Ayman shape
The Civil Appellate Supreme Court canceled a ruling that required a director known for compensation for the producer of a movie of 8,000 dinars, under the pretext of showing the film at a film festival, where the court confirmed that the producer had no ownership of the film at the time of his participation in the festival.
According to the lawyer Sarah Ali, the agent of the director, the first degree ruling was issued against her client after the producer filed his lawsuit, claiming that he was concluded with the director in recognition of the sale of the film, and he said that he had prolonged the sale of the film or the implementation of his commitment, and the court did not take acknowledgment; Because the director was stabbed by forgery, and it was found that the signature was not identical to its signature, as he claimed that the director used the film, and participated in a cinematic festival in an unlawful Gulf state.
The appellate director, lawyer Sarah Ali, prompted the existence of an agreement between the producer and the production company in which he acknowledged a debt of 5 thousand dinars, after participating in the cinematic festival, and he did not show an objection to that participation.
The court said that this acknowledgment of the producer can only be interpreted by one of two things: the first is that he was aware of the contracting of the director with that company to produce the film, and that he agreed to that contract, and the second is that he had authorized the contracting of the director with it after obtaining it, and in both cases the fault’s mistake in contracting with that company is negated, as that contract and the granting of that company has obtained the rights of exploitation. Product.
The court also noted that the announcement of the film’s participation in a cinematic festival took place on the date of the date of the publication of the approval of the debt, and the exploitation rights at the time were pure for the producing company, and therefore there is no place to hold the appellant accountable for that participation; As that participation was related to the will of that company as it was the owner of the right to use the film at the time of participation in that festival.
The court concluded the absence of the mistake that is the responsibility of the director before the producer in a way that refrains with the latter’s answer to the compensation request, and said that the appealed judgment has shown that consideration, which is required to be eliminated by his abolition of what he had to compel the appellant to compensation and the judiciary again to reject the compensation request.
