They condemn the SGAE to compensate the author of the famous religious hymn “God is here” with 10,092 euros

2023-11-14 10:29:05

The Provincial Court of Zaragoza has condemned the General Society of Authors and Editors (SGAE) to compensate Javier Gacías Mateo with 10,092 eurosthe author of surely one of the best-known religious pieces in history, ‘God is here’. The Court, which resolves an appeal by the author after the case was filed in the first instance, considers that the SGAE incurred a “contractual breach” in the defense of the copyright of the song, for which it must compensate him for damages and losses.

Gacías’ defense considers the compensation, however, totally insufficient and has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court since it believes that the Court has used an “arbitrary” and “illogical” criterion to establish the amount to be paid, as explained to El Periódico de España, from the Prensa Ibérica group, the lawyer Mónica Sevil, who claimed 100,000 euros in a lump sum.

This story of success, frustration and repair begins in 1979, when Francisco Javier Gacías composed the well-known song -“God is here, as certain as the air I breathe,” the song says- to play at a Christian festival in Zaragoza called ‘Jesus is calling’ with his group, Nueva Vida.

Since then the song has added a multitude of versions and accumulated tens of millions of views on different platforms such as Spotify or YouTube [algún vídeo llega a sumar 300 millones de visualizaciones]. The song has even been played on several visits by Pope Francis abroad. [también lo hizo en alguna de Juan Pablo II].

The author of the work began to claim his rights from the SGAE itself in 2013 and, after not seeing his demands satisfied, went to court recently. On June 10, 2022, the ordinary Justice filed the case, but Gacías Mateo filed an appeal on which the Provincial Court has now resolved favorably.

New authors

In his appeal, he showed that the SGAE had tolerated the registration of the work in the society’s repertoire by new authors, subsequent to the registration that he had exercised – in 1990 -, which would imply an infringement of property rights. intellectual. In total, according to the demand, There would have been 18 improper registrations and their authors would have been receiving copyrights that corresponded to them.

In the process, the plaintiff made it clear that the SGAE did not settle any rights until 2009 and “Since then it has liquidated him on a few occasions and a minimum number of the operations he has carried out.” Thus, the contract signed with the SGAE in November 1990 would have been breached, which included the obligations related to “documentation, management and administration of economic rights derived from copyrights”.

Exterior of the SGAE headquarters in Madrid. Jose Luis Roca

According to the ruling, dated April 10, 2023 and to which you have had access The Spanish Newspaperthe plaintiff insisted in his appeal that one of the “relevant reasons” for the breach of the management rights contract is that even after “the reiteration of complaints of registrations detrimental to his right, “The entity has been consenting to the continued registration of ownership records with the SGAE regarding the work.”

Different works

According to the Chamber’s estimate, however, a certificate from the secretary of the SGAE dated February 16, 2022 explains that the works with the title ‘God is here’ “are either works other than the one registered by the actor.” or SGAE does not have scores or documentation or audio of this work and it has not been possible to locate it on the Internet, either by author or by publisher”, so it is not considered that there was an adequate breach of the defense of ownership in this case.

Despite the evidence provided by the plaintiff throughout the process, including a certificate from a company in the audiovisual sector that intermediates digital content encrypting certain digital rights of the work at least 50,000 euros, lThe Chamber recognizes that in order to establish the amount of compensation it would have required an expert opinion that would establish with technical criteria the rights that could have accrued in the plaintiff’s opinion.

For all these reasons, he concludes that it seems reasonable to consider that he can only do compensation of an “estimated or approximate nature”, and concludes that this should have been 10,092 euros. It also denies that the defendant compensates the author of the song for moral damages – his defense claimed 30,000 euros. because “there is no evidence” that they had occurred.

In contact with this newspaper, Gacías Mateo’s defense reports that he has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court for the “arbitrary and illogical parameters” used by the Court when they had offered “a lot of evidence of exploitation” of the work from their defense. “with comparable parameters used with the rates paid by SGAE.”

“The quantification that has been made does not make any sense,” says Mónica Sevil, who also adds that, after winning this ruling, the SGAE “has not canceled the illegitimate registrations” and “other people around the world continue to be paid “for the rights of the work of his client. “Not a finger has been moved to regularize the situation in favor of Javier Gacía,” concludes the lawyer.