Based on the definition [1] promoted by WMF, I am wondering if free content exists in France where moral rights are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
Birgitte SB
[1] http://freedomdefined.org/Definition
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Based on the definition [1] promoted by WMF, I am wondering if free content exists in France where moral rights are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
I'm sorry, but in the definition, I seem to miss the part where free content is tied to the "loss of' or 'giving up" one's moral rights?
Could you point me to it?
Thank you.
Delphine
The argument being made is over the provision:
The freedom to distribute derivative works: In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).
In particular "distribute a modified version . . . regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications" clashing with moral rights such as "right to the respect of the work " and "right to protection of honour and reputation"
Thanks Birgitte SB
--- Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Based on the definition [1] promoted by WMF, I am wondering if free content exists in France where
moral
rights are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
I'm sorry, but in the definition, I seem to miss the part where free content is tied to the "loss of' or 'giving up" one's moral rights?
Could you point me to it?
Thank you.
Delphine
~notafish NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 4/20/07, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Based on the definition [1] promoted by WMF, I am wondering if free content exists in France where moral rights are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
I'm sorry, but in the definition, I seem to miss the part where free content is tied to the "loss of' or 'giving up" one's moral rights?
Could you point me to it?
Thank you.
Delphine
~notafish NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
In many countries, the moral rights can't be waived or renounced (in Mexico you can't). But those are not the rights that licenses deal with, but "patrimonial" (not sure about the proper translation) rights.
No matter how free is the image, the author will always remain the author. That's nothing to do with freeness.
--- Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com
wrote:
Based on the definition [1] promoted by WMF, I
am
wondering if free content exists in France where
moral
rights are inalienable, perpetual and
inviolable.
I'm sorry, but in the definition, I seem to miss
the part where free
content is tied to the "loss of' or 'giving up"
one's moral rights?
Could you point me to it?
Thank you.
Delphine
~notafish NB. This address is used for mailing lists.
Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
In many countries, the moral rights can't be waived or renounced (in Mexico you can't). But those are not the rights that licenses deal with, but "patrimonial" (not sure about the proper translation) rights.
No matter how free is the image, the author will always remain the author. That's nothing to do with freeness.
The question arises in juristictions were they can be waived. Whether works which still maintian perpetual moral rights or their equivalent in a juristition where other works do not are free content. I asked the question as I did because it is the extreme situation. Where the rights are perpetual and cannot be waived. And the reasoning to justify the extreme situation can be applied universally to evalute other the freedom of other works.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
No matter how free is the image, the author will always remain the author. That's nothing to do with freeness.
Sorry I missed this comment on first reading. Authorship is not the moral right in question. The question is about the moral rights effecting derivatives which might be seen as distorting or mulitating the work or somehow insulting the honor of the author. While the definition of freedom says derivative must be allowed "regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications"
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Well, in certain countries the rights just cannot be waived, from what I have heard. Thus, if the author were to change their mind about their image being "free", they could take it back. I don't know that that legal right exists in the US. I can imagine that many authors would _want_ to make the image non-free again if something like that happened (the image were modified to mock them).
Mark
On 20/04/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
No matter how free is the image, the author will always remain the author. That's nothing to do with freeness.
Sorry I missed this comment on first reading. Authorship is not the moral right in question. The question is about the moral rights effecting derivatives which might be seen as distorting or mulitating the work or somehow insulting the honor of the author. While the definition of freedom says derivative must be allowed "regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications"
Birgitte SB
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
So the question is: When the right to take back a release in the event of a derogatory derivative is reserved is it "free content"?
Birgitte SB
--- Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Well, in certain countries the rights just cannot be waived, from what I have heard. Thus, if the author were to change their mind about their image being "free", they could take it back. I don't know that that legal right exists in the US. I can imagine that many authors would _want_ to make the image non-free again if something like that happened (the image were modified to mock them).
Mark
On 20/04/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
No matter how free is the image, the author will always remain the author. That's nothing to do with freeness.
Sorry I missed this comment on first reading. Authorship is not the moral right in question.
The
question is about the moral rights effecting derivatives which might be seen as distorting or mulitating the work or somehow insulting the honor
of
the author. While the definition of freedom says derivative must be allowed "regardless of the
intent
and purpose of such modifications"
Birgitte SB
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 20/04/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
So the question is: When the right to take back a release in the event of a derogatory derivative is reserved is it "free content"?
If memory serves, at least one free license has a condition which basically amounts to "you cannot stop people making derivative works, but you can stop them attributing them to you", which goes some way towards this.
Hello,
This question is related to a debate* on the English Wikisource, summarised hence.
Currently, based on the Free Content definition*, the copyright policy* requires that a work's licensing allow it to be "freely viewed, used, distributed, modified, and exploited by anyone, in any form, and for any purpose (including commercial exploitation) without exception and without limitation (except as explicitly allowed [by the copyright policy])".
Given that moral rights include the right to attribution and the right to object to modification of one's work (independently of copyright and even after the transfer or expiry of copyright)*, and given that a significant portion of the English-speaking world recognizes moral rights, does this mean that the copyright policy and definition require impossible freedoms?
For example, this would mean that all works on Wikisource (including those in the public domain) would either: 1. be retagged to require attribution and prohibit changes or derivatives; 2. be deleted.
I disagree with this assertion. I consider moral rights to be legal restrictions in some jurisdictions, much like anti-hate propaganda legislation in Canada, and not "attached" to a work as copyright is. However, I am not a lawyer nor particularly aware of the intricacies of copyright, and would appreciate input from the wider Foundation community.
* debate: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Moral_rights * definition: http://freedomdefined.org/Definition * copyright policy: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Copyright_policy * Moral rights in Europe: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_...
Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
On 4/20/07, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Given that moral rights include the right to attribution and the right to object to modification of one's work (independently of copyright and even after the transfer or expiry of copyright)*, and given that a significant portion of the English-speaking world recognizes moral rights, does this mean that the copyright policy and definition require impossible freedoms?
