a license: the scope of musical synchronization"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Provincial Court of Madrid, <\/strong>in its judgment of May 16, 2025<\/strong><\/a>, confirmed a highly relevant criterion for the audiovisual sector: what should be understood as the synchronization of a musical work in an audiovisual production and why this act requires the specific authorization of the rights holder. <\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

It all began in 2020, in the context of the return to \u201cnormality\u201d after the Covid-19 lockdown, when Atresmedia broadcast on several of its channels a video that incorporated Queen’s iconic song The Show Must Go On<\/em> to announce the return of two of the network\u2019s programs. SM Publishing Iberia (Sony Music), the music publisher holding the exploitation rights over the musical work, filed a claim against the network, considering that this use required a specific synchronization license that had never been requested nor granted.<\/p>\n

Atresmedia’s defense was built around classifying the video as a self-promotion spot rather than an advertisement, arguing that the use of the musical work was covered by the agreement signed with SGAE, which allowed the use of the collective management organization’s repertoire in self-promotional content. The network also claimed it had notified SGAE of the use and that SGAE had settled the corresponding royalties.<\/p>\n

The Provincial Court, however, shifted the focus of the debate: it considered irrelevant the debate raised by Atresmedia on whether the video was advertising or self-promotional, and instead centered the analysis on the legal nature of the act of exploitation and on whether SGAE had been entrusted with managing the necessary authorization. The Court concluded that the video met the legal requirements to be classified as a new protectable audiovisual work and, as such, that the integration of pre-existing music constituted an act of synchronization.<\/p>\n

The judgment pointed out that synchronization covers both the incorporation of a musical work into an audiovisual work through a phonogram in which it was previously recorded, and cases where the musical work is synchronized in the audiovisual work through an artistic performance fixed directly in that work. In line with prior case law and consolidated doctrinal positions, the Court classified synchronization as a form of transformation. As the judgment notes, the incorporation of a musical work \u2013unchanged though it may be\u2013 into another work produces transformative effects, as it becomes surrounded by a different expressive context.<\/p>\n

As a transformative act, synchronization requires specific authorization from the rights holder.<\/p>\n

From a contractual standpoint, the Provincial Court stated that the standard management contract with SGAE expressly provides that the synchronization or first reproduction of a musical composition from its repertoire, or of an audiovisual work or phonogram, requires the prior consent of the rights holder. The agreement between Sony Music and SGAE aligned with this interpretation. Consequently, the collective management organization lacked the authority to authorize synchronization for Atresmedia and had not undertaken such an obligation toward the network \u2013 without prejudice to the Court\u00b4s reminder that \u201cno one can grant rights they do not have\u201d.<\/p>\n

The Provincial Court of Madrid thus fully dismissed Atresmedia\u00b4s appeal and upheld the \u20ac80,000 compensation set in the first instance, calculated in accordance with the hypothetical license criterion under Article 140.2.b) of the Spanish Copyright Act, which the Court considered appropriate based on Sony Music\u00b4s comparison with the synchronization license granted in 2020 for another Queen song, I Want to Break Free<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Overall, the judgment reinforces a doctrinal line previously upheld by the same Court in prior litigation between the same parties (that case involving Estopa\u00b4s song Fuego<\/em>): the incorporation of a musical work into an audiovisual piece constitutes \u2013subject to the nuances outlined in the judgment\u2013 an act of transformation which requires the express authorization of the rights holder through a synchronization license, regardless of the purpose of the video or any general licenses entered into with collective management organizations.<\/p>\n

Mar\u00eda Sim\u00f3n\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Intellectual Property Service<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Provincial Court of Madrid, in its judgment of May 16, 2025, confirmed a highly relevant criterion for the audiovisual sector: what should be understood as the synchronization of a musical work in an audiovisual production and why this act requires the specific authorization of the rights holder. It all began in 2020, in the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":12945,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[103,95],"tags":[961,959,962,960],"coauthors":[843],"class_list":["post-12942","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-audiovisual","category-intellectual-property","tag-exploitation-rights","tag-license","tag-sgae-en","tag-synchronization"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12942","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12942"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12942\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12943,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12942\/revisions\/12943"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12945"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12942"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12942"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12942"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=12942"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}