Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Copyright - Moral Rights - Coggle Diagram

- - - - the management of intellectual works (through indexes, catalogues, and bibliographies) - See R. Chartier, ‘Figures of the Author’, in Sherman and Strowel, ch. 1
      - the channelling of royalties (for example from the public lending right scheme)
      - the interpretation of the work (insofar as it provides a psychological or biographical history of the author)
      - the celebration, reward, and sustenance of authorial talent or genius - A link is frequently drawn between the right to be named and the ability to gain a reputation and make an income as an author or artist: see Tolnay v. Criterion Film Productions [1936] 2 All ER 1625
      - the construction of the individual as the creator of an intellectual oeuvre.
  - - - In some circumstances, such a term might be implied into a contract - Miller v. Cecil Film Ltd [1937] 2 All ER 464
- - - - Moore v. News of the World [1972] 1 QB 441 (finding false attribution in a newspaper article entitled ‘How my love for the Saint turned sour by Dorothy Squires’, written in the first person by journalist on basis of conversations with Squires). It is not altogether clear whether the work was falsely attributed because Squires had not written the words or because she had not spoken them. In light of the changes in the 1988 Act, which confer copyright on spoken words, it seems that a verbatim account of a speech by a journalist should not be treated as having been falsely attributed to the speaker.
    - - Noah v. Shuba [1991] FSR 14 (finding no false attribution of 17 words added to passage extracted from the plaintiff’s work, since these words did not constitute a work, but that there was false attribution of the extract as a whole as attributed solely to the plaintiff). In effect, the plaintiff succeeded in protecting his right to endorse the defendant’s services, and thus this indicates a potential usefulness in the context of ‘personality merchandising’.
  - - - Section 84(5) also provides for infringement where certain commercial acts are done with the knowledge that the attribution is false.
- - - - In particular, objection is made that there is no transformative use exception, for example, relating to parody.
        
        Many parodies might be said not to prejudice the honour or reputation of the author, because the audience would understand that the parodic variation had been created by a third party. Prejudice caused to an author from the critical quality of the parody is, strictly speaking, not relevant to infringement of the right, which protects only against prejudice that results from the treatment being thought to be the work of the author. The proposed new parody exception in CDPA 1988, s. 30A, applies only to economic rights. Even if an author is able to identify relevant prejudice, resort could be made by the defendant parodist to freedom of expression norms (under Art. 10 ECHR).
      - Many other legal systems subject the moral right of integrity to a ‘reasonableness’ defence.
        
        Australia, Copyright Act 1968, s. 195AS; Israel Copyright Act 2007, s. 50. Under US law, ‘fair use’ operates as a defence to an action for infringement of the artists’ moral rights recognized under the US Visual Artists Rights Act.