When an actor is missing from the credits: attribution, correction requests and evidence

Full topic-specific Information Guide ↓

Where an actor’s name is absent from the credits of a completed film or series, the issue goes beyond unpaid remuneration. The performance, omission in the released version and appropriate means of attribution require separate examination. A producer’s acquisition of exploitation rights does not automatically eliminate the performer’s attribution issue. Conversely, one cannot assume that every short clip or promotional image must display the name in an identical way.

First identify performer status and the released performance

Article 80 of the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works regulates performers’ rights within rights related to copyright. Original interpretation or performance of a work must be assessed alongside the person’s actual contribution. An acting agreement, role and shooting records, the scene and released episode support that assessment. Being present on set or appearing in an image does not invariably establish the same legal status.

Distinguish an actor, dubbing performer, extra, person whose image alone is used, and screenwriter or director. One person may hold several capacities, but each needs its own basis. This article concerns attribution relating to a recorded acting performance. Unpaid fees, unauthorised image use or synthetic voice generation may raise different legal questions.

Assignment of economic rights does not erase attribution

Article 80/I-1-A(1) recognises the performer’s right, independently of economic rights and even after their assignment, to be identified as the performer of the recorded performance. It also reserves exceptions required by the circumstances of use. The same provision addresses prevention of distortion or modification prejudicial to reputation; omitted attribution and alleged distortion are different matters.

A clause saying “all exploitation rights belong to the producer” does not justify concluding that the name may be omitted everywhere. Conversely, a promise of particular lettering or a particular credit order across specified media is an additional contractual undertaking. Distinguish statutory attribution from the position, order, spelling and media coverage expressly agreed in the contract.

A full episode, short clip and incorrect name are different

Complete absence from the closing credits of a full film, no credits in a short promotional clip and another person’s name in a platform description are different situations. Identify the version, date and location of the omission. The exception for circumstances of use is not a general licence automatically excusing an oversight, but its inapplicability cannot be assumed without examining the particular release format.

Record a misspelled name, a role attributed to another actor, a credited person whose scene was removed, and copies corrected on one platform but not another separately. The requested correction should follow those distinctions. Adding the name only to future copies does not invariably resolve the existing online release, while the requested measure must remain specific and technically practicable.

Preserve evidence before requesting correction

Preserve the release URL, access date, production or episode title, version, relevant time code and complete credits. A screenshot without the actor’s name may not establish its absence from the whole credit sequence. A platform description and credits inside the video are separate records. Preserve original files and their context without bypassing access restrictions or exceeding authorisation to collect evidence.

Add the agreement and schedules, casting or role calls, shooting dates, approved credit draft, previous spelling correspondence and the producer’s response. If a release may be changed or removed, court preservation of evidence under Article 400 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be considered where a legal interest exists. That procedure does not itself determine infringement or compensation; it preserves facts that may become difficult to prove.

To whom and how should a correction request be addressed?

Identify the contracting party and the roles of the actual producer, distributor and platform. Display of the same brand does not prove that every company is a contracting party or liable for the same infringement. State the production and version, performer status, omission, basis and precise correction requested. Preserve content together with dispatch and receipt evidence; a general complaint sent to everyone does not replace a specific request to the proper recipient.

The actor may request correct identification in the relevant version and confirmation of the media corrected. This does not mean that every case requires the entire release to stop. If a correction is made, preserve the original evidence, reply and corrected version together. Technical correction does not remove the need to assess the effects of any past infringement and other possible claims on the individual facts.

Court remedies, interim relief and money claims differ

Article 80 allows related-right holders to seek removal or prevention of infringement and compensation. Seeking identification or correction of an omission in a particular release differs from seeking non-pecuniary damages. Article 70 requires assessment of non-pecuniary harm and the circumstances. An omitted name does not automatically establish a fixed compensation amount or a multiplier of a usage fee.

For urgent risk, interim relief may be considered under Article 77 and the applicable procedural rules. The required preliminary showing, scope and conditions need separate assessment. Under Article 393, implementation must be requested within one week from pronouncement or service on the applicant; otherwise the measure lapses. Where relief is granted before the merits action, Article 397 requires the action and prescribed filing with the enforcement record within two weeks from requesting implementation; otherwise the measure lapses automatically. Separately check implementation and the effect of other procedures, including mediation, on applicable periods.

Jurisdiction, mediation and timing

For civil disputes under this law, Article 76 refers subject-matter jurisdiction to intellectual and industrial property civil courts, with designated general civil courts acting in that capacity where specialised courts do not exist. Article 156(1) of the Industrial Property Code supplies that jurisdiction rule; it does not automatically import every venue rule for industrial property disputes. Examine the defendant’s domicile, tort connections and any special rule applicable to the relief. Do not infer the forum for a pure remuneration action from this article.

Where an action is commercial and seeks money, assess mandatory pre-action mediation under Article 5/A. A request solely for attribution or correction should not automatically be treated identically to a monetary demand. Tort-based compensation generally engages Article 72’s limitation periods of two years from knowledge and ten years from the act, with a longer criminal period where its conditions apply. A contractual claim requires separate classification for limitation.

No single final date can be given without distinguishing ongoing publication, an earlier version, a new upload and the date of knowledge. Writing to the producer or awaiting a platform response does not invariably suspend time. Interim-relief procedural periods are also distinct from limitation for damages. The full guide below separates status, version, omission and document preparation without producing a decision, success score or individual deadline calculation.

Sources

General information; individual documents, facts and procedures need separate review.

Screen credits: the actor’s attribution and correction preparation guide

Answer the topic-specific questions, select your records, then view your tailored preparation summary and office-branded PDF.