3 ms·

Later on in the article, the purpose of copyright is further discussed, specifically the "moral" side of copyright. For example: "Samuel Beckett’s restrictions

by spott 12y ago

Later on in the article, the purpose of copyright is further discussed, specifically the "moral" side of copyright. For example: "Samuel Beckett’s restrictions on the staging of his plays is a well-known example of the exercise of copyright as a moral right." and "...although the buyer of a work of art may destroy it, he or she cannot deface or otherwise alter it." as well as the inability to copy or publish out of print books. None one of these is referring to the money making side of copyright, but rather to the "moral" side that you own your creation completely, and others only get to "consume" it.

galaxyLogic 12y ago
I don't understand why you couldn't "deface" it. That is not the same thing as copying at all. Is that really part of the copyright law?
- bradleyjg 12y ago
  Not in Anglo-American copyright law, but it is a part of the civil law (i.e continental) equivalent. See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
- ecdavis 12y ago
  http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 It's under 106Aa3, I believe. Pretty interesting stuff which I wasn't aware of. EDIT: Note that the rights cannot be transferred, but can be waived. So if you're buying visual art with the intention of defacing it then you can ask the artist to sign a waiver form as a condition of the sale. Personally, I think this is reasonable.
  - galaxyLogic 12y ago
    It's kind of a weird law, as if that kind of thing used to happen frequently to artists. I think there should be another law for that. Ah, more laws :-)
- tzs 12y ago
  Yes. This has long been part of copyright law in most of the world, and in the US since 1989 when the US amended its copyright law to match the rest of the world so that it could join the Berne Convention. This reflects an interesting philosophical difference in how Europe and the US historically view creative works. The historical philosophical justification of copyright in the US is the "fruits of your labor" theory of ownership. If by your labor your make something, you should own that thing. This leads to the US taking a more utilitarian view, and so US copyright law was only concerned with "economic rights". You created a work, so you owned the rights to make and sell copies of it. I've not really studied the classical philosophers, but I'm told that the US view is heavily influenced by John Locke. The historical European view is that a work of art is an extension of the creator. The philosophical justification for copyright under the European view is self ownership and self determination. European copyright law therefore not only protects economic rights, but also "moral rights". If you deface a work of art, or if you falsely attribute a work of art, that is an attack on the artist himself. I'm told that the European view is heavily influenced by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Article 6bis of the Berne Convention requires recognition of moral rights: (1) Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. (2) The rights granted to the author in accordance with the preceding paragraph shall, after his death, be maintained, at least until the expiry of the economic rights, and shall be exercisable by the persons or institutions authorized by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed. However, those countries whose legislation, at the moment of their ratification of or accession to this Act, does not provide for the protection after the death of the author of all the rights set out in the preceding paragraph may provide that some of these rights may, after his death, cease to be maintained. (3) The means of redress for safeguarding the rights granted by this Article shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed. The US was not willing to go that far, so when the US introduced some moral rights via the Berne Implementation Act of 1988, it did so in a limited fashion--it only covers works of visual art (which is a narrower category than most people would expect--see note below). It is generally believed that it was meant to be just enough so that with vigorous hand waving one could say that the US met the qualifications to join the Berne Convention. The US copyright moral rights are in 17 USC 106A: (a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.— Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art— (Note: section 107 is "fair use") (1) shall have the right— (A) to claim authorship of that work, and (B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create; (2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and (3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113 (d), shall have the right— (A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and (B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right. (b) Scope and Exercise of Rights.— Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright owner. The authors of a joint work of visual art are coowners of the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work. (c) Exceptions.— (1) The modification of a work of visual art which is a result of the passage of time or the inherent nature of the materials is not a distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3)(A). (2) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of conservation, or of the public presentation, including lighting and placement, of the work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3) unless the modification is caused by gross negligence. (3) The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work in, upon, or in any connection with any item described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of the definition of “work of visual art” in section 101, and any such reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a). (Note: this excludes "any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication" and "any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container", and it excludes any "work made for hire") (d) Duration of Rights.— (1) With respect to works of visual art created on or after the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term consisting of the life of the author. (2) With respect to works of visual art created before the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, but title to which has not, as of such effective date, been transferred from the author, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall be coextensive with, and shall expire at the same time as, the rights conferred by section 106. (3) In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term consisting of the life of the last surviving author. (4) All terms of the rights conferred by subsection (a) run to the end of the calendar year in which they would otherwise expire. (e) Transfer and Waiver.— (1) The rights conferred by subsection (a) may not be transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such instrument shall specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to which the waiver applies, and the waiver shall apply only to the work and uses so identified. In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, a waiver of rights under this paragraph made by one such author waives such rights for all such authors. (2) Ownership of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art is distinct from ownership of any copy of that work, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright in that work. Transfer of ownership of any copy of a work of visual art, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright, shall not constitute a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a). Except as may otherwise be agreed by the author in a written instrument signed by the author, a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art shall not constitute a transfer of ownership of any copy of that work, or of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive right under a copyright in that work.

