The errors of the scenic representation contract

This article is going to be technical. A remote control diatribe; But follow me. The Colombian legislation speaks of the stage representation contract ... but 30 * years later, it continues with the same error since the day it was written.

We present the culprit:

Subscribe to our mailing list

We do not spam or share your info.

I agree to have my personal information transfered to MailChimp ( more information )

"23 1982 Law. CHAPTER IX - " Contract of representation - Article 139º.- The contract of representation is that by which the actor Of a dramatic, dramatic-musical, choreographic or of any similar kind, authorizes an entrepreneur to have it represented in public in return for an enumeration. "
(Underline text)

 There are many things that are wrong with that article.

One that says "actor" Where should i say "Author"… I should even say "holder". The correct wording should be:

The representation contract is one by which the holder Of a work (...) authorizes an employer to have it represented in public in exchange for an enumeration.

Have that to me.

But another is the misfortune of baptizing the contract with the word representation ... without saying a representation of what. Without specifying that it was the exercise of the patrimonial right of representation; And not the ability to represent someone - which is essentially a mandate.

Of course, there was no other, it is the clearest and there is nothing to do. But it generates problems in the industry. The managers Know that management Are of artistic representation, but because they once heard something insist that it can not be called "representation". The management is a mandate, burdensome and atypical in many of its clauses (that we discussed another day). It further complicates managers... and that it is already difficult to explain exactly what they do.

That says "actor" and not "Author"Or"holder"Is vital. Confused, leads to explain an unnecessary matter. Something will have been said about the subject, right?

… do not[1].

In the jurisprudence of the constitutional court there is no mention. In that of the Supreme Court of Justice either.

The books of doctrine copyright neither reviewed you ... and nothing.

This article interests me because it shows that the theatrical environment is not well known by lawyers - and less lawmakers. That the law regulating copyright in Colombia is of the year 1983, and has had two major interventions - in 1993 and 2012 - ... and no one noticed this error; Or better, no one considered that should be corrected.

It shows that legal inaccuracies may not have as many consequences; But a creative medium like the theater deserves to have its rules in order. Let the dramatists know how the contract is called with which they can authorize their work to be assembled and represented.

The following articles are well, and do apply; The 10% of the box office (supplementary) is the market average. But the right of stage representation should be a right to perform theatrical assembly; And the theatrical assembly should be understood as a new protection object or a derivative of the dramatic text.

That the article is poorly worded also prevents this discussion; Just to mention one.

Pessimism wins me. I do not think this will change soon. Van * 34 years and counting.

PS: In article 139, where it says "choreography" should say "choreographic" ...
If they see what I say?

[1] The 20 of August of 2017 verified the online jurisprudential base of: Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, Council of State, Constitutional Court. Also the meta-searchers of normativity and jurisprudence Vlex, LégisMovil, NotiNet and These seekers can find markers in jurisprudence of courts, circuit judges and municipal judges.


Billy Rose Theater Division, The New York Public Library. "The threepenny opera," Lincoln Center. [1976] The New York Public Library Digital

Music Division, The New York Public Library. "Sonata for viola and piano" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1919