The errors of the scenic representation contract

Scenic representation

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.

Label: CopyrightWe present the culprit:

"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

That title is a plagiarism


The title of a work is its name. It's no more. In principle, the work is protected by copyright; But his title, alone and abandoned, failed.

Label: CopyrightA good title is descriptive.

A good title hooks.

A bad title may, by loose, make the work lose sense or do it justice.

There are hundreds of songs with the same name (eg "Oh Love"). We have all composed (intentionally or unintentionally) a song with a title that someone else had already used.

But is there plagiarism? Can you claim me for baptizing another song under the title "My Love"?

No. If ideas are not protected, the title is almost an idea. What is important is the body of the work. Its development. Where does the author take that title, or why did it end there?

There are notorious cases of great titles. That alone could be considered sufficient originality or works to be protected individually (and in conjunction with the work). All the novels of Gabriel García Márquez are part of the list of great titles. But it would be a long and disputed fight.

I think to be for a matter of harnessing that plagiarism reputation of others.

If you have to put a title, it is fine if it has meat, if it is original; But if in the end you are going to give the world another "Our love", then,
What else?


5 titles that take it out of the stadium:

  1. Love in the Time of Cholera (Gabriel García Márquez)
  2. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Charlie Kaufman et. Al.)
  3. Lemon Tiramisu (Joaquín Sabina)
  4. The love of the fireflies (Alejandro Ricaño)
  5. Your house on the corner of time (The Ear of Van Gogh)


The moment of inspiration


The moment of inspiration. The muse. All that string of lies we say to call you to creative work.

Label: CopyrightCopyright books begin with a cute chapter, trying to explain what the moment of inspiration is. They do so in lawyer-ish ways, which in a corny way sound like something related to the arts.

In those chapters, they give almost a magical presence to inspiration, when the author manages to leave his hypnotic state of extreme narcissism and doubts that eat him, and creates a new work of art. Any work of art. An intellectual creation.

The mess we are in, is the inability that law has to acknowledge this moment; and paradoxically the equal inability of the arts to describe it.

For copyright, inspiration should not be worth anything.

If copyright does not value artistic merit, neither should it give any thought to the cause of artistic work.

The artistic work must exist.

How does the artistic work escapes the mind or hands of its creator is pure anecdote.

What interests us is that it exists, that has been externalized, in the best of cases that has been overturned on a material support.

Therefore, work. "Make good artas Neil Gaimanwold say; and as"The search for correct answers is inimical to Art",would say Seth Godin will say too.

We would deal with whatever comes out your work.

The record producer is not the music producer

Music producer

The holder of related rights as a phonogram producer in a phonogram is apparently a concept without dispute; But it is full of inaccuracies.

Here the doctrine falls short. The discussion is not given openly.

The record producer is not the music producer.

He is almost always the artist.

In the case of independent artists, it is always the artist.

Continue reading The record producer is not the music producer

Rembrandt recharged

Original Rembrant

While we all fear that our job can be replaced by a robot ... there are robots who paint new paintings by Rembrandt.

there is already Law firms that are replacing their personnel plant with robots that review jurisprudential references And Wired published in February this year an article written by robots.

One more sample of the long line of debates about authoring machines creating new content.

But ... what if they created something new of something old? Something so familiar that was not new at all?

Continue reading Rembrandt recharged