by spott 12y ago

galaxyLogic 12y ago

I don't understand why you couldn't "deface" it. That is not the same thing as copying at all. Is that really part of the copyright law?

bradleyjg 12y ago
Not in Anglo-American copyright law, but it is a part of the civil law (i.e continental) equivalent. See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
ecdavis 12y ago
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 It's under 106Aa3, I believe. Pretty interesting stuff which I wasn't aware of. EDIT: Note that the rights cannot be transferred, but can be waived. So if you're buying visual art with the intention of defacing it then you can ask the artist to sign a waiver form as a condition of the sale. Personally, I think this is reasonable.
- galaxyLogic 12y ago
  It's kind of a weird law, as if that kind of thing used to happen frequently to artists. I think there should be another law for that. Ah, more laws :-)
tzs 12y ago
Yes. This has long been part of copyright law in most of the world, and in the US since 1989 when the US amended its copyright law to match the rest of the world so that it could join the Berne Convention. This reflects an interesting philosophical difference in how Europe and the US historically view creative works. The historical philosophical justification of copyright in the US is the "fruits of your labor" theory of ownership. If by your labor your make something, you should own that thing. This leads to the US taking a more utilitarian view, and so US copyright law was only concerned with "economic rights". You created a work, so you owned the rights to make and sell copies of it. I've not really studied the classical philosophers, but I'm told that the US view is heavily influenced by John Locke. The historical European view is that a work of art is an extension of the creator. The philosophical justification for copyright under the European view is self ownership and self determination. European copyright law therefore not only protects economic rights, but also "moral rights". If you deface a work of art, or if you falsely attribute a work of art, that is an attack on the artist himself. I'm told that the European view is heavily influenced by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Article 6bis of the Berne Convention requires recognition of moral rights: (1) Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. (2) The rights granted to the author in accordance with the preceding paragraph shall, after his death, be maintained, at least until the expiry of the economic rights, and shall be exercisable by the persons or institutions authorized by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed. However, those countries whose legislation, at the moment of their ratification of or accession to this Act, does not provide for the protection after the death of the author of all the rights set out in the preceding paragraph may provide that some of these rights may, after his death, cease to be maintained. (3) The means of redress for safeguarding the rights granted by this Article shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed. The US was not willing to go that far, so when the US introduced some moral rights via the Berne Implementation Act of 1988, it did so in a limited fashion--it only covers works of visual art (which is a narrower category than most people would expect--see note below). It is generally believed that it was meant to be just enough so that with vigorous hand waving one could say that the US met the qualifications to join the Berne Convention. The US copyright moral rights are in 17 USC 106A: (a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.— Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art— (Note: section 107 is "fair use") (1) shall have the right— (A) to claim authorship of that work, and (B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create; (2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and (3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113 (d), shall have the right— (A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and (B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right. (b) Scope and Exercise of Rights.— Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright owner. The authors of a joint work of visual art are coowners of the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work. (c) Exceptions.— (1) The modification of a work of visual art which is a result of the passage of time or the inherent nature of the materials is not a distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3)(A). (2) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of conservation, or of the public presentation, including lighting and placement, of the work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3) unless the modification is caused by gross negligence. (3) The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work in, upon, or in any connection with any item described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of the definition of “work of visual art” in section 101, and any such reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a). (Note: this excludes "any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication" and "any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container", and it excludes any "work made for hire") (d) Duration of Rights.— (1) With respect to works of visual art created on or after the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term consisting of the life of the author. (2) With respect to works of visual art created before the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, but title to which has not, as of such effective date, been transferred from the author, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall be coextensive with, and shall expire at the same time as, the rights conferred by section 106. (3) In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term consisting of the life of the last surviving author. (4) All terms of the rights conferred by subsection (a) run to the end of the calendar year in which they would otherwise expire. (e) Transfer and Waiver.— (1) The rights conferred by subsection (a) may not be transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such instrument shall specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to which the waiver applies, and the waiver shall apply only to the work and uses so identified. In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, a waiver of rights under this paragraph made by one such author waives such rights for all such authors. (2) Ownership of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art is distinct from ownership of any copy of that work, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright in that work. Transfer of ownership of any copy of a work of visual art, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright, shall not constitute a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a). Except as may otherwise be agreed by the author in a written instrument signed by the author, a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art shall not constitute a transfer of ownership of any copy of that work, or of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive right under a copyright in that work.