This is exactly what came to my mind when reading the bit Birgitte pointed out.
The part that says: "regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. " seems to be at best an ideal, at worst requiring the impossible, considering all you pointed out.
I'll add that moral rights are not only recognized in the English-speaking world, but basically in at least the whole western world. France being one among many countries (yeah, I didn't like France being singled out in the subject :P)
But then also, IANAL. :-)
Delphine
--- Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
I'll add that moral rights are not only recognized in the English-speaking world, but basically in at least the whole western world. France being one among many countries (yeah, I didn't like France being singled out in the subject :P)
I agree; these rights are recognized to some degree about everywhere that honors Berne. Of course the US is significant example of a juristiction not honoring this part of Berne. I wasn't meaning to pick on France, but I was completely certain what I was saying was true for France. Whereas I believe is it also true in Germany and most of the EU, I am not sure which juristictions allow these rights to waived. I know for certain that France takes the hard line on the issue, so that makes the best example.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Fri, April 20, 2007 19:07, Birgitte SB wrote:
I wasn't meaning to pick on France, but I was completely certain what I was saying was true for France. Whereas I believe is it also true in Germany and most of the EU, I am not sure which juristictions allow these rights to waived.
In the UK you have to "assert" your moral rights at the outset, (eg. "The author(s) assert(s) their moral rights under Chapter IV of the copyrights designs and patents act 1988") as opposed to the 'automatic-ness' of copyright, but having asserted them you can then announce that you will not seek to enforce them, waive them entirely, etc. subsequently. This is why a television advert, for example, doesn't have to have a director/cinematographer/etc credit list on it. If you do not assert them in the UK then, sfaiaa/iana(c)l, they do not apply and cannot be asserted after the first publication.
Alison Wheeler
Birgitte SB wrote:
--- Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
I'll add that moral rights are not only recognized in the English-speaking world, but basically in at least the whole western world. France being one among many countries (yeah, I didn't like France being singled out in the subject :P)
I agree; these rights are recognized to some degree about everywhere that honors Berne. Of course the US is significant example of a juristiction not honoring this part of Berne.
Nevertheless Section 106A of the US copyright law does deal with this issue.
I wasn't meaning to pick on France, but I was completely certain what I was saying was true for France. Whereas I believe is it also true in Germany and most of the EU, I am not sure which juristictions allow these rights to waived. I know for certain that France takes the hard line on the issue, so that makes the best example.
It does lead to some bizarre results. See http://www.caslon.com.au/mrcasesnote.htm The one that I really liked there was a 2006 Swedish decision: "Stockholm court of appeal finds in favour of Swedish film makers in 2006 after claims that their moral rights were breached by TV4 through insertion of advertisements in broadcast of films"
An interesting comment in the Supreme Court of Canada in Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du petit Champlain: " evaluation of a potential breach of moral rights calls for the exercise of a good deal of judgment. A distortion, mutilation or modification of a work is only actionable if it is to "the prejudice of the honour or reputation of the author". The artist or writer should not become the judge in his own cause on such matters"
The problem seems to be that French courts have gone completely over the top with this, and have recorded some bizarre results. They would cover any kind of remixing of music or video subject This is the kind of thing that YouTube thrives on.
While we should be respectful in our approach to moral rights laws, I don't think that we should pander to the kind of lowest common denominator that has been expressed by the French courts.
Ec
Delphine Ménard wrote:
On 4/20/07, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) wrote:
Given that moral rights include the right to attribution and the right to object to modification of one's work (independently of copyright and even after the transfer or expiry of copyright)*, and given that a significant portion of the English-speaking world recognizes moral rights, does this mean that the copyright policy and definition require impossible freedoms?
This is exactly what came to my mind when reading the bit Birgitte pointed out.
The part that says: "regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. " seems to be at best an ideal, at worst requiring the impossible, considering all you pointed out.
I would very much like to see how the courts have interpreted moral rights, and how far they are prepared to go in applying them. They are at least very weak in the United States where they have accepted parody as fair use.
Also if moral rights are to continue in perpetuity, who has a right of action. If someone were to publish a pornographic version of the correspondence between Héloise and Abelard who would be in a position to file a complaint about them. They are not known to have any descendants. Perhaps the Catholic Church? :-)
Ec
On 4/21/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I would very much like to see how the courts have interpreted moral rights, and how far they are prepared to go in applying them. They are at least very weak in the United States where they have accepted parody as fair use.
Some well-known moral rights cases have related to (in all of these the moral rights were held to be infringed):
* the broadcast of a colourised version of a black-and-white film; * the performance of a play with female characters playing the two male leads, contrary to the writer's stage directions; * the disassembling of a painting painted in six panels into individual panels.
These are all cases relating to the "right of integrity", which isn't really defined anywhere (that I know of, some countries may have defined it when implementing the Berne Convention). It's usually taken to be mainly about the integrity of the artist and their artistic vision.
My suspicion (IANAL) is that parody would not be considered an infringement of the right to integrity in most cases, since in most cases if it's obvious that it's parody, it's also obvious that it's not meant to be representing something that is part of the original creator's artistic vision, indeed quite the opposite.
Also if moral rights are to continue in perpetuity, who has a right of action. If someone were to publish a pornographic version of the correspondence between Héloise and Abelard who would be in a position to file a complaint about them. They are not known to have any descendants. Perhaps the Catholic Church? :-)
I'm not familiar with all the various statutory schemes (each signatory implements the Berne Convention differently) but it seems to me that there are three general possibilities. From narrowest to widest reach:
* the moral rights expire with the copyright; * the moral rights expire with the death of the author; * the moral rights remain with the author's estate on the author's death.
I think it's an open question (again, IANAL) as to whether any moral rights subsisting in the author's estate could be devised.
Although I disagree with Pathsochild's belief that moral rights are not attached to work. A different way to answer this with the same result is to say that the Free Content definition only applies to ordinary copyrights and the status of any moral, prerogative, or other unusual rights is irrelevent. Currently freedomdefined.org has no disscussion of these issues, so we are at an impasse on how to interpret it.
Birgitte SB
--- "Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)" pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
This question is related to a debate* on the English Wikisource, summarised hence.
Currently, based on the Free Content definition*, the copyright policy* requires that a work's licensing allow it to be "freely viewed, used, distributed, modified, and exploited by anyone, in any form, and for any purpose (including commercial exploitation) without exception and without limitation (except as explicitly allowed [by the copyright policy])".
Given that moral rights include the right to attribution and the right to object to modification of one's work (independently of copyright and even after the transfer or expiry of copyright)*, and given that a significant portion of the English-speaking world recognizes moral rights, does this mean that the copyright policy and definition require impossible freedoms?
For example, this would mean that all works on Wikisource (including those in the public domain) would either:
- be retagged to require attribution and prohibit
changes or derivatives; 2. be deleted.
I disagree with this assertion. I consider moral rights to be legal restrictions in some jurisdictions, much like anti-hate propaganda legislation in Canada, and not "attached" to a work as copyright is. However, I am not a lawyer nor particularly aware of the intricacies of copyright, and would appreciate input from the wider Foundation community.
- debate:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Moral_rights
- definition: http://freedomdefined.org/Definition
- copyright policy:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Copyright_policy
- Moral rights in Europe:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_...
Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) wrote:
Currently, based on the Free Content definition*, the copyright policy* requires that a work's licensing allow it to be "freely viewed, used, distributed, modified, and exploited by anyone, in any form, and for any purpose (including commercial exploitation) without exception and without limitation (except as explicitly allowed [by the copyright policy])".
Given that moral rights include the right to attribution and the right to object to modification of one's work (independently of copyright and even after the transfer or expiry of copyright)*, and given that a significant portion of the English-speaking world recognizes moral rights, does this mean that the copyright policy and definition require impossible freedoms?
Not at all! It's a copyright policy, not a moral rights policy. The moral rights are often included in copyright acts, but tend to still be defined as different from the economic right of copyright. "Neighboring rights" is another term that more broadly covers moral rights.
For example, this would mean that all works on Wikisource (including those in the public domain) would either:
- be retagged to require attribution and prohibit changes or derivatives;
- be deleted.
This proposal is extremist to the point of lunacy.
I disagree with this assertion. I consider moral rights to be legal restrictions in some jurisdictions, much like anti-hate propaganda legislation in Canada, and not "attached" to a work as copyright is. However, I am not a lawyer nor particularly aware of the intricacies of copyright, and would appreciate input from the wider Foundation community.
Hate propaganda legislation is a red herring. Just because a person has made modifications to someone's works does not imply hate propaganda. What do you mean by "attached to a work"?
Ec
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
On 4/20/07, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Based on the definition [1] promoted by WMF, I am wondering if free content exists in France where moral rights are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
I'm sorry, but in the definition, I seem to miss the part where free content is tied to the "loss of' or 'giving up" one's moral rights?
Could you point me to it?
Thank you.
Delphine
~notafish NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
In many countries, the moral rights can't be waived or renounced (in Mexico you can't). But those are not the rights that licenses deal with, but "patrimonial" (not sure about the proper translation) rights.
No matter how free is the image, the author will always remain the author. That's nothing to do with freeness.
The right of attribution? When through time a person's copyright has expired you are free to reproduce the material, but you cannot tell the public that you are the author; the original author still needs to be credited.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
In many countries, the moral rights can't be waived or renounced (in Mexico you can't). But those are not the rights that licenses deal with, but "patrimonial" (not sure about the proper translation) rights.
No matter how free is the image, the author will always remain the author. That's nothing to do with freeness.
The right of attribution? When through time a person's copyright has expired you are free to reproduce the material, but you cannot tell the public that you are the author; the original author still needs to be credited.
In the U.S. at least this isn't true; an author of a work no longer under copyright retains no residual rights of any sort except those that would normally be granted by libel and similar laws, not even a right to be credited as the author; this was settled in 2003 in [[en:Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.]].
What is somewhat unclear to me is to what extent other countries' moral-rights legislation is enforceable outside their countries. Can it be safely ignored by those in countries that lack such laws, much like Turkey's laws against "insulting Turkishness" are ignored outside Turkey, or is it worldwide in legal applicability? If the former it presents less of a unique problem for free content---it's already the case that free content's reuse is restricted in some ways in some countries due to particular legislation, and we can't do a whole lot about that.
-Mark
On 21/04/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
What is somewhat unclear to me is to what extent other countries' moral-rights legislation is enforceable outside their countries. Can it be safely ignored by those in countries that lack such laws, much like Turkey's laws against "insulting Turkishness" are ignored outside Turkey, or is it worldwide in legal applicability? If the former it presents less of a unique problem for free content---it's already the case that free content's reuse is restricted in some ways in some countries due to particular legislation, and we can't do a whole lot about that.
The question is whether the author releasing a work under a free content licence would constitute permission to remix under French moral rights legislation. I suspect this would require case law. And if the answer turned out to be "no," then no French citizen could legally create a free content work, and Wikimedia would not be able to have contributors from France. WMF may care to work very hard against this eventuating.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 21/04/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
What is somewhat unclear to me is to what extent other countries' moral-rights legislation is enforceable outside their countries. Can it be safely ignored by those in countries that lack such laws, much like Turkey's laws against "insulting Turkishness" are ignored outside Turkey, or is it worldwide in legal applicability? If the former it presents less of a unique problem for free content---it's already the case that free content's reuse is restricted in some ways in some countries due to particular legislation, and we can't do a whole lot about that.
The question is whether the author releasing a work under a free content licence would constitute permission to remix under French moral rights legislation. I suspect this would require case law. And if the answer turned out to be "no," then no French citizen could legally create a free content work, and Wikimedia would not be able to have contributors from France. WMF may care to work very hard against this eventuating.
