Re: Copyright of laws

Charles Keller writes:
> For example:
> `_Rumpole a la Carte_ by John Mortimer
> (C) Avanpress Ltd. 1990
> The moral right of the author has been asserted'
>
> Perhaps someone would enlighten us as to what this legal "right"
> is, how it might be violated, and its intended purpose. I assume
> this is not a form of intellectual property created by Jerry Falwell
> et. al. since it appears to be UK law. ;-)

The concept of "moral rights" originated, I believe, in France. The theory is that, besides having an economic right in his works (copyright) an author has a personal relationship with his works based on the creative endeavours put into producing those works.

This personal relationship gives rise to certain rights in respect of those works which only the author or the author's heirs may exercise. These rights stay with the author even if the copyright in his work has been assigned elsewhere.

As I understand it, the French have five rights:

1. The paternity right - The right of an author to be identified as such
2. The integrity right - The right of an author to prevent derogatory treatment of his works
3. The disclosure right - The right of an author to withhold his work from publication
4. The non-attribution right - The right not to have a work falsely attributed to an author
5. The "droit de suite" - The right of an author who has sold a painting, sculpture or other object to receive a proportion of the proceeds of any subsequent re-sale

In the UK we have adopted the paternity, integrity and non-attribution rights for certain types of works in certain circumstances, but not the disclosure right nor the droit de suite.

The Berne convention provides for the incorporation into national law of the integrity and paternity rights.

One possible way that the integrity right may be used is to prevent parodies of works. For example, it is generally accepted that if someone attempted to release that parody of the Michael Jackson song (I forget who did it but it was called "Eat It") under current UK legislation, the composer of the original song would have been able to prevent its release because it was a derogotary treatment even if his publisher had granted a licence.  

> Any thoughts as to why the US objects to "moral rights" might be
> interesting as well.

I suspect (although I don't know) that the American objection is that these "moral" rights tend to impinge upon the economic rights in the works. I guess that Americans have different priorities to the French.

sean

Sean Kyle-Price                      10 Myddleton Road
Solicitor                             London  N22 4NS
sean[_at_]southern.com                    Tel: 081 365 7890