Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

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).

[blocks in formation]

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

[blocks in formation]

40.

See generally 17 U.S.C. 8 115(c), which sets forth

royalties payable to owners of copyright in musical works,

[blocks in formation]

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.

[blocks in formation]

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.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »