Re: [dvd-discuss] [openlaw] Government takes more extreme lineins econd"Eldred" case

["Jeremy A Erwin" <jerwin(at)gmu.edu>]

On Saturday, January 12, 2002, at 09:39  PM, Tom wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 02:48:46PM -0800, microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
>> Yes I hate that term and all the connotations as well (Lets callit
>> Blop frok) but the fact that it is not real property or chattels does
>> not mean that the rights one has with Blop Frok cannot be
>> transferred according to some contract.
>
> no, but it does mean that you can not automatically assume
> transferability. some rights can be transfered (property rights of all
> kinds, for example), others can not (the right to vote, human rights,
> but also more mundanes ones, for example in some countries certain
> consumer rights can not be signed away with a contract).
>
In some cases, moral rights are inalienable (but must be asserted). For 
instance, my copy of "The constant Gardener" asserts that
"The right of John leCarre to be  identified as the author of this work 
has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and 
Patents Act, 1988"

The book is copyrighted by David Cornwall-- John le Carre is his chosen 
pseudonym.

Typically moral rights protect the author's right to assert authorship, 
to use pseudonyms, and  the integrity of the work. In some countries, 
the moral rights include the right to control when a work is published, 
and to withdraw a work from the marketplace-- both are somewhat 
necessary in countries with strong libel laws, I suppose.

The Monty Python case against ABC (look in the dvd-discuss archives) was 
an (unsuccessful) attempt to  secure moral rights of copyright under the 
Lanham Act.

Needless to say, most of US copyright doctrine is based on economic, not 
moral rights.


Jeremy