Abstract
This opinion focuses on the recent decision of the Spanish Supreme Court of 18 October 2020, regarding the claim of a professional bullfighter to obtain copyright protection under the Spanish Intellectual Property Law for his performance in a bullfighting event in 2014. The question relates to an old debate among IP scholars on whether some forms of non-artistic performances, such as sports or other disciplines like bullfighting here, can be considered as works protected by copyright. In this article, we will analyse the political background of the controversy and the course of the case through different instances of the Spanish judicial system. Also, we will review in depth the contents of the Supreme Court’s judgment, individualising the different reasons that led the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims. Finally, we will consider the consequences of the case for the protection of creations that are not specifically mentioned in the Spanish Intellectual Property Law as protected works.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
Parlament de Catalunya (2010) Llei 28/2010, del 3 d’agost, de modificació de l’article 6 del Text refós de la Llei de protecció dels animals, aprovat pel Decret legislatiu 2/2008.
http://cido.diba.cat/legislacio/1354880/llei-282010-del-3-dagost-de-modificacio-de-larticle-6-del-text-refos-de-la-llei-de-proteccio-dels-animals-aprovat-pel-decret-legislatiu-22008-departament-de-la-presidencia. Accessed 30 March 2021.
https://www.elconfidencial.com/cultura/2020-01-19/toros-cadena-ser-espectaculo-animalistas_2417415/. Accessed 22 March 2021.
https://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2010/10/27/toros/1288211011.html. Accessed 22 March 2021.
Sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional, de 20 de octubre de 2016, 177/2016 (ponente Juan Antonio Xiol Ríos). http://hj.tribunalconstitucional.es/es/Resolucion/Show/25131#complete_resolucion. Accessed 10 March 2021.
Tribunal Supremo (2016). Nota informativa nº 85/2016. https://www.tribunalconstitucional.es/NotasDePrensaDocumentos/NP_2016_085/Nota%20Informativa%20n%C2%BA%2085-2016.pdf. Accessed 28 March 2021.
Ley 18/2013, de 12 de noviembre, para la regulación de la Tauromaquia como patrimonio cultural. https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2013-11837. Accessed 8 April 2021.
Ley 10/2015, de 26 de mayo, para la salvaguardia del Patrimonio Cultural Inmaterial. https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2015-5794. Accessed 8 April 2021.
https://elpais.com/espana/catalunya/2020-07-27/el-ultimo-tributo-a-los-toros-en-barcelona.html. Accessed 22 March 2021.
Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Civil, de 16 de febrero de 2021, 82/2021 (ponente Ignacio Sancho Gargallo). https://www.poderjudicial.es/search/TS/openDocument/f8ac10daeee55c11/20210203. Accessed 16 March 2021. For a translation of this decision into English, see this issue of IIC at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01080-8.
Real Decreto Legislativo 1/1996, de 12 de abril, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual, regularizando, aclarando y armonizando las disposiciones legales vigentes sobre la materia. https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1996-8930. Accessed 16 March 2021.
Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others v QC Leisure and Others, CJEU, Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08, 4 October 2011.
The definition of “cuadrilla” in the Dictionary of the Spanish Royal Academy (Real Academia Española) is: “Ensemble formed by a “matador” with his “banderilleros” and “picadores” (spike-holders and speared horsemen that help the “torero” during his act)”. https://dle.rae.es/cuadrilla?m=form. Accessed 22 March 2021.
The decision cites the aforementioned decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court (177/2016) and Law 18/2013 to recognise that bullfighting is a cultural and artistic manifestation.
Cofemel – Sociedade de Vestuário SA v G-Star Raw CV, CJEU, C-683/17, 12 September 2019.
Levola Hengelo BV v Smilde Foods BV, CJEU, C-310/17, 13 November 2018, where the Court ruled that the taste of food cannot be protected as a copyright work under EU copyright law, as it is merely based on subjective sensations of the person that perceives the object.
Rodríguez Tapia (2009), p. 120.
Galacho Abolafio (2014), p. 93.
Bercovitz Rodríguez-Cano (2007), p. 161.
Sánchez Aristi (2000), p. 31.
Galacho Abolafio (2014), pp. 181, 189, 192 and 316.
Valbuena Gutiérrez (2000), p. 190.
Fatás Cabeza and Borrás Gualis (1990), p. 104.
A more intense protection that the same law gives to performers in Art. 105 and subsequent Articles, with a limited scope of right and duration of protection (50 years instead of 70).
Again, citing Art. 10 of the Spanish Intellectual Law, which states that original works are “all original literary, artistic or scientific creations expressed by any means or medium, tangible or intangible”. The Spanish Supreme Court has also reinforced the concept of a work as a novel creation, and the result of a certain level of intellectual activity. See the Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Civil, de 24 de junio de 2004, 542/2004 (ponente Román García Varela), and the Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Civil, núm. 429/2002, de 13 mayo de 2002 (ponente Ignacio Sierra Gil de la Cuesta). Conversely, the Court has denied protection to any attempt to monopolise styles or methods, a position that connects with our subject here, as a bullfighter’s performance lies close to these two notions. See the Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Civil, de 7 de junio de 1995, 563/1995 (ponente Alfonso Barcala Trillo-Figueroa).
