Re: Author's Rights

From: Mike Holderness <mch[_at_]cix.compulink.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 17:03 BST-1

Mark Lemley <mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> wrote
>
> Mike Holderness writes, amid much that I agree with:

Thank you...

> > And, yes, there is an argument for the author _in_principle_
> > to "control all possible uses of his or her creation", and it's
> > about authentication.
> >
> > A news photograph taken by a French citizen is inherently more
> > trustworthy than one taken by a US citizen or UK subject.
> >
> > The French photographer has the absolute, inalienable right to
> > sue for "derogatory treatment" of her work if it is manipulated
> > and distorted. This is what is poorly translated into UK law,
> > and just barely touched on in the US Act, as "the 'moral
> > right' of integrity".
> >
> > **************
>
> Moral rights probably do help to promote authenticity (though they
> would do nothing to prevent the photographer herself from altering
> her image if it suited her to do so). But this right comes at an
> enormous cost -- we deny to others the right of alteration and
> improvement. I edited your e-mail message before I responded to
> it: shortening it, removing earlier messages, and focusing attention
> on what I wanted to reply to. Should I really be prohibited from
> doing that in the name of "authenticity"?

No, not at all. I'm a journalist. I abhor prior restraint, wish my UK colleagues would pay attention, and forget that it's not commonly accepted in these circles that

        is(journalist,X)
        abhors(prior_restraint,journalist)

therefore...

But, had your quotation of my material been "derogatory treatment", I'd have sued the pants off you, to the best of my pathetic ability as a UK subject, _after_ the fact. OK?

Just as well you quoted me fairly, really :-)

As for the question of the photographer manipulating the picture herself: Yes. Problem. But honest photographers having the right to object must be better than them not having that right. It might even help keep newspaper designers & their employers honest, on the off-chance that the photographer might turn out to be honest, or spot a financial incentive to pretend to be :-)

Consider:

You see in the _Beltway Moonie_ (a fictitious newspaper), in October 1996, a photo of Hillary embracing Saddam. It's a fake.

At present, in my understanding of Anglo-Saxon law, Hillary or Saddam or both can sue the publisher for libel. Stop. End of remedy. Lawyers collect $200k, everyone else do not pass Go.

Under French law, however, either the photographer who took the Hillary pic, or the one who took the Saddam pic, or both, can prosecute for "derogatory treatment" (breaching their "right of integrity"). Lawyers collect $20k, publisher goes to jail.

And/or Hillary and/or Saddam can still sue for libel, even in the case where the photographer did the evil deed herself with two of her own pictures.

Mike Holderness
<mch[_at_]cix.compulink.co.uk> Received on Tue Apr 16 1996 - 16:10:25 GMT