Audiovisual law lawyer in Paris: securing the producer's rights, from the author's contract to the platform.

The producer is the natural or legal person who takes the initiative and responsibility for making the work, under Article L. 132-23 of the French Intellectual Property Code. Financing alone is not enough. In a judgment of 15 April 2026, the Paris judicial court held that “The producer is the person who, beyond mere financing, plays the role of impetus, direction and coordination” (TJ Paris, 3rd ch. 3rd sect., 15 April 2026, No. 22/11783) (our translation), and that the producer is vested with financial, commercial and artistic responsibilities. The court first recognised a presumption of producer status in favour of the association whose name appeared on the poster and at the start of the film. It held that presumption rebutted by the director's documents, which showed that he had alone financed the filming equipment, written the screenplay, directed the shoot and sought financing for post-production. The director nonetheless lost his case: he was declared inadmissible to sue in respect of the economic rights in the feature film for having failed to join the authors of the music, and his infringement claims were dismissed. For a production company, the lesson is twofold: what the poster and the credits say counts only until proven otherwise, and the contracts with authors, actors, technicians and financiers must be concluded in its name, with the credits matching that reality. Where a project was run through an association, an author-director or a sister company, the firm checks who actually incurred the expenses and signed the contracts before any sale.

The contract between the producer and the authors of an audiovisual work, other than the composer, entails an assignment of the exclusive exploitation rights, unless the contract provides otherwise (Article L. 132-24). This presumption has real scope. In a judgment of 11 March 2020, the Court of Cassation approved a court of appeal that had held that, in order to contribute their rights to a collective management organisation, “the authors of these formats must not, at the time of joining, have already divested themselves of this right in favour of the producer” (Cass. 1re civ., 11 March 2020, No. 19-11.532) (our translation). The organisation, which did not prove any contrary clause, was declared inadmissible. The presumption does not settle everything, however. Audiovisual production contracts must be evidenced in writing (Article L. 131-2), and remuneration remains due for each mode of exploitation. A buyer or a platform will not be content with a presumption: it will want to see the signed contract of each presumed co-author. The firm therefore recommends treating the presumption as a safety net in the event of a dispute, not as a substitute for the contract.

No. Article L. 132-24 expressly excludes the author of the musical composition, with or without lyrics, from the presumption of assignment to the producer. The contract concluded with the composer must therefore itself provide for the rights assigned, the modes of exploitation and the remuneration, and it cannot deprive the composer, for exploitation in France, of the protection of Articles L. 131-4, L. 131-5 and L. 132-28, whatever law is chosen. A separate question is whether the composer is a co-author of the work. Article L. 113-7 presumes the composer a co-author where the music was specially created for the work, but that presumption falls away in the face of proof to the contrary. In a judgment of 29 March 2023, the Court of Cassation recalled that “A collaborative work is characterised by concerted participation and a shared inspiration” (Cass. 1re civ., 29 March 2023, No. 22-13.809) (our translation). The composer, who had worked alone on the final version of a film commissioned without music, was not recognised as a co-author and the infringement action was dismissed. This reasoning remains fact-specific: the producer must keep the commission, the dates and the exchanges showing how the music was integrated.

The assignment must provide for remuneration that is appropriate and proportional to receipts, lump-sum remuneration being allowed only in the limited cases of Article L. 131-4. In audiovisual matters, remuneration is due for each mode of exploitation and, where the public pays a price for a given work, it is proportional to that price (Article L. 132-25). A judgment of the Paris judicial court of 21 May 2025, unfavourable to the producer, shows the risk. A director's contracts based part of his remuneration on the producer's share of net receipts and referred, in one paragraph, to exploitation of the film by all other modes and processes, with no further detail. The court held the reference to the producer's share of net receipts contrary to Article L. 132-25, since the producer had not shown that it was impossible to know the public price excluding tax, and held the general formula to be indeterminate, then held that “Since the remuneration clauses were substantial in the contracts at issue, the nullity of those clauses entails the nullity of the contracts” (TJ Paris, 3rd ch. 3rd sect., 21 May 2025, No. 23/08207) (our translation). Two contracts were annulled. The claim relating to a third contract was declared time-barred, the period running, according to the court, from signature, but that contract was terminated by operation of its termination clause, the rendering of accounts having been found imprecise and incomplete. A safer clause distinguishes theatrical, television, video, pay-per-view video on demand and subscription video on demand, uses the price paid by the public excluding tax where it can be known, and reserves a different basis for cases where the producer can show that it cannot. The firm reviews these clauses before any sale of the film, while rectification by amendment is still possible.