The claim by John Huston's estate over the colorization of "The Asphalt Jungle" succeeded in France but failed in the United States.
Ec
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
In many countries, the moral rights can't be
waived or renounced (in
Mexico you can't). But those are not the rights
that licenses deal
with, but "patrimonial" (not sure about the
proper translation)
rights.
No matter how free is the image, the author will
always remain the
author. That's nothing to do with freeness.
The right of attribution? When through time a
person's copyright has
expired you are free to reproduce the material,
but you cannot tell the
public that you are the author; the original
author still needs to be
credited.
In the U.S. at least this isn't true; an author of a work no longer under copyright retains no residual rights of any sort except those that would normally be granted by libel and similar laws, not even a right to be credited as the author; this was settled in 2003 in [[en:Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.]].
What is somewhat unclear to me is to what extent other countries' moral-rights legislation is enforceable outside their countries. Can it be safely ignored by those in countries that lack such laws, much like Turkey's laws against "insulting Turkishness" are ignored outside Turkey, or is it worldwide in legal applicability? If the former it presents less of a unique problem for free content---it's already the case that free content's reuse is restricted in some ways in some countries due to particular legislation, and we can't do a whole lot about that.
Moral rights are not some oddball local law, but well-recognized area of international copyright law acknowledged in the Berne convention. This is not at all like "insulting Turkishness" were it is best to just claim a different jusristiction and pretend it doesn't exist. Not if you want to maintain any integrity as an international movement anyways.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 4/22/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Moral rights are not some oddball local law, but well-recognized area of international copyright law acknowledged in the Berne convention. This is not at all like "insulting Turkishness" were it is best to just claim a different jusristiction and pretend it doesn't exist. Not if you want to maintain any integrity as an international movement anyways.
The idea of moral rights is part of the Berne Convention, and the United States is unusual among signatories in not completely recognising them.
However the Convention leaves it completely up to the signatories to implement moral rights into their local law, and this has produced some wildly different results. French law is commonly held up as an extreme example but really the difference is between the civil law states (which love moral rights) and the common law states (which are skeptical).
--- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
*<previously snipped by Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
*> What is somewhat unclear to me is to what extent *> other countries' *> moral-rights legislation is enforceable outside *> their countries. Can it *> be safely ignored by those in countries that lack *> such laws, much like *> Turkey's laws against "insulting Turkishness" are *> ignored outside *> Turkey, or is it worldwide in legal applicability? *> If the former it *> presents less of a unique problem for free *> content---it's already the *> case that free content's reuse is restricted in *some ways in some *> countries due to particular legislation, and we *> can't do a whole lot *> about that.
On 4/22/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Moral rights are not some oddball local law, but well-recognized area of international copyright
law
acknowledged in the Berne convention. This is not
at
all like "insulting Turkishness" were it is best
to
just claim a different jusristiction and pretend
it
doesn't exist. Not if you want to maintain any integrity as an international movement anyways.
The idea of moral rights is part of the Berne Convention, and the United States is unusual among signatories in not completely recognising them.
However the Convention leaves it completely up to the signatories to implement moral rights into their local law, and this has produced some wildly different results. French law is commonly held up as an extreme example but really the difference is between the civil law states (which love moral rights) and the common law states (which are skeptical).
I understand this, but I am not sure what your point is in relation to the previous messages. Are you supporting the idea that moral rights are of the same importance as the "insulting Turkisness" law and should be ignored by claiming US juristiction?
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 4/22/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I understand this, but I am not sure what your point is in relation to the previous messages. Are you supporting the idea that moral rights are of the same importance as the "insulting Turkisness" law and should be ignored by claiming US juristiction?
I was mainly writing in response to the first sentence of yours, "Moral rights are not some oddball local law, but well-recognized area of international copyright law acknowledged in the Berne convention."
I agreed to a certain extent, but my observation was that the implementation is left up to the various countries and it has been implemented in dramatically different ways. The US, for example, has limited implementation (probably going below what Berne sets out) but France, on the other hand, has a very strong implementation (probably going beyond what Berne sets out).
Yes, the concept is "well-recognized" internationally but aspects of particular implementations are certainly not.
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 4/22/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Moral rights are not some oddball local law, but well-recognized area of international copyright law acknowledged in the Berne convention. This is not at all like "insulting Turkishness" were it is best to just claim a different jusristiction and pretend it doesn't exist. Not if you want to maintain any integrity as an international movement anyways.
The idea of moral rights is part of the Berne Convention, and the United States is unusual among signatories in not completely recognising them.
However the Convention leaves it completely up to the signatories to implement moral rights into their local law, and this has produced some wildly different results. French law is commonly held up as an extreme example but really the difference is between the civil law states (which love moral rights) and the common law states (which are skeptical).
I've noticed this, and the divide seems to be more pronounced than in the fair use problems. Although most legislation speaks of damages to honour and reputation, I find it hard to see how some of the claims have managed to establish this.
Ec
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Based on the definition [1] promoted by WMF, I am wondering if free content exists in France where moral rights are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
Hello,
the licensing policy has been specifically formulated to avoid that problem. It requires content to be under a Free Content License, which is defined as "a license which meets the terms of the Definition of Free Cultural Works _specific to licenses_". It does not require the absence of impeding moral rights restrictions.
That said, I have always found it highly problematic that these rights are inalienable in certain countries. Hopefully, future copyright reforms can address this problem.
2007/4/20, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Based on the definition [1] promoted by WMF, I am wondering if free content exists in France where moral rights are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
Hello,
the licensing policy has been specifically formulated to avoid that problem. It requires content to be under a Free Content License, which is defined as "a license which meets the terms of the Definition of Free Cultural Works _specific to licenses_". It does not require the absence of impeding moral rights restrictions.
That said, I have always found it highly problematic that these rights are inalienable in certain countries. Hopefully, future copyright reforms can address this problem.
