Musical Synchronisation in a Film: Infringement of Moral Rights Is Not Automatic

Imagine: you are the owner of a small building in Bray-Dunes, and you allow a director to shoot a few scenes in your entrance hall. The film is released, and you notice that your hall was used for a scene you consider degrading. You believe your moral right as an owner over your property has been violated. But does the mere fact of having authorised the use give rise to a presumption of infringement?

This question arises similarly in the world of music. When an author or performer authorises the synchronisation of their work in a film, can they later complain of an infringement of their moral rights solely on the grounds that extracts were used?

The French Court of Cassation, in a judgment of 28 February 2024 (No. 22-18.120), provides a clear answer: no. The use of musical extracts by synchronisation does not automatically infringe the integrity of the work. It is for the person alleging such infringement to prove it. Analysis.

The Facts: A Common Story

In the early 2010s, the group Partenaire particulier recorded an eponymous song. In 2016, the producers of the film Alibi.com (a successful comedy) wished to use two extracts of this song in the soundtrack. They obtained authorisation from the music publisher, which granted them a synchronisation licence for a limited duration and a given territory.

The film was released, and the rights holders (authors and performers) of the song discovered the use of these extracts. They considered that their moral rights had been violated for two reasons: firstly, the use of extracts (and not the entire work) would distort the work; secondly, the audiovisual context (a slapstick comedy) would be incompatible with the spirit of the song. They sued the film producers for damages.

The Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance dismissed their claim in 2020. The rights holders appealed. The Paris Court of Appeal upheld the judgment in 2022, holding that the use of musical extracts by synchronisation does not, in itself, constitute an infringement of the integrity of the work. The rights holders then appealed to the Court of Cassation.

The Court of Cassation, in its judgment of 28 February 2024, dismissed the appeal and validated the reasoning of the Court of Appeal. It held that "the use of a musical work by synchronisation in the soundtrack of an audiovisual work, necessarily taking the form of extracts, cannot be regarded as a matter of principle as constituting an infringement of the integrity of the work and of the moral right of the author or performer." In other words, the mere fact of cutting a work to insert it into a film is not sufficient to characterise a violation of moral rights.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The moral right of the author is protected by Articles L. 121-1 (for authors) and L. 212-2 (for performers) of the French Intellectual Property Code. These provisions guarantee, in particular, respect for the integrity of the work, i.e., the right to oppose any modification or distortion.

But this right is not absolute. It must be reconciled with the freedom of creation and exploitation of audiovisual works. Synchronisation consists of incorporating a musical work into the soundtrack of a film. By its nature, this incorporation involves selecting extracts, adapting them to the duration of scenes, and sometimes slightly modifying them to synchronise with the image.

The trial judges (Court of Appeal) considered that this practice, common in the film industry, cannot be systematically characterised as an infringement of moral rights. They examined the concrete circumstances: were the extracts distorted? Was the context likely to offend the sensitivity of the authors? In this case, the extracts used respected the spirit of the song, and the film, although comedic, did not ridicule it.

The Court of Cassation approved this reasoning. It recalled that it is for the person alleging an infringement of their moral right to provide proof. In this case, the rights holders had not demonstrated how the use of the extracts concretely infringed the integrity of the work or the reputation of the artists.

This decision is part of a jurisprudential trend that tends to limit moral rights when the exploitation takes place within the framework of an audiovisual work, in order not to hinder creation. It confirms that moral rights are not an absolute veto right but a right that is assessed on a case-by-case basis.

What This Changes for You — Practically

For authors and performers: if you authorise the synchronisation of your work in a film, you cannot complain simply because extracts were used. You will need to prove actual distortion, for example, a substantial modification of the melody, a context that ridicules the work, or use in a pornographic or defamatory film. In practice, this means you must be very careful when drafting the authorisation contract: define precisely the rights granted, the duration, the territory, and especially the conditions of use (authorised extracts, permissible modifications, etc.).

For producers and directors: this case law provides security. You can use musical extracts without fear of systematic legal action for infringement of moral rights, provided that authorisation was obtained and the terms of use are respected. But beware: if you modify the work beyond what was agreed, or if you use it in a clearly prejudicial context, you could be held liable.

Imagine an owner in Bourbourg who authorises the use of their image or property in a film. This reasoning could be transposed: the mere fact of being filmed or having one's property appear does not constitute an infringement of rights. But if the film presents them in a degrading light, they will have to provide proof.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Draft a detailed synchronisation contract: specify the authorised extracts (duration, timing in the film), any permitted modifications (tempo adjustment, mixing), and the limits of use (territory, exploitation period, media).
• Keep all evidence of authorisation: email exchanges, signed contract, addenda. In case of dispute, you will need to demonstrate that the use was in accordance with the authorisation.
• For rights holders: view the film before its release if possible. Insist on a right to review the final edit. If you believe the use is prejudicial, you can then act with full knowledge of the facts.
• For producers: do not rely on verbal authorisation. A written contract is essential. If you use a work without express authorisation, you risk potentially high damages.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This decision confirms consistent case law. Already in 2015, the Court of Cassation (No. 14-10.787) held that the use of a musical extract in a film did not automatically infringe moral rights, provided that the extract was used in a way that did not distort the work. In 2018, the Paris Court of Appeal also held that the synchronisation of a song in an advertising film could be lawful if it did not alter the spirit of the work.

However, in a 2020 case (CA Paris, 12 February 2020), the court condemned a production company for using a song in a pornographic film without authorisation, holding that the context harmed the performer's reputation. The difference? Authorisation had not been given for this type of film.

The trend is therefore towards a case-by-case assessment. Moral rights are not absolute: they sometimes give way to creative freedom, but remain an effective shield in cases of distorting or unauthorised use. In the future, we can expect judges to be even more demanding regarding proof of infringement.

In Practice: What to Do

Checklist for rights holders (authors, performers):

1. Before authorising synchronisation, ask to see the script or an extract of the film to assess the context.
2. Have a contract drafted by a lawyer specialising in intellectual property. Do not accept overly broad clauses.
3. If you discover use you consider prejudicial after the film's release, gather evidence: screenshots, comparison with the original work, testimonials.
4. Consult a lawyer promptly: the limitation period for infringement actions is 5 years from the discovery of the infringement.
5. Remember that you can also act on the basis of economic rights if the authorisation was not respected (e.g., use beyond the agreed duration).

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →