new writers
The Provincial Court of Zaragoza ordered the General Association of Authors and Publishers, known as SGAE, to compensate author Javier Gacías Mateo for a perceived breach of copyright tied to the song God Is Here, a landmark religious composition. The court determined there was a contractual violation in the defense of the song, and that damages and losses should be paid to the author. The ruling followed the author’s initial objection to the case and a lawsuit that began years earlier.
Gacías Mateo’s legal team argues that the compensation amount is far too modest. They have filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, alleging that the lower court used an arbitrary and unreasonable method to calculate the sum. Lawyer Mónica Sevil has requested a lump sum of one hundred thousand euros, a figure reported in media discussions about the case.
This legal saga traces back to 1979 when Francisco Javier Gacías composed God Is Here, a line many recall as part of the song’s chorus. He performed with his band Nueva Vida at the Jesus is Calling Christian festival in Zaragoza. Over time, numerous versions have appeared and the track has amassed hundreds of millions of plays across streaming platforms like Spotify and YouTube. The song has even been part of official moments abroad, including visits by the pope.
The author began asserting his rights against SGAE in 2013. When his claims did not receive satisfactory responses, he pursued judicial action. On June 10, 2022, a district judge opened the case. Gacías Mateo then appealed, and the State Court has since issued a positive ruling in his favor.
new writers
In his appeal, the plaintiff pointed to the registration of the work in 1990 and the fact that SGAE allowed new authors to record the piece within the association. He argues this amounted to a breach of property rights and estimates that eighteen recordings were non-compliant, with royalties due to their authors.
Throughout the proceedings, the plaintiff maintained that SGAE failed to secure proper rights until 2009 and that multiple settlements since then had been small and incomplete. He described an agreement from November 1990 covering documentation and administration of economic rights connected to the copyright.
Exterior view of SGAE headquarters in Madrid. José Luis Roca
According to the decision dated April 10, 2023, available to El Periódico de España, the plaintiff argued that one key reason for the alleged rights violation was ongoing consent by the organization to continue recording business-related property records under SGAE.
Different studies
In contrast, according to Oda’s assessment, a certificate from the SGAE secretary dated February 16, 2022 indicates that the works labeled God Is Here may differ from recordings cataloged by the author. The secretary notes that SGAE does not possess scores, documentation, or audio of this work, and that the work is not available online by either the author or the publisher. This has been used to question the extent of the rights violation in this case.
Even with the documentation presented by the plaintiff, including a certificate from a company in the audiovisual sector that mediates digital content, some costs associated with digitally protecting certain rights were estimated at least fifty thousand euros. The chamber concluded that determining the exact compensation would require an expert opinion to assess the rights that may accrue under technical criteria.
Given these factors, it seems reasonable to consider only a partial or approximate compensation. The court ruled for a sum of ten thousand ninety-two euros. It also rejected the claim for non-pecuniary damages, with the defense seeking thirty thousand euros on the basis that no evidence of such damages existed.
The plaintiff’s team stated that the Supreme Court would review the decision due to what they described as arbitrary and unreasonable parameters. They presented numerous pieces of evidence claiming abuse of the work and argued that comparable rates paid by SGAE should apply.
Lawyer Mónica Sevil argued that the court did not address the illegitimate recordings, and that other parties around the world continue to receive payments tied to the author’s rights. She remarked that no immediate steps were taken to remedy the situation in favor of Javier Gacía. The conclusion drawn by the lawyer was that the outcome did not reflect the author’s rightful interests.