I have raised the same issue a year ago on fr.wp. After much reading, I found at that time that, at least in France, although you can break a distribution agreement (license are a multi-party aggreement for me, I am not sure the laws follow me on this -IANAL too ;-) - ), you have to pay indemnity when doing so, so is unlikely to happen without a real harm to trigger it.
Jerome (Eden2004)
To be certain I am understanding you; is the following correct:
The Free Content Definition is to only to be used to evaluate a *license* not an individual work.
Birgitte SB
--- Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Based on the definition [1] promoted by WMF, I am wondering if free content exists in France where
moral
rights are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
Hello,
the licensing policy has been specifically formulated to avoid that problem. It requires content to be under a Free Content License, which is defined as "a license which meets the terms of the Definition of Free Cultural Works _specific to licenses_". It does not require the absence of impeding moral rights restrictions.
That said, I have always found it highly problematic that these rights are inalienable in certain countries. Hopefully, future copyright reforms can address this problem. -- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
The Free Content Definition is to only to be used to evaluate a *license* not an individual work.
Yes, unless there is no license attached to the work. Wikimedia Commons may decide to eventually implement the full Definition, but this would lead to exactly the kind of problems you describe. We also have plenty of files lacking underlying source data (3D renderings and so on), which the Definition requires for free _works_.
--- Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
The Free Content Definition is to only to be used
to
evaluate a *license* not an individual work.
Yes, unless there is no license attached to the work.
In that case we still have a problem. The perpetual moral rights issue particularly comes into play with public domain works. Which, obviously, are cases where there is no license attached to the work.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
In that case we still have a problem. The perpetual moral rights issue particularly comes into play with public domain works. Which, obviously, are cases where there is no license attached to the work.
Is that so? Do moral rights not expire together with the copyright to the work?
--- Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
In that case we still have a problem. The
perpetual
moral rights issue particularly comes into play
with
public domain works. Which, obviously, are cases where there is no license attached to the work.
Is that so? Do moral rights not expire together with the copyright to the work? --
Depends on the juristiction. For example in France they are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
In that case we still have a problem. The
perpetual
moral rights issue particularly comes into play
with
public domain works. Which, obviously, are cases where there is no license attached to the work.
Is that so? Do moral rights not expire together with the copyright to the work? --
Depends on the juristiction. For example in France they are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
Birgitte SB
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
same in mexico.
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Is that so? Do moral rights not expire together with the copyright to the work?
Depends on the juristiction. For example in France they are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
Can you cite the relevant legal code that states they are perpetual?
On 20/04/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Is that so? Do moral rights not expire together with the copyright to the work?
Depends on the juristiction. For example in France they are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
Can you cite the relevant legal code that states they are perpetual?
I understand there was a recent case that went the other way - that Victor Hugo's descendants could not stop an adaptation of Les Miserables on moral grounds.
- d.
--- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/04/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com
wrote:
Is that so? Do moral rights not expire
together with
the copyright to the work?
Depends on the juristiction. For example in
France
they are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
Can you cite the relevant legal code that states
they are perpetual?
I understand there was a recent case that went the other way - that Victor Hugo's descendants could not stop an adaptation of Les Miserables on moral grounds.
- d.
What was the ruling? Where the moral rights in general invalidated or did the court only rule that the adaption in question was not in violation of the moral rights? I think it would have to be derogatory in some manner to be in violation of the moral rights.
Birgitte SB Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 4/21/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I understand there was a recent case that went the other way - that Victor Hugo's descendants could not stop an adaptation of Les Miserables on moral grounds.
The case involved a sequel to Les Mis. The publisher was found to have infringed the moral rights, and was fined 1 Euro.
David Gerard wrote:
On 20/04/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Is that so? Do moral rights not expire together with the copyright to the work?
Depends on the juristiction. For example in France they are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
Can you cite the relevant legal code that states they are perpetual?
I understand there was a recent case that went the other way - that Victor Hugo's descendants could not stop an adaptation of Les Miserables on moral grounds.
The French case I was reading about may be the same one. It resulted in a nominal 1 euro fine for writing a sequel to his novel. It does appear to be the oldest original work to have spawned a moral rights case.
Ec
--- Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Is that so? Do moral rights not expire together
with
the copyright to the work?
Depends on the juristiction. For example in
France
they are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
Can you cite the relevant legal code that states they are perpetual?
Art. L. 121-1. L'auteur jouit du droit au respect de son nom, de sa qualité et de son oeuvre. Ce droit est attaché à sa personne. Il est perpétuel, inaliénable et imprescriptible. Il est transmissible à cause de mort aux héritiers de l'auteur. L'exercice peut être conféré à un tiers en vertu de dispositions testamentaires.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Is that so? Do moral rights not expire
together
with
the copyright to the work?
Depends on the juristiction. For example in
France
they are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
Can you cite the relevant legal code that states they are perpetual?
Art. L. 121-1. L'auteur jouit du droit au respect de son nom, de sa qualité et de son oeuvre. Ce droit est attaché à sa personne. Il est perpétuel, inaliénable et imprescriptible. Il est transmissible à cause de mort aux héritiers de l'auteur. L'exercice peut être conféré à un tiers en vertu de dispositions testamentaires.
That article is from "Code de la propriété intellectuelle (partie législative)" Book I Title II Chapter I (if I am reading French cardinal numbers correctly)
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Il est transmissible à cause de mort aux héritiers de l'auteur. L'exercice peut être conféré à un tiers en vertu de dispositions testamentaires.
Can you translate the last part for me? Google doesn't help much on that.
--- Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Il est transmissible à cause de mort aux
héritiers
de l'auteur. L'exercice peut être conféré à un tiers en
vertu de
dispositions testamentaires.
Can you translate the last part for me? Google doesn't help much on that. --
Please can someone with reputable french step in here. I can mostly read french, but am no where near reliable for a translation.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 4/20/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Il est transmissible à cause de mort aux héritiers de l'auteur. L'exercice peut être conféré à un tiers en vertu de dispositions testamentaires.
