In-Reply-To: <list-13431757[_at_]cni.org>
> I didn't view the case as a moral rights case (though admittedly, I
> viewed it through the lens of U.S.A. law). It struck me more as a
> derivative work kind of issue -- analogous to me writing a 12-chapter
> book, authorizing a publisher to reproduce N copies, and the
> publisher, without any authorization from me, decides to insert a
> couple of extra chapters -- not representing them as mine, and
> clearly known to the reader as being crass commercial solicitations
> that helped finance the publication, but nevertheless alterations to
> my work.
Maybe that's how someone would have tried to litigate it in the US.
But it was a moral rights case.
> Movie trailers on the leader BEFORE a DVD movie starts are fine, as
> are commercial advertisements included before or after a movie, but
> if I inserted advertisements in the middle of the movie, I have think
> USA courts would consider a derivative work analysis.
Maybe they would. Better by far for the US to catch up with the world and implement moral rights (for works that are not visual works produced in signed and numbered editions of 250 or fewer on Tuesdays).
And no, moral rights are not "censorship". They are a guarantee to the reader/viewer that what they see is what was meant.
Consider the case of the BBC correspondent in early-1990s Afghanistan who was beaten literally within an inch of his life because the Pathan language service translated his report to favour "their" side and the Pushtun service theirs...
(And, yes, the UK excludes moral rights in reporting. Which, as I see it, is where there is the strongest case for them.)
Mike Received on Wed Apr 19 2006 - 01:00:00 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:56 GMT