The Supreme condemns a music festival to pay 20,000 euros for using a photograph of Germán Coppini on its poster

Germán Coppini, in a performance in Ferrol in 2009. gabriel tizón

The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court has confirmed the illegitimate interference in the image rights of the singer Germán Coppini, who died in December 2013, by the Iberia Festival, held in Benidorm in 2018. The reason is the use of the name and a photograph of the musician on the poster announcing the event, against the express will of his children and heirs.

At the festival, among other artists, musicians who had been part of the group Golpes Bajo with Coppini performed.

The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal that Iberia Festival had filed and confirms the compensation for moral damages of 20,000 euros, which must be paid to the heirs.

The amount was set in its day by the Court of Madrid, which agreed with its children against the decision of the Court of First Instance number 92, which had acquitted the festival of the petitions of the plaintiffs, the high court has reported in a statement.

More information

Germán Coppini dies, the great voice of the movida

Coppini was the founder and vocalist of Golpes Bajo from 1982 to 1987. At the 2018 Iberia Festival, held on October 12 and 13, the other members of the band took part and the poster announcing the event had a reference to the fact that on the 13th a tribute would be paid to him, accompanied by a photo of him.

The publicity spread of the festival was done essentially through digital media and internet portals.

One of Coppini's sons and heirs sent a burofax on October 4, 2018 to the festival to stop using his father's name and image "for commercial and lucrative purposes", in accordance with his wish that it not be used. carry out any tribute, adds the sentence.

Subsequently, two sons and heirs of the artist filed the lawsuit in which, after denouncing that the company had committed an illegitimate interference in the right to honor and to the singer's own image —for "involuntary exploitation" for commercial purposes—, they asked for compensation for the damages caused.

The Court of First Instance dismissed the claim on the understanding that the purpose of the event was to give recognition to the artist, but the Court of Madrid did consider the singer's right to his own image to have been violated, also saw a lucrative purpose and set the compensation at 20,000 euros .

The heirs had claimed 37,000.

Now, the Supreme Court highlights that the actions of the promoters of the festival —who alleged that the tribute concert had been organized by another company, New Iberia Festival—, constitutes a "clear interference" in the right to the artist's own image, by "persisting ” in the use of his image and name to publicize the event and, specifically, the performances on the 13th. “Although the reference to Germán Coppini is seen as a tribute, in reality this mention constitutes a publicity claim for the festival, insofar as it can attract some people because of the memory or affection that the name and image of that person awakens in them”, adds the sentence.

"Advertising claim"

The ruling rules out the exception of article 8.1 of Law 1/1982 on the protection of the rights to honor and one's own image, which states that there is no illegitimate interference when a relevant historical, scientific or cultural interest predominates.

The text explains that the mention that the concert would constitute a tribute to the artist, together with the use of an image of him, against the express will of his children and heirs, does not represent "a relevant cultural interest" that justifies the illegitimate interference. on the right to the image.

The magistrates consider that “a mention of a tribute to an artist is not enough to justify the use of his image”.

In this case, it considers that the circumstances "reveal its advertising and commercial purpose, and dilute the relevance of the possible cultural interest."

“Without denying that this artist had achieved a certain degree of notoriety by the public, especially the music fan of the eighties of the last century, that consideration does not justify any use of his image.

It is a file photograph, the use of which does not respond to the exercise of a right to information, but rather for an advertising and commercial purpose, ”says the court.