I am not very sure about the "exercice" part. But im großen und ganzen it says that this right can be given to a third party through a testament.
Delphine
Ah sorry, both parts.
On 4/20/07, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Il est transmissible à cause de mort aux héritiers de l'auteur. L'exercice peut être conféré à un tiers en vertu de dispositions testamentaires.
This right is transmitted (transmitable?:/) upon death to the heirs of the author.
I am not very sure about the "exercice" part. But im großen und ganzen it says that this right can be given to a third party through a testament.
Thinking about it, the exercice must refer to "enforcing this right".
Delphine
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Art. L. 121-1. L'auteur jouit du droit au respect de son nom, de sa qualité et de son oeuvre. Ce droit est attaché à sa personne. Il est perpétuel, inaliénable et imprescriptible. Il est transmissible à cause de mort aux héritiers de l'auteur. L'exercice peut être conféré à un tiers en vertu de dispositions testamentaires.
Yikes, I'd say the answer to your initial question is no, unfortunately. But as someone said above, many countries limit freedom in strange ways. As long as it isn't part of the license, I would rather treat this as anti-hate laws etc.
I consider myself fr-1, but until something better comes along:
the author enjoys the right of the respect of their name, the quality, and their work. This right is attached to the person. It is perpetual, inalienable, and inviolable. It is transmissable upon death to heirs. It can be conferred upon a third parties based on a will.
Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]
On 4/20/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Is that so? Do moral rights not expire together with the copyright to the work?
Depends on the juristiction. For example in France they are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
Can you cite the relevant legal code that states they are perpetual?
-- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On the similar case of Mexican law, I can: MExican Federal law on copyright Title II Chapter II (On moral rights) Article 18-21:
http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/122.pdf
Artículo 18.- El autor es el único, primigenio y perpetuo titular de los derechos morales sobre las obras de su creación.
Artículo 19.- El derecho moral se considera unido al autor y es inalienable, imprescriptible, irrenunciable e inembargable.
Artículo 20.- Corresponde el ejercicio del derecho moral, al propio creador de la obra y a sus herederos. En ausencia de éstos, o bien en caso de obras del dominio público, anónimas o de las protegidas por el Título VII de la presente Ley, el Estado los ejercerá conforme al artículo siguiente, siempre y cuando se trate de obras de interés para el patrimonio cultural nacional.
Artículo 21.- Los titulares de los derechos morales podrán en todo tiempo: I. Determinar si su obra ha de ser divulgada y en qué forma, o la de mantenerla inédita; II. Exigir el reconocimiento de su calidad de autor respecto de la obra por él creada y la de disponer que su divulgación se efectúe como obra anónima o seudónima; III. Exigir respeto a la obra, oponiéndose a cualquier deformación, mutilación u otra modificación de ella, así como a toda acción o atentado a la misma que cause demérito de ella o perjuicio a la reputación de su autor; IV. Modificar su obra; V. Retirar su obra del comercio, y VI. Oponerse a que se le atribuya al autor una obra que no es de su creación. Cualquier persona a quien se pretenda atribuir una obra que no sea de su creación podrá ejercer la facultad a que se refiere esta fracción.
Los herederos sólo podrán ejercer las facultades establecidas en las fracciones I, II, III y VI del presente artículo y el Estado, en su caso, sólo podrá hacerlo respecto de las establecidas en las fracciones III y VI del presente artículo.
----------- rough translation -------------- 18. Author is the sole, original and perpetual holder of moral rights for his works.
19. Moral right is bound to the author, it's inalienable, imprescriptible, unavoidable and unseizable.
20. Moral rights can be exercised by the author or his heirs. When both are lacking, in public domain, anonymous or works covered in Title VII the state exercises the rights, as long as works are of interest for national heritage.
21. Holders of moral rights can, at any time:
* Determine if the work shall be published or keep it inedit. * Demand his recognition as author * Demand respect for the work, opposing any deformation, mutilation or damage to the author's reputation. * Modify the work. * Pull it out from market * Oppose being attributed a work he didn't create. Heirs can only exercise items 1,2,3,4 and the state only 3 and 4.
*sigh* Brazil apparently also have it. See specially the Article 24, I, II, III and IV and the §1º and §2º.
== Portuguese == Lei 9610 de 1998 Título III - Dos Direitos do Autor Capítulo II Dos Direitos Morais do Autor
Art. 24. São direitos morais do autor:
I - o de reivindicar, a qualquer tempo, a autoria da obra;
II - o de ter seu nome, pseudônimo ou sinal convencional indicado ou anunciado, como sendo o do autor, na utilização de sua obra;
III - o de conservar a obra inédita;
IV - o de assegurar a integridade da obra, opondo-se a quaisquer modificações ou à prática de atos que, de qualquer forma, possam prejudicá-la ou atingi-lo, como autor, em sua reputação ou honra;
V - o de modificar a obra, antes ou depois de utilizada;
VI - o de retirar de circulação a obra ou de suspender qualquer forma de utilização já autorizada, quando a circulação ou utilização implicarem afronta à sua reputação e imagem;
VII - o de ter acesso a exemplar único e raro da obra, quando se encontre legitimamente em poder de outrem, para o fim de, por meio de processo fotográfico ou assemelhado, ou audiovisual, preservar sua memória, de forma que cause o menor inconveniente possível a seu detentor, que, em todo caso, será indenizado de qualquer dano ou prejuízo que lhe seja causado.
§ 1º Por morte do autor, transmitem-se a seus sucessores os direitos a que se referem os incisos I a IV.
§ 2º Compete ao Estado a defesa da integridade e autoria da obra caída em domínio público.
§ 3º Nos casos dos incisos V e VI, ressalvam-se as prévias indenizações a terceiros, quando couberem.
(...)
Art. 27. Os direitos morais do autor são inalienáveis e irrenunciáveis.