The producer provides the author and co-authors, at least once a year, with a statement of revenue for each mode of exploitation and, at their request, any supporting evidence, including a copy of the contracts concluded with third parties (Article L. 132-28). A failure to do so may ground a claim for termination. Concerning a commissioning and publishing contract for film music, governed by Articles L. 132-12 and L. 132-13, the Court of Cassation held on 5 June 2024 that “prolonged breaches by the publisher of its obligations during the five years preceding the summons may justify termination of a contract concluded with the author” (Cass. 1re civ., 5 June 2024, No. 22-24.462) (our translation). It set aside, to the publisher's detriment, the judgment that had declared the composer's claim time-barred. There is a limit for a joint work. The Bordeaux court of appeal held on 18 November 2025 that “The termination clause, which allows automatic termination of the contract in the event of a breach, does not derogate from the rule of unanimity for acts liable to affect the exploitation of the joint work” (CA Bordeaux, 1st civ. ch., 18 November 2025, No. 25/01622) (our translation). The claimant co-author therefore could not alone obtain a halt to the exploitation, but the producer was ordered to pay additional royalties. The firm helps the producer reconstruct usable accounts before the claim becomes proceedings.

The signing of the contract concluded between a performer and a producer for the making of an audiovisual work amounts to authorisation to record, reproduce and communicate the performance to the public (Article L. 212-4). On 16 February 2018, the plenary assembly of the Court of Cassation applied this provision to musicians who had signed an attendance sheet stating that the recording would be used for a television work. It approved the court of appeal for having deduced that “the INA did not have to seek a new authorisation for the exploitation of this work in a new form” (Cass. ass. plén., 16 February 2018, No. 16-14.292) (our translation). The decision favours the producer and its successors in title, but it presupposes a signed document that identifies the work and the purpose of the recording. The same article requires separate remuneration for each mode of exploitation. Where neither the contract nor a collective agreement provides for it, it is set by reference to the scales of specific sector agreements (Article L. 212-5). Before release on a video-on-demand service, the firm therefore checks that each actor's contract exists, that it covers the work in question, and that remuneration for that mode is provided for or can be determined.

The video recording producer is the person who has the initiative and responsibility for the first fixation of a sequence of images, and their authorisation is required before any reproduction or communication to the public (Article L. 215-1). The Court of Cassation applied this to unedited footage in a judgment of 16 June 2021, holding that “the video recording producer holds the right to authorise the reproduction, making available or communication to the public of unedited filming takes, or rushes, for which they had the initiative and responsibility for the first fixation” (Cass. 1re civ., 16 June 2021, No. 19-21.663) (our translation). It set aside the judgment that had declared the producer inadmissible for not having obtained the director's agreement, even though the contract provided for reciprocal authorisation for the exploitation of those rushes. The decision protects the producer against a third party who reuses filming footage, for example for another documentary or for training. It does not settle the rights of the authors and of the people filmed in that footage, which remain to be checked. Article L. 132-24 also requires the production contract to list the materials retained and the arrangements for retaining them. The firm advises expressly covering rushes, separate sound tracks and intermediate versions in it.

