Quote:
Originally posted by LadyMischief
Here's a little lesson for those who have no idea what Moral rights are or how they can affect you.
An artist makes a bronze statue of a duck. He sells the statue, along with the copyright, to Joe Blow. Joe Blow takes the duck and puts it in his front yard. Then, in a creative mood, Joe Blow puts a ribbon around the bronze duck's neck. The artist goes by one day to admire his work and sees that Joe Blow has altered it, thereby destroying the intention the artist had in creating the work of art (at least in the artist's opinion).
Now, legally, you would think, Joe Blow paid for the copyright, the artist is shit out of luck. WRONG. He still has something called Moral rights. He believes that the integrity of his work has been destroyed, and dispite the fact that he sold the copyright to his duck, he may STILL sue AND pursue and possibly WIN damages because of the desecration of his beautiful duck.
Changing something, even if it negates the copyright where you live, does NOT negate the artists moral rights to sue your ass off if you destroy the integrity of his work. And these are artists we're talking about. It could be something as simple as a ribbon on a bronze duck. Are you ready to lose your shirt over it?
|
In the US the only specific statutory reference to moral rights in the Visual Arts Recording Act, who's protection expires with the death of the artist. So if you're going to put a ribbon on your duck, kill the artist first.
It is my understanding the US courts have shown little interest in protecting moral rights, for example the case of Shostakovich v. 20th Century-Fox. In short the court ruled against the Soviet composers who objected to their (uncopyrighted) work being used in a movie with an anti-soviet message.