== English == Title III: Authors' Rights
Chapter II Moral Rights of the Author
24. The moral rights of the author are understood to be the right:
I. to claim authorship of the work at any time;
II. to cause his name, pseudonym or conventional sign to appear or be announced as that of the author when the work is used;
III. to keep the work unpublished;
IV. to ensure the integrity of the work by objecting to any modification or any act liable in any way to have an adverse affect on the work or to be prejudicial to his reputation or honor as author;
V. to amend the work either before or after it has been used;
VI. to withdraw the work from circulation or to suspend any kind of use that has already been authorized where the circulation or the use of the work are liable to have an adverse affect on the reputation or image of the author;
VII. to have access to the sole or a rare copy of the work that is lawfully in a third party's possession with a view to preserving the memory thereof by means of a photographic or similar or an audiovisual process, in such a way that the least possible inconvenience is caused to its possessor who shall in any event be indemnified for any damage or prejudice suffered.
(1) On the author's death, the rights referred to under I to IV shall be transferred to his successors.
(2) The State shall be under the obligation to defend the integrity and authorship of a work that has passed into the public domain.
(3) In the cases referred to in subparagraphs V and VI, third parties shall be granted prior indemnification where appropriate.
(...)
27. Moral rights are inalienable and irrevocable.
Text in Portuguese: http://www.planalto.gov.br/CCIVIL/Leis/L9610.htm Text in English: http://www.wipo.int/clea/docs_new/en/br/br002en.html
On 4/20/07, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Is that so? Do moral rights not expire together with the copyright to the work?
Depends on the juristiction. For example in France they are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
Can you cite the relevant legal code that states they are perpetual?
-- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On the similar case of Mexican law, I can: MExican Federal law on copyright Title II Chapter II (On moral rights) Article 18-21:
http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/122.pdf
Artículo 18.- El autor es el único, primigenio y perpetuo titular de los derechos morales sobre las obras de su creación.
Artículo 19.- El derecho moral se considera unido al autor y es inalienable, imprescriptible, irrenunciable e inembargable.
Artículo 20.- Corresponde el ejercicio del derecho moral, al propio creador de la obra y a sus herederos. En ausencia de éstos, o bien en caso de obras del dominio público, anónimas o de las protegidas por el Título VII de la presente Ley, el Estado los ejercerá conforme al artículo siguiente, siempre y cuando se trate de obras de interés para el patrimonio cultural nacional.
Artículo 21.- Los titulares de los derechos morales podrán en todo tiempo: I. Determinar si su obra ha de ser divulgada y en qué forma, o la de mantenerla inédita; II. Exigir el reconocimiento de su calidad de autor respecto de la obra por él creada y la de disponer que su divulgación se efectúe como obra anónima o seudónima; III. Exigir respeto a la obra, oponiéndose a cualquier deformación, mutilación u otra modificación de ella, así como a toda acción o atentado a la misma que cause demérito de ella o perjuicio a la reputación de su autor; IV. Modificar su obra; V. Retirar su obra del comercio, y VI. Oponerse a que se le atribuya al autor una obra que no es de su creación. Cualquier persona a quien se pretenda atribuir una obra que no sea de su creación podrá ejercer la facultad a que se refiere esta fracción.
Los herederos sólo podrán ejercer las facultades establecidas en las fracciones I, II, III y VI del presente artículo y el Estado, en su caso, sólo podrá hacerlo respecto de las establecidas en las fracciones III y VI del presente artículo.
----------- rough translation -------------- 18. Author is the sole, original and perpetual holder of moral rights for his works.
- Moral right is bound to the author, it's inalienable,
imprescriptible, unavoidable and unseizable.
- Moral rights can be exercised by the author or his heirs. When
both are lacking, in public domain, anonymous or works covered in Title VII the state exercises the rights, as long as works are of interest for national heritage.
Holders of moral rights can, at any time:
* Determine if the work shall be published or keep it inedit. * Demand his recognition as author * Demand respect for the work, opposing any deformation,mutilation or damage to the author's reputation. * Modify the work. * Pull it out from market * Oppose being attributed a work he didn't create. Heirs can only exercise items 1,2,3,4 and the state only 3 and 4.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 4/20/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Can you cite the relevant legal code that states they are perpetual?
Moral rights exist in Italy as well:
*Art. 20*
Indipendentemente dai diritti esclusivi di utilizzazione economica della opera, previsti nelle disposizioni della sezione precedente, ed anche dopo la cessione dei diritti stessi, l'autore conserva il diritto di rivendicare la paternità dell'opera e di opporsi a qualsiasi deformazione, mutilazione od altra modificazione, ed a ogni atto a danno dell'opera stessa, che possano essere di pregiudizio al suo onore o alla sua reputazione.
Tuttavia nelle opere dell'architettura l'autore non può opporsi alle modificazioni che si rendessero necessarie nel corso della realizzazione. Del pari non potrà opporsi a quelle altre modificazioni che si rendesse necessario apportare all'opera già realizzata. Però se l'opera sia riconosciuta dalla competente autorità statale importante carattere artistico spetteranno all'autore lo studio e l'attuazione di tali modificazioni.
*Art. 21*
L'autore di un'opera anonima o pseudonima ha sempre il diritto di rivelarsi e di far riconoscere in giudizio la sua qualità di autore.
Nonostante qualunque precedente patto contrario, gli aventi causa dell'autore che si sia rivelato ne dovranno indicare il nome nelle pubblicazioni, riproduzioni, trascrizioni, esecuzioni, rappresentazioni, recitazioni e diffusioni o in qualsiasi altra forma di manifestazione o annuncio al pubblico.
*Art. 22*
I diritti indicati nei precedenti articoli sono inalienabili.
Tuttavia l'autore che abbia conosciute ed accettate le modificazioni della propria opera non è più ammesso ad agire per impedirne l'esecuzione o per chiederne la soppressione.
