Talk:Moral rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What about classical music and movies?

I heard that "moral rights" were what prevented artistic works that would normally be in the public domain to be used for commercial purposes in any modification whatsoever. For example, the Mona Lisa is used in advertising in Italy, but, say, "Nude Descending a Staircase" might not be. Early modern musical works are prevented from being cut into passages and used in movies because the descendants of the authors are still around and don't want this done. A counter-example is that Ed Wood got the music for movies free by going to the British Copyright Office and taping the "examples" of the music, similar to a model of a patentable machine. The prevention of this is what I thought "moral rights" were all about. --69.16.84.5 19:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Moral rights exist for the duration of the copyright time, i.e. currently for 70 years after the creator's death, so during this time the creator and his/her descendants may object to what can be perceived as derogatory treatment of the work. In the case of Ed Wood, however, he probably made use of the "quotation right", i.e. the right to quote short passages of text (or music). As long as he didn't start cutting and re-arranging each quote within itself, but just added one to another, if could probably not be regarded as an infringement of the creators' moral rights. But, on the other hand, the UK didn't accept the concept of moral rights until 1988, so it probably wasn't an issue anyway. Thomas Blomberg 20:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Natural rights

"Moral rights" is also another term for natural rights. RJII 16:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In this context it's a bit different. Perhaps there should be a comment about this in the article. In this context it is meant to apply to the intellectual property concept of "moral rights," or droit de suite.LH 18:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Moral rights as pertaining to intellectual property come from natural law. It is the belief that the author retains a value in the integrity of the work after its completion. This was not invented by any particular statute or international treaty. Moral rights trump the freedom of expression for those countries that recognize both. In the US, the freedom of expression is given a higher order through the doctrine of fair use, whereas moral rights enjoy a higher order in other countries. US Copyright textbooks state that the US does not recognize moral rights and distinguishes them from derivative works. The Berne convention is not a self-executing treaty, and the US Berne Convention Implementation Act excludes the US from the moral rights section. Legis Nuntius (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World Perspective

I didn't add the template, but I think it's a good idea. This is an international topic, however the only subheading right now is on the U.S. This is somewhat ironic given that the U.S. is the most reticent to implement moral rights regimes. A french perspective in particular would be appreciated, along with any other civil law systems.LH 18:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology?

I was hoping to find some discussion of how this term came about. "Moral rights" is a loaded-sounding phrase, that seems more all-encompassing than the actual definition. Anyone know the derivation of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnitzi (talk • contribs) 03:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In part, see the discussion above about "moral rights" versus "natural rights." It's my understanding the term is French in origin, but I'm unsure. Does anyone else have additional information?LH (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Droit d'Auteur

A user deleted the following sentence

Those jurisdictions that include moral rights in their copyright statutes are called droit d'auteur states, which literally means "right of the author".

and gave the comment "I have deleted the reference to droit d'auteur states - it is inaccurate and ignores common law protection of moral rights."

I do not know if this is accurate or not, however the poster should provide some additional explanation. My understanding was that the sentence was saying that some states were termed droit d'auteur states and others were not. The common law protection of some rights that overlap with the rights protected by droit d'auteur states wouldn't make this sentence inaccurate. On the other hand, if the term's used inaccurately here then this is a good reason for removal. In either case, I don't know.

I am not aware of the precise meaning of the term droit d'auteur. I would ask for the reviser to provide some background.LH (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)