The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico recently ruled on a significant case involving Carliz De La Cruz Hernández and Rimas Entertainment, LLC, among others. The court addressed issues regarding the unauthorized use of a person's voice and image in the music industry. This ruling is crucial as it sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future, particularly in the realm of intellectual property rights.
The case, filed under docket number CC-2025-0212 on July 8, 2026, revolves around allegations made by Hernández against Rimas Entertainment and several individuals, including the popular artist Benito A. Martínez Ocasio, known as “Bad Bunny.” Hernández claimed that her voice was used without her consent in various songs, including the hit “Pa Ti,” which was released in 2016. The court's decision has implications for artists and individuals in the entertainment industry regarding their rights over their own voices and images.
In this case, Hernández argued that she had a romantic relationship with Martínez Ocasio and contributed to his early music career. She claimed that in 2015, she recorded the phrase “Bad Bunny Baby,” which was later used in several songs without her permission. After their relationship ended, she alleged that her voice was included in various music projects without proper attribution or consent, violating her moral rights and her right to her own image.
The dispute escalated when Hernández filed her complaint in March 2023, seeking damages under Puerto Rico's Moral Rights Law and the Right to One's Own Image Law. The defendants, including Rimas Entertainment, responded by filing motions to dismiss the case, arguing that Hernández's claims lacked merit and that the phrase was too common to qualify for protection under intellectual property laws.
The Supreme Court ruled that Hernández did present plausible facts regarding the originality and creativity of her voice recording, which could potentially qualify for protection under the Moral Rights Law. The court emphasized that the original and creative nature of a work is essential for it to be protected. The ruling stated, "the plaintiff presented plausible facts in the Complaint about the existence of an original and creative work regarding her interpretation in the sound recording in controversy." Therefore, the court found that the dismissal of Hernández's claims was not warranted at this stage.
Furthermore, the court addressed the issue of Hernández's right to her own image. The judges noted that for a claim regarding the unauthorized use of a person's image to proceed, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the image was captured, reproduced, or published without the individual's express or implied consent. The court stated, "the lack of consent was exposed in the Complaint and the defense presented did not prosper to justify the use of the image."
Additionally, the court clarified that the claim regarding the unauthorized use of Hernández's image under the Right to One's Own Image Law requires a commercial purpose. However, it concluded that Hernández had presented enough facts to support a plausible commercial use, and the defendants failed to establish that she had no right to any remedy.
The court also recognized the application of the Single Publication Rule in actions related to the right to one's own image. This means that claims related to the use of Hernández's voice in the song “Pa Ti,” published in 2016, were time-barred since the complaint was filed in 2023. The judges noted that the lower courts correctly concluded that the claims related to this song were prescribed.
The ruling has significant implications for the entertainment industry in Puerto Rico and beyond. It reinforces the importance of obtaining consent when using someone's voice or image, particularly in commercial contexts. This decision may empower individuals in similar situations to assert their rights and seek legal remedies when their voices or images are used without permission.
Moving forward, this ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving the unauthorized use of personal attributes in creative works. It highlights the need for artists and producers to be aware of the legal ramifications of using someone else's voice or image in their projects. The court's decision may encourage more individuals to assert their rights in the face of unauthorized use of their creative contributions.
As for what’s next, it remains to be seen whether the defendants will appeal this ruling. Appeals could further clarify the legal standards surrounding voice and image rights in Puerto Rico. Additionally, there may be related cases pending that could further explore these issues in the context of the entertainment industry.