Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > People that pass by the house do not know whether the blinds > were the architect's design or not. They might remember that > the house was designed by him, and then conclude that he was > very stupid for putting those ugly blinds on the house. And > that thus harms his reputation. > > It's extremely silly but that's the argument. Dutch lawyers may > want to look it up: Gerechtshof 's Hertogenbosch 24 feb 1993, > AMI 1994, 116. The court noted that demolishing the house would > not violate the architect's moral rights. This has been used > in some cases to force architects to accept certain changes.
This is exactly why the concept of unrenouncable authors' "moral rights" offends me. If the architect wants the right to review any proposed changes, then that should be part of the contract of sale, and he will get a little less money, because he's imposing a restriction of such a sort. I believe that there *have* been cases where the owner of a work of art was told that outright destruction of the work would also violate the author's supposed moral rights.
