A piece still protected for 15 years
The stakes are high: if Sacem were to comply with this request, the “Boléro,” which fell into the public domain in 2016, according to them would be protected until May 1, 2039, as Alexandre Benois died in 1960. If the rights generated represented “millions and millions of euros” annually, according to the information provided to AFP by Sacem’s lawyer Josée-Anne Bénazéraf, the amounts averaged €135,507 per year between 2011 and 2016.
The heirs of Alexandre Benois argue that the “Boléro” was originally the music for a ballet created at the Paris Opera in 1928. “The music of the Boléro was created specifically for the ballet,” asserts Edouard Mille, lawyer for the Benois succession. With Gilles Vercken, the lawyer for the Ravel succession, they take turns at the bar to present evidence that, according to them, demonstrates that the “Boléro” is the work not of one, but of several artists.
Presence of Benois’ name on the program for two ballets performed on the evening of Ravel’s work premiere in 1928, statements by Louis Laloy, the secretary general of the Paris Opera, who wrote in a newspaper that Alexandre Benois was the “author” of the three performances, or a letter from a legal director of Sacem in the 1980s mentioning the collaboration with the ballet’s choreographer, Bronislava Nijinska…
“An exceptional work, an exceptional regime”
Beyond the historical elements, the main issue of the hearing turned out to be the role of Sacem in acknowledging a possible co-author of the “Boléro.” “For Sacem, there is the right of the author and the right of the ‘Boléro.’ An exceptional work, an exceptional regime,” emphasized Mille, who claims that the company has only refused similar requests twice in the past, like the heirs of Alexandre Benois.
“Isn’t that enough? What would have been said if Sacem turned a blind eye to add 23 additional years?” exclaimed Bénazéraf, who regretted that “the list of faults reproached (to Sacem) grows longer as the procedure progresses.” Should Sacem have acted as a simple “recording chamber” as the plaintiffs demand, or was it justified in refusing to recognize Alexandre Benois as a co-author? Decision expected on June 24.
#Boléro #Ravel #estil #une #œuvre #collective #question #des #droits #dauteur #pièce #jugée #devant #tribunal #français
publish_date]