Assignments of audiovisual adaptation rights must be made by written contract, in a document separate from the publishing contract for the book, and the assignee undertakes to seek exploitation and to pay proportional remuneration in the event of adaptation (Article L. 131-3). The option contract sets the period during which the producer may exercise this right and the exercise price. The expiry date must be certain. In a judgment of 15 February 2023, unfavourable to the producer, the Paris court of appeal held that a production company had let the renewed option expire, then claimed to exercise it several weeks later with no payment and no financed project. It upheld the prohibition ordered at first instance and ordered the company to pay damages to the publisher on account of its late and bad-faith challenge. The firm therefore checks the starting point of each extension, the signature of all parties to the amendment, the publisher's chain of rights in the adaptation, and the effective date for exercise.

The sharing of revenue between co-producers rests first on their contract, which must name the delegated producer, define its powers and describe each share of revenue by mode of exploitation. Imprecise drafting is paid for at the time of sale. In the case decided by the Paris court of appeal on 13 October 2023, a co-producer claimed from the delegated producer a guaranteed minimum of one million euros on the sale of the film to a terrestrial television channel. The court of first instance had ordered the delegated producer to pay. The court of appeal interpreted the clause by reference to its title and its overall commercial purpose, held that this minimum presupposed an actual sale, and dismissed the co-producer's claim on this point, while upholding another order for one hundred thousand euros. The decision shows that a guaranteed minimum must say whether it is due in every case or only if exploitation takes place. The firm also reviews the order of recoupment of contributions, the rendering of accounts between co-producers, the decisions requiring joint agreement and the fate of the rights if one of them defaults.

The contract authorising the communication of a work on an on-demand audiovisual media service must provide for the transmission to the assignor of the number of downloads, consultations or views, at least once a year (Article L. 132-28-1). This obligation is distinct from that of the producer, who must send its authors a statement of revenue for each mode of exploitation under Article L. 132-28. In practice, a licence agreement providing a lump-sum price with no breakdown may complicate the allocation of revenue by mode that the producer must present to its authors. For a cinematographic work, the rights acquisition contract must also set the period after which the work may be made available, and a professional agreement may impose it on the signatories (Article L. 232-1 of the French Cinema and Moving Image Code). The firm therefore reviews the platform's contract, checking the term, territory, exclusivity, the date on which rights open, audience reports and the allocation of ownership warranties between the producer and the service.

The safeguard proceedings or judicial reorganisation of the producer does not terminate the audiovisual production contract (Article L. 132-30). In the event of a sale of the business or liquidation, a separate lot must be drawn up for each work, and each author and co-producer must be notified by registered letter, on pain of nullity, one month before the decision. The authors have a right of pre-emption, unless a co-producer comes forward as acquirer. The acquirer is bound by the assignor's obligations, and the authors may request termination of the production contract when liquidation is ordered or when activity has ceased for more than three months. An acquirer who neglects these rules takes a real risk. In a judgment of 8 October 2025, the Paris court of appeal recalled that “The authorisation given by the supervisory judge to the liquidator of television companies to assign rights relating to films cannot have the effect of setting aside the mandatory rules of Article L. 132-30 of the Intellectual Property Code” (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 1, 8 October 2025, No. 24/11279) (our translation). In the absence of proof that the authors had been informed, and given a global assignment of the catalogue, the company that exploited the videos online did not establish its neighbouring rights as producer: all its claims were dismissed. Before buying a film or a catalogue, the firm asks for the order of the supervisory judge, the list of lots and proof of the notifications.

The audiovisual work is deemed complete when the final version has been established by common agreement between the director, or the co-authors, and the producer (Article L. 121-5). Any later modification of that version, by addition, deletion or change of an element, requires the agreement of the same persons, and the master of the final version may not be destroyed. The same article requires the director to be consulted before any transfer of the work to another type of medium with a view to another mode of exploitation. A shortened version for online broadcast, a new division into episodes or the removal of a scene for a territory therefore cannot be decided by the producer alone. The contract may organise the consultation procedure and the derivative versions provided for from the outset, but the presumption of assignment in Article L. 132-24 expressly reserves the rights that the author holds under Article L. 121-5. The firm advises listing, before the sale, the versions the buyer requires and obtaining the director's written agreement to each, with a precise description of the changes.