Drazen Kacar wrote: [...] > Irish copyright law gives such moral rights to individuals, the said > rights are not transferable and there's no way to give them up, as > far as Irish law is concerned.
http://www.icla.ie/index.php?information "Moral rights may be waived, but a waiver must be in writing." Ireland aside for a moment, see also http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/ilj/rigamonti.pdf ------ If there is a general set of rules that has emerged from the case law in France and Germany, it is (i) that authors cannot legally relinquish or abandon the rights of attribution and integrity altogether, (ii) that advance blanket waivers are unenforceable, and (iii) that narrowly tailored waivers that involve reasonably foreseeable encroachments on the authors moral rights are generally valid.139 In the context of the right of integrity, this essentially means that courts are inclined to side with the author if the other party to the contract distorts140 the work then attempts to invoke a generic waiver provision in its defense.141 Conversely, the courts tend to rule against authors if the authors approve specific modifications either before or after the fact and then try to rely on their inalienable moral rights to reverse their previous decision to the detriment of the other party to the contract.142 Regarding the right of attribution, the common denominator is that authors always preserve their right to disclose the fact of their authorship, even if they previously agreed to publish their work anonymously or under a pseudonym.143 Whether such disclosure makes the author liable for breach of contract is a different question, which is decided on a case-by-case basis.144 Yet another question is whether authors who contractually waive their moral right of attribution can later change their minds and demand attribution.145 The general trend in France and Germany146 is to recognize these waivers as valid,147 but also to allow authors to unilaterally revoke them for the future,148 at least after the passing of a certain time period.149 [...] What distinguishes the British system from the French, German, and Italian moral rights regimes is that the rights of attribution and integrity come with a host of substantive limitations and exceptions that reduce the scope of their application to the point where statutory moral rights become largely symbolic. Aside from a number of restrictions on remedies,284 for example, the rights of attribution and integrity do not apply to computer programs, to works made for hire, to works published in periodicals, or to collective works of reference,285 and authors of musical works need not be named when the work is publicly performed.286 Moreover, it is doubtful whether the right of attribution includes a right of anonymity,287 and the CDPA specifically states that the right of attribution is not infringed unless previously asserted in a written instrument, with the exception of the public exhibition of artistic works, in which case affixing the authors name to a copy of the work is sufficient.288 With respect to the right of integrity, the statutory definition of derogatory treatment explicitly excludes translations of literary or dramatic works, as well as arrangements or transcriptions of musical works involving no more than a change of key or register,289 and it is questionable whether the right of integrity covers contextual modifications in addition to actual modifications.290 Aside from the issue of scope, the most important feature of statutory moral rights law in the United Kingdom is its exceptionally generous waiver regime.291 The CDPA allows authors and directors to validly consent to any act that violates their moral rights.292 ------- regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
