Litigation over the exploitation and preservation of films: the case of Mont-Dragon, with Jacques Brel

On November 22, 2024, the Paris Court of Appeal delivered a landmark judgment in the dispute concerning the film Mont-Dragon. This story of revenge in the equestrian world with Jacques Brel in the lead role, performed in 1970 by ​​​​​​Jean Valérie and adapted from an eponymous novel by Robert Margeritfound itself at the heart of a controversy linked to its management and operation.

The wife of the deceased director and sole beneficiary of his estate had taken legal action against the Société d’Expansion du Spectacle (SES), holder of the production rights since 2014, as well as against Euro Video International (EVI). The dispute mainly concerned serious failings in the exploitation and conservation of this cinematographic work.

The decision of the Paris Court of Appeal (Court of Appeal, Paris, Pôle 5, chamber 2, November 22, 2024 – No. 22/12941) highlights the contractual obligations of film producers to guarantee exploitation in accordance with professional uses, in particular the restoration and preservation of cinematographic works. This case law reinforces the responsibility of producers towards the management and promotion of cultural works.

In this case, Gallimard Editions had transferred the cinematographic adaptation rights to the novel by contract dated October 10, 1969 to the Alcinter company. The movie Mont-Dragon had been co-produced by the companies Alcinter, Les Films Jacques Leitienne and the SES Company, according to a co-production contract dated April 10, 1970.

By contract dated May 4, 1970, Jean Valère assigned his author-director rights to the Alcinter company. By contract dated January 4, 1982, the Alcinter company transferred its rights to the company Les Films Jacques Leitienne, to whose rights came the company UGC DA International. Jean Valère had renewed the assignment of his copyright as co-adaptor and director by contract from July 20, 1993 to this company until July 1^is August 2008.

The company Studio Canal Image acquired the rights from the company UGC DA International and signed a letter of agreement with Jean Valère on December 29, 2006 under the terms of which the director assigned his copyright on the film to him for a period of 32 years from 1^is August 2008, particularly for cinema, television (including vod et pay-per-view), video, multimedia and all means unknown to date.

Release a restored version

By letter dated February 17, 2014, Jean Valère, through his counsel, informed the company SES that he wished to regain control of his film which required significant restoration to allow TV sale on a national channel and exploitation quality DVD and had informed her of the interest shown by the Gaumont company in committing to a restoration of the film.

He asked her if she intended to exercise her right of pre-emption and, if so, to confirm that she would quickly undertake restoration work. By letter dated March 10, 2014, the company SES then informed the company Studio Canal that it would exercise its right of pre-emption. Consequently, the co-production shares of the company Studio Canal were transferred to the company SES by contract dated October 15, 2014. The company SES therefore became the holder of all the production rights to the film. (the EVI company is also an undivided co-producer of the film Mont-Dragon).

By letter dated May 12, 2017, the legal director of the Society of Dramatic Authors and Composers (SACD) indicated to the SES company that Jean Valère had informed him of his difficulties, in the absence of restoration and exploitation of the film , and that he wanted to regain his rights while the Gaumont company would be interested in restoring and exploiting the film.

By emails of July 19, 2017 and September 6, 2017, the legal director of the SACD had informed the council of the company SES of the urgency to resolve the matter because, following the disappearance of Jean Valère, his wife wished to organize a retrospective of his work.

Legal action

After having given formal notice to the company SES by letters of March 21 and April 6, 2018 to fulfill its obligation in terms of rendering accounts, to indicate to it the place of conservation of the elements of the film and the measures which will be taken to restore and retain the film, the widow of Jean Valère had summoned, by bailiffs’ acts of August 2, 2018, the companies SES and EVI before the Paris judicial court, for the purpose of pronouncing the termination of the letter-agreement of the December 29, 2006, to compensate for his damages and to return the original media of the film.

According to her, the SES company had failed in several of its essential obligations. The film was not commercially exploited between 2014 and 2015, a crucial period during which the rights to adapt the novel were still valid. Furthermore, the company SES had not taken the necessary measures to renegotiate these rights with the publisher, thus failing to preserve the legal bases for the future exploitation of the film.

Furthermore, the film had not been restored, despite explicit requests and the imperative need to adopt modern technical standards to allow its distribution. Finally, it also underlined that the company SES had failed in its accountability obligation, thus depriving the rights holder of clear information on the possible exploitation of the work.

An important stop

The dispute was initially judged in May 2022 by the Paris Judicial Court, which pronounced the judicial termination of the contract for the transfer of rights to the exclusive fault of SES. Contesting this verdict, the SES and EVI companies filed an appeal, arguing that the alleged shortcomings were exaggerated or attributable to technical and legal obstacles beyond their control. In its judgment of November 2024, the Court of Appeal confirmed the termination of the contract.

On the lack of exploitation of the film. The Court noted that the company SES had not exploited the film between 2014 and 2015, the period during which it held the rights. The company attributed this failure to the failure to renew the exploitation rights for the adapted novel, which it attributed to a lack of cooperation from the publisher.

However, the Court noted that the company SES had not taken any real steps to regularize the situation before 2018. This failure represents a violation of the obligation to ensure operation consistent with professional practices, as stipulated by article L. 132-27 of the Intellectual Property Code.

On accountability. Article L. 132-28 requires the producer to provide the author with an annual statement of revenues from the exploitation of the work. This obligation, according to the Court, applies even in the event of no exploitation, in order to guarantee transparency. The company SES admitted to not having respected this obligation, a breach described as essential by the court.

On the failure to restore the film. The SES company justified the lack of restoration of the film by a lack of potential profitability. However, the Court recalled that the professional agreement requires the producer to make his “best efforts” to make the work available, taking into account technical standards and market practices. By refraining from restoring the film, even though this was necessary for its exploitation, the Court considered that the SES company had failed to fulfill its contractual commitments.

On the location of operating supports. Despite the recovery of certain reels in 2014, the SES company has not located all the supports necessary for operation. No serious steps were taken to find these elements, which also constituted a serious failure.

Finally, this judgment reminds producers of their imperative obligations in terms of exploitation, transparency and diligence. Breaches of professional standards, even if justified by economic or technical obstacles, cannot be excused without evidence of concrete efforts to remedy them. The decision also strengthens the rights of authors, emphasizing accountability as an essential duty. This case could serve as a precedent for other disputes involving the exploitation of cinematographic or audiovisual works, especially in a context where technological standards and market practices are evolving rapidly. This judgment should encourage professionals in the sector to adopt best practices to guarantee the promotion and preservation of cinematographic works.