Producer of the film ‘Death in Berruecos’ is still waiting for a resolution to its unauthorized broadcast on an Ecuadorian channel at the end of 2020

Producer of the film ‘Death in Berruecos’ is still waiting for a resolution to its unauthorized broadcast on an Ecuadorian channel at the end of 2020

Sometimes, it is necessary to repeat history to learn from it and not to be forgotten. Co-produced between Ecuador, Venezuela, Panama and the United States, the film Death in Berruecos. Who killed Sucre?102 minutes long, premiered with a notable reception in several Ecuadorian movie theaters at the beginning of 2020. Among these were the Multicines chain and the Ocho y Medio theater, in addition to a special screening in the Alfredo Pareja de la Casa theater of the Ecuadorian Culture of Quito.

Starring the Venezuelan Luis Gerónimo Abreu, the tape reviews —by way of thriller police—the murder of the Marshal of Ayacucho, through the character of Major Alejandro Godoy, who is in charge of reopening the case.

The production also achieved international recognition becoming considered as a candidate for the 2021 Goya Awards for best Ibero-American film, where he finally succeeded The oblivion that we will be.

But its premiere on Ecuadorian national television did not occur as planned by its executive producer and owner of the work in Ecuador, Gonzalo Ponce Leiva. On the night of Saturday, December 19, 2020, a first fragment of the film was broadcast on the open signal of Gamavision at 10:00 p.m. and a second part could be seen at the same time on Saturday, January 2, 2021, although they did not reach their outcome after Ponce was alerted to the unauthorized broadcast, he emphasizes.

What action did you take then as producers of the tape?

The first thing we did was send a letter to the manager of Gamavision from the time that Mr. Juan Manuel Gutiérrez was and that nobody wanted to receive because there was no one on the channel who received external correspondence. So I sent it to him by mail, but he didn’t answer us. And finally I sent a third letter, this time with a copy, to the general director of the National Service for Intellectual Rights (Senadi), to Caridad Vela, the Communications Secretary, and to a couple of other authorities, and then he did reply, and that was the only communication that we have had from Gamavision in these two years (…) but where they did not assume any responsibility. So, we decided to present an administrative guardianship before the competent authority, which is the Senadi.

On the right, Gonzalo Ponce Leiva, producer and owner of the work in Ecuador.

What does an administrative guardianship mean and how does it work in your favor, in this case?

Before, if you filed this complaint, so to speak, before the IEPI, that institution could qualify and say that a violation of rights has indeed been committed and the man has to pay so much and goes to jail. With the previous legislation, the manager of Gamavision I would have gone to jail. But what the current legislation does is that, when presenting the guardianship, the authority must ratify or not if an illegal act has been committed, it is no longer a crime, because crime is the criminal area. So we present this guardianship arguing everything, how it happened and attaching the recordings of the transmission.

How has it harmed you that there has not yet been a ruling?

The Senadi has taken two years to study the documentation. They summoned us to a hearing in December 2021 where both parties attended, the lawyers from Gamavision (…) and it was really an embarrassing hearing because they couldn’t prove anything. We ask them to prove when they had the authorization and ownership to show the film in Ecuador and they did not show anything. And since then another year has passed in which Senadi continues to study the documentation (…) It is energy that we dedicate to this instead of dedicating ourselves to other projects, they are economic resources that we do not have, it is a somewhat perverse circle in which We all waste time and with considerable indignation we see the defenselessness in which we are and the impunity in which Sucre is once again.

What did it also mean that it was transmitted without authorization?

The film talks about a historical theme that has to do with the memory of the country, with the origin of the Republic of Ecuador and so when we embarked on this project in 2014, we thought it would be very well received, even more so thinking that in the The Bicentennial was arriving in 2022 and we had a series of commercial plans, a whole scaffolding that went beyond just broadcasting our film, but making noise (…) because it lends itself to reflection, especially since youth no longer know who it was Sucre (…) And, having transmitted it fragmented and in addition to a pirated copy of terrible quality —material that we still don’t know where they got it from—, then they knocked down all our plans, everything for which there was a very large investment great, the economic damage has been brutal. Six years to launch a project of this type and a channel comes along, fragments it and broadcasts it.

What will be the next step after the Senadi ruling?

We hope that the Senadi will rule hopefully in the next few days and with that what we will do is the corresponding legal action. Go before a judge and file a lawsuit, saying that the authority has confirmed that an illegal act has been committed and that, therefore, we continue with the legal actions that we consider pertinent.

How can this case serve as a precedent for other creators?

This case is followed by all the colleagues in the country through the different associations and we have already had loving expressions of support, because this is, literally, today for you and tomorrow for me. The issue here is that if this big film, because it is a co-production, with a leading man with a long history (…), they do what they do, I am a young filmmaker, I am just starting out, I have my proposal , I am also then in the most absolute helplessness.

Ponce also assures that the case is followed with international concern and may endanger future foreign bets on audiovisual content made in Ecuador.

As reported Gamavision this week to this Journal, Those responsible for that decision today are no longer part of the channel and his current administration is not related to what happened between December 2020 and January 2021 under the order of the then programming manager.

Legal recommendation: request precautionary measures to immediately stop copyright infringement

Above all, it must be borne in mind that the broadcaster is a channel, a television station, warns lawyer David Santos Navas, who specializes in intellectual property. With the people directly involved, the figure of joint and several liability can be used, established specifically for copyright.

This figure is included in decision 351 of the Andean Community of Nations, which establishes that “no authority or natural or legal person may authorize the use of a work, interpretation, phonographic production or radio broadcast or provide support for its use if the The user does not have the prior express authorization of the owner of the right of their representatives. In case of non-compliance, this person will be jointly and severally liable.

Regarding administrative protection without resolution, Santos shares that local regulations establish a regime of precautionary measures, which can be requested at the time of requesting administrative protection from the authority. “Precautionary measures can be exercised and must be exercised effectively, so that the infringement of rights does not occur or that the infringement of rights ceases before a final resolution is reached.”

Thus, the authority is asked to act immediately, based on these indications of infringement of rights, so as not to wait for the final resolution, since until then it could be that the production was screened several weekends, for example.

“When the final resolution is issued, the Senadi, in case of verifying the infraction, has to sanction, but many times,” the lawyer explains, “what is sought is not the sanction itself, but the cessation of the activity what constitutes the offence”.

The legal recommendation in cases of these transgressions would always be to request precautionary measures from the Senadi, and this is possible when the guardianship process begins; in the first ruling there should be a pronouncement on the indication of infringement and whether or not the precautionary measures are appropriate. (YO)

Source: Eluniverso

You may also like

Immediate Access Pro