Re: Artistic Works - exclusive rights of copyright owners

Michael M. Lean writes:
>
>I was wondering if someone could give me an opinion on the following...
>The exclusive rights given to owners of copyright in _literary_ works
>under the Australian Copyright Act include the right to make an
>adaptation of the work. This right is not extended to owners of
>copyright in _artistic_ works.
>
>Now, can I assume that in the case of an artistic work, "adaptation"
>could be equated with "derivation", and

The concept is similar to that of derivation in the US law.

>if so, can anyone tell me what the intention might be in not granting
>this right?

My understanding is that this right, although given wrt other works has been withheld from artistic works precisely because of the nature of art. The use of parody and the play on previous works is extremely important in artistic works and if you give owners the right to control adaptations you can severely limit the ability of artists to build on that work.

Mind you, reproduction for artistic works has been given quite a broad interpretation. A photograph of a painting is usually a reproduction. There is also a provision re reproduction of works in 3 dimension in 2 dimensions (or is it the other way around).

>The rights given for artistic works in Australia are:
>
> To reproduce the work in a material form,
> To publish the work,
> To include the work in a television broadcast,
> To cause a tv program which includes the work to be transmitted to
> subscribers to a diffusion service.
>
>I don't know what the provisions of the United States legislation are
>in this area, are they similar, or more specific?
>
>The question is of interest to me because we're struggling with trying
>to develop a policy and code of ethics for dealing with photographs
>produced by uni. staff photographers-

That is quite an unenviable task.

>given the move towards increasing
>digitization

I would argue that this is clearly currently a reproduction.

>and the ease with which the photographers' clients can
>change or manipulate the image;

It is a matter of fact as to whether a manipulated image is a reproduction or an adaptation and will vary depending on the degree of objective similarity.

>granted the university owns the
>copyright under either commissioned works or work made for hire, but
>what happens when Moral Rights legislation is enacted and the
>photographer presumably has a non-transferable right of integrity?

If and when that happens.

The right of integrity as I understand it does not extend to adaptations as an adaptation has a separate author with separate moral rights.

Under current legislation an owner has a right to prevent other's from falsely claiming authorship of the work or reproductions of it but not for adaptations of it.

What is the position re a translation of a literary work (an adaptation) in countries which have a right of integrity?

Tim Arnold-Moore      | CITRI, RMIT         | Uni. of Melbourne Law School
tja[_at_]citri.edu.au      | 723 Swanston St     | ----------------------------
Phone: +61 3 282 2487 | Carlton 3053        |       simul iustus
Fax:   +61 3 282 2490 | Victoria, Australia |        et peccator