*Art. 23*
Dopo la morte dell'autore il diritto previsto nell'art. 20 può essere fatto valere, senza limite di tempo, dal coniuge e dai figli e, in loro mancanza, dai genitori e dagli altri ascendenti e da discendenti diretti; mancando gli ascendenti ed i discendenti, dai fratelli e dalle sorelle e dai loro discendenti.
L'azione, qualora finalità pubbliche lo esigano, può altresì essere esercitata dal Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri, sentita l'associazione sindacale competente.
*Art. 24*
Il diritto di pubblicare le opere inedite spetta agli eredi dell'autore o ai legatari delle opere stesse, salvo che l'autore abbia espressamente vietata la pubblicazione o l'abbia affidata ad altri.
Qualora l'autore abbia fissato un termine per la pubblicazione, le opere inedite non possono essere pubblicate prima della sua scadenza.
Quando le persone indicate nel primo comma siano più e vi sia tra loro dissenso, decide l'autorità giudiziaria, sentito il pubblico ministero. è rispettata, in ogni caso, la volontà del defunto, quando risulti da scritto. Sono applicabili a queste opere le disposizioni contenute nella Sezione II del Capo II del Titolo III. Brief translation: Art. 20 [snip] Independently of economic rights, the author keeps the right to claim authorship and to oppose any deformation, mutilation and every act against his/her work, which may damage his/her reputation or honour.
[snip]
Art. 22 These rights cannot be alienated.
However the author who knew and accepted the modification to his/her work cannot subsequently oppose.
Art. 23 After the death of the author, rights as in Art. 20 can be enforced, with no time limit, by the husband/wife, children, or if there aren't, by the parents or other direct ancestors of descendants; if there aren't, by brothers and sisters and their own descendants.
Furthermore, for public goals, the rights may be enforced by the Prime Minister
[snip]
Cruccone
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Depends on the juristiction. For example in France they are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
That's pretty awful - perpetual restrictions are a terrible idea - but if these are, in fact, in effect, I would consider it unwise to restrict our content to not accept PD materials from these countries. Fortunately, modifications that trigger any kind of moral rights claim ought to be of no relevance to virtually all uses of WM content people might be interested in.
Kat, what do you think? It may be necessary to amend the licensing policy to clarify the whole moral rights situation.
On 20/04/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Depends on the juristiction. For example in France they are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
That's pretty awful - perpetual restrictions are a terrible idea - but if these are, in fact, in effect, I would consider it unwise to restrict our content to not accept PD materials from these countries. Fortunately, modifications that trigger any kind of moral rights claim ought to be of no relevance to virtually all uses of WM content people might be interested in. Kat, what do you think? It may be necessary to amend the licensing policy to clarify the whole moral rights situation.
This was discussed on Commons talk:Licensing a while ago, in regard to the horrible new CC 3.0 licenses - where they thought it'd be a great idea to put moral rights into the licenses themselves for those countries. Meaning that some versions of CC by-sa 3.0 are free licenses and some aren't.
- d.
--- Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Depends on the juristiction. For example in
France
they are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
That's pretty awful - perpetual restrictions are a terrible idea - but if these are, in fact, in effect, I would consider it unwise to restrict our content to not accept PD materials from these countries. Fortunately, modifications that trigger any kind of moral rights claim ought to be of no relevance to virtually all uses of WM content people might be interested in.
Kat, what do you think? It may be necessary to amend the licensing policy to clarify the whole moral rights situation.
That is certainly what I would want to see. The issue came up on Wikisource simply because we are trying to base our decisions on the licensing policy not because we have a work that violates any moral rights.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Birgitte SB wrote:
--- Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
In that case we still have a problem. The perpetual
moral rights issue particularly comes into play with
public domain works. Which, obviously, are cases where there is no license attached to the work.
Is that so? Do moral rights not expire together with the copyright to the work? --
Depends on the juristiction. For example in France they are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
In Australia the right of integrity ceases with the author's death, and does not continue along with copyrights.
Ec
On 20/04/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
In that case we still have a problem. The perpetual moral rights issue particularly comes into play with public domain works. Which, obviously, are cases where there is no license attached to the work.
Is that so? Do moral rights not expire together with the copyright to the work?
That's... an interesting question. Certainly whenever I've seen them discussed as a practical issue along with copyright, their expiry has never been brought up - but then, most works discussing copyright as a practical issue only briefly mention its expiry, because the bulk of what you have to deal with is undeniably in copyright
On 4/21/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Is that so? Do moral rights not expire together with the copyright to the work?
Moral rights are a completely separate bundle of rights to the economic rights under copyright. So I can grant a licence relating to my economic rights under copyright, or even waive those rights completely, and still hold the moral rights.
Sometimes the moral rights will expire with the copyright, but sometimes they will expire with the death of the author, depending on the law of the jurisdiction. Sometimes the rights will persist as part of the author's estate and can be exercised by the estate. [1]
The one that comes into play here is the right of integrity. Whether that right has been infringed is dependent on the facts of the case - there are no hard and fast rules about when infringement occurs. But generally, some factors that come into play include: * the nature of the work, * the purpose, manner and context in which the work is used.
This may affect different WMF projects differently. But mainly this would be an issue for reusers, and not for us.
One point to remember is that moral rights don't affect the ability of someone to deal with their economic rights under copyright by licencing the work, even though the moral rights still may affect someone using the work under the licence.
-- [1] The French law seems to suggest that the moral rights can actually be devised, rather than merely subsisting in the estate, but that goes at odds with the idea that they're inalienable.
Birgitte SB wrote:
--- Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
The Free Content Definition is to only to be used to
evaluate a *license* not an individual work.
Yes, unless there is no license attached to the work.
In that case we still have a problem. The perpetual moral rights issue particularly comes into play with public domain works. Which, obviously, are cases where there is no license attached to the work.
An interesting point, but could we not extent the meaning of licence to include one that is implicitly granted by the public by virtue of being in the public domain.
I have always maintained that the public domain is not merely an absence of ownership, but ownership by the public at large.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org