Model contract for voice actors effective?

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) had to decide whether a comprehensive assignment of rights in the general terms and conditions of a voice-over company could withstand scrutiny for general terms and conditions or whether contractual provisions governing the transfer of copyright usage rights, as a core area of private autonomy in contract design, are excluded from substantive review.

A registered association that represents the interests of voice actors took legal action against a company that produces dubbed versions of feature films on behalf of its members. The voice-over company concluded model contracts with its voice actors, in which a very comprehensive grant of copyright usage rights was agreed upon.

The interest association considered these model contracts to be ineffective under the rules of general terms and conditions control in the BGB and sued the voice-over company for injunctive relief with the argument that copyright law, particularly under the provisions for appropriate remuneration of authors, excluded a comprehensive assignment of copyright usage rights.

Court's decision

With judgment of 17.10.2013 – Az. I ZR 41/12 – the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the voice actors' action.

The provisions set out in copyright law regarding appropriate remuneration and special provisions for film creators did not have the function of statutory model principles for the assignment of usage rights in the context of general terms and conditions control, but rather constituted only rules of interpretation.

The contractual assignment of copyright usage rights determines the scope of the contractual principal obligations and thus belongs to the core area of private autonomy in contract design. The transfer of usage rights in general terms and conditions is therefore regularly excluded from substantive review pursuant to §§ 307 ff. BGB.

Against the assumption of a model principle character it is argued in particular that when assessing contractual principal obligations, a concrete-individual standard of review applies, whereas in substantive review an abstract-general standard must be applied.

Conclusion

According to the landmark judgment of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), voice actors are bound by the contractual assignment of their usage rights. Assignment agreements concerning copyright usage rights are not subject to substantive review under general terms and conditions control as principal obligations.

However, despite the effective contractual agreement, the author may make further claims insofar as he or she was not appropriately remunerated for his or her services in the individual case.