In absence of a definition of originality in the Spanish Intellectual Property Law, the doctrine understands that a work will be original when it reflects the author’s personality, which shows in how the ideas are expressed. Massaguer Fuentes (1999), p. 202, and Cámara Águila (1998), p. 278. In artistic works, the process of creation and therefore the notion of originality is linked to the author’s will of generating culture and the enjoyment of its artistic merit by the public. Muñoz Vico (2011), p. 50.
https://tauromaquia.jcyl.es/web/es/informacion-interes/glosario-terminos-taurinos.html. Accessed 25 March 2021.
Gobierno de España (1996) Real Decreto 145/1996, de 2 de febrero, por el que se modifica y da nueva redacción al Reglamento de Espectáculos Taurinos. https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1996-4945. Accessed 30 March 2021.
We can find in the Spanish doctrine a definition of what a choreographic work is: “a succession of bodily expressions conceived by its author in connection with the beat of a melody”. Esteve Pardo (2009), p. 72.
Otero Lastres (2005), p. 30.
As the Spanish Supreme Court stated in his decision of 25 June 2013: “The recordings of sports events are not original literary, artistic or scientific creations expressed by any means or medium, tangible or intangible, and are specifically not creations expressed through a series of images associated with or without built-in sound, which is how article 86.1 of Intellectual Property Law defines audiovisual works. In principle, the live broadcast or recording of a football match lacks the minimum originality and creative height necessary to be considered as a work protected by intellectual property”. Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Civil, de 25 de junio de 2013, 439/2013 (ponente Rafael Saraza Jimena). https://www.poderjudicial.es/search/AN/openDocument/f353b465a1239c4a/20130729. Accessed 8 April 2021.
Like Picasso did in 1971 for his friend, the famous bullfighter Luis Miguel Dominguín, who became internationally famous because of his flirting with the Hollywood diva Ava Gardner in the early 1950s. The suit was displayed at the Museo del Traje (Museum of the Suit) in Madrid, in 2010. https://www.aplausos.es/arte-de-luces-en-el-museo-del-traje/. Accessed 17 March 2021.
Article 6 Ley Orgánica 1/1982, de 5 de mayo, de protección civil del derecho al honor, a la intimidad personal y familiar y a la propia imagen, https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1982-11196 (accessed 8 April 2021), and the seventh and final regulation of the Resolución de 23 de diciembre de 2014, de la Dirección General de Empleo, por la que se registra y publica el Convenio colectivo nacional taurino, respectively, https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2015-342. Accessed 8 April 2021.
References
Bercovitz Rodríguez-Cano R (2007) Comentario al artículo 10. In: Bercovitz Rodríguez-Cano R (ed) Comentarios a la ley de propiedad Intelectual, 3rd edn. Tecnos, Madrid, pp 151–188
Cámara Águila MP (1998) El derecho moral del autor: con especial referencia a su configuración y ejercicio tras la muerte del autor. Estudios de derecho privado, Comares, Granada
Esteve Pardo MA (2009) El objeto del derecho de autor: la obra. In: Esteve Pardo MA (ed) Propiedad intelectual. Tirant Lo Blanch, Valencia, pp 65–78
Fatás Cabeza G, Borrás Gualis GM (1990) Diccionario de términos de arte y elementos de arqueología, heráldica y numismática, 5th edn. Alianza Editorial, Madrid
Galacho Abolafio AF (2014) La obra derivada musical: entre el plagio y los derechos de autor. Thomson Reuters Aranzadi, Cizur Menor, Navarra
Massaguer Fuentes J (1999) Comentarios a la Ley de Competencia Desleal. Civitas, Madrid
Muñoz Vico A (2011) Una defensa convencida de la libertad de creación. In: Torres Ripa J, Gómez Hernández JA (eds) El “copyright” en cuestión: diálogos sobre propiedad intelectual. Universidad de Deusto, Bilbao, pp 43–78
Otero Lastres JM (2005) El grado de creatividad y de originalidad requerido al diseño artístico. Pe. i: Revista de propiedad intelectual 19:9–36
Rodríguez Tapia JM (2009) Comentario al artículo 10. In: Rodríguez Tapia JM (ed) Comentarios a la ley de propiedad intelectual, 2nd edn. Thomson Civitas, Madrid, pp 119–129
Sánchez Aristi R (2000) Las ideas como objeto protegible por la propiedad intelectual. Pe. i: Revista de propiedad intelectual 4:25–79
Valbuena Gutiérrez JA (2000) Las obras o creaciones intelectuales como objeto del derecho de autor. Granada, Comares
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Simon Altaba, M. Is a Bullfight a Work of Art? Not in Spain Apparently. IIC 52, 807–819 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01081-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01081-7