to his original conception, at what moment it is completed, and whether it is worthy of him."). The right to disclosure is sometimes said to also include the right of withdrawal of previously published works, but this element is not universally recognized by the all countries recognizing moral rights. Id. at 477. Where right to withdrawal does exist, it is usually in relation to literary works. See Merryman, The Refrigerator of Bernard Buffet, 27 Hastings LJ 1023, 1028 (1976). 27. See Strauss, The Moral Right of the Author, 4 Am. Comp L 506, 508 (1955). The right of paternity also guarantees that the author's work will appear under an appropriate pseudonym or even anonymously, where the author wishes to preserve his privacy. See Diamond, Legal Protection for the 'Moral Rights' of Authors and Other Creators, 68 Trade-Mark Rep. 244, 254-55 (1978). 28. See Diamond, supra note 27, at 257; Merryman, supra note 26, at 1027. 29. Berne Convention, Cmnd 5002, Article 6bis(1). 33. See R. Ray, A Certain Tendency of the Hollywood Cinema 1930-1940 32-55. 34. See supra notes 17-19 and accompanying text. 35. See Magill, Magill's Survey of Cinema 405-06. 36. See Amarnick, American Recognition of the Moral Right: Issues and Options, 29 Copyright L. Symp. (ASCAP) 31, 47-48 (1983) (a French author who wants to be certain of controlling the movie adaptation of his work must specifically bargain for this right with the producer regardless of his otherwise "non waiverable" moral rights). 37. Berne Convention, Article 14bis(2)(a) & (b) provides: Ownership of copyright in a cinematographic work shall Id. be a matter for legislation in the country where protection is claimed....However, in the countries of the Union which, by legislation, include among the owners of copyright in a cinematographic work authors who have brought contributions to the making of the work, such authors, if they have undertaken to bring such contributions may not, in the absence of any 40. See generally 17 U.S.C. 8 115(c), which sets forth royalties payable to owners of copyright in musical works, musical work is more likely to be the publisher than the songwriter, the songwriter may, at least in theory, insist contractually that the publisher prevent any travesties of his work as a condition to transfer of such copyright to the publisher. See generally infra notes 53-54 and accompanying text. 50. Id. at 17, 20-21. While the Gilliam case was decided under the old (pre-1976) Copyright Statutes, this does not affect the case's continued relevance to our current 1976 Act. Like the current Copyright Act, neither did the predecessor Copyright Statutes generally recognize moral rights of authors and artists. See generally supra note 13 and accompanying text. 51. Id. at 19-23. 52. Id. at 23-24. The majority also went on to state, apparently as dicta, that the editing for the American broadcasts would additionally constitute a violation of the Lanham Act Section 43(a), 15 U.S.C. 8 1125(a). Id. at 24-25. Gurfein, J., concurred specially in order to refute the majority's application of this trademark protection to the instant case. Id. at 26-27. For a discussion of Lanham Trademark protection as it relates to colorization, see infra notes 85-92 and accompanying text. 53. See supra notes 17-19 and accompanying text. 54. See supra note 16. |