MORAL RIGHTS *V.C.MATHEWS1 Moral Rights are the special rights of an author. These rights are generally recognized in countries following the rule of law. They owe their origin to the countries of France and Germany. States, which include moral rights in their copyright statutes, are called “droit d’ auteur States” which literally means right of the author. These moral rights are
1) droit de divulgation, the right of publication which gives the author the right to decide whether or not to publish the work. 2) Droit a la paternite, the right of paternity, which gives the author the right to claim authorship of a published or exhibited work. 3) Droit au respect de loeuvre, the right of integrity, which gives an author the right to prevent alteration and other actions that may damage the author’s honor or reputation.
These rights are representative of various social values concerning authorship, creativity, and artistic work. They are based on the belief that artistic creation is much more than an attempt to earn a livelihood.
In India, Section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 recognizes these rights and gives protection to the same. It states as follows: Authors special rights:- (1) Independently of the author's copyright and even after the assignment either wholly or partially of the said copyright, the author of a work shall have the right to claim the authorship of the work as well as the right to restrain, or claim damages in respect of, --(a) any distortion, mutilation or other modification of the said work; or (b) any other action in relation to the said work which would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation.
1
Advocate at R.K. Dewan & Co.
(2) The right conferred upon an author of a work by sub-section (1), other than the right to claim authorship of the work, may be exercised by the legal representative of the author.
The language of Section 57 is very wide in nature and includes not only literary expression but visual and audio manifestations as well. The Delhi High Court observed that Section 57 lifts the author’s status beyond material gains of copyright and gives it special status. This section confers additional rights on the author of a literary work. This special protection is emphasized by the fact that the remedy of a restraint order or damages can be claimed even after the assignment of the copyright.2
The Berne Convention too talks about moral rights. Article 6bis(1) states as follows:
Independently of the authors economic rights and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of or other derogatory action in relation to the said work which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.
From the above it is clearly seen that the Berne Convention does protect rights of attribution3 and integrity4.
In the United States of America, a copyright owner is granted a bundle of economically exploitable rights designed as an incentive to encourage artists to
2 3
Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. , AIR 1987 Del. 13 This allows an author to prevent misattribution of a work, and to require that the authorship of the work not be disclosed. 4 This bars intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of a work if that distortion is likely to harm the author's reputation, and prevents the destruction of any work of recognized stature
create. The matter of Donaldson v. Becket5 was of great importance whereby a copyright system devoid of moral rights protection was evolved. As newer forms of creative expression and technologies came about, Congress tried to take measures to liberalize the copyright laws.
In the year 1989, the United States of America ratified the Berne Convention, around 100 years after it had been brought out. But they refused, to give their assent to Article 6bis of the Berne Convention. In the matter of Gilliam v American Broadcasting Company6 it was stated as follows: “American Copyright law, presently written, does not recognize moral rights or provide a cause of action for their violation, since the law seeks to vindicate the economic, rather than the personal rights of authors. Nevertheless the economic incentive for artistic and intellectual creation that serves as a foundation for American Copyright law cannot be reconciled with the inability of artists to obtain relief for mutilation or misrepresentation of their work to the public on which artists are financially dependent”
In the United States of America, the concept of moral rights is very controversial in nature and raises numerous questions. The major controversy is in relation to the interference of moral rights with the free licensing of works of Intellectual Property. Therefore, the American copyright law does not recognize moral rights or provide any relief for their violation since the law seeks to vindicate the economic rather than the personal rights of authors. Nevertheless, in the year 1990 the United States of America did identify a limited set of moral rights set out in Visual Artists Rights Act, which has now been embodied in Section 106. A of the American Copyright Act, 1976.
5 6
(1774) 2 Bro. P.C. 129 538 F. 2d 14
In the United Kingdom, The Copyright, Design, and Patent Act, 1988 defined four distinct rights. They are: 1) the right of paternity 2) the right of integrity 3) right against false attribution of a work 4) right to privacy in private photographs and film
A landmark judgment in the United Kingdom was that of Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Companies.7 In the year 1976, the British comedy group Monty Python sued to prevent ABC from broadcasting edited versions of their television series Monty Python’s Flying Circus. The Second Circuit held that “the cause of action which seeks redress for defamation of an artist’s work finds its roots in the continental concept of droit moral or moral right which may be summarized as including the right of the artist to have his work attributed to him in the form he created it. ”
In the present-day, we find that various individuals mix music and produce different versions of the original one. The question that arises is whether this amounts to violating the moral rights of the author of the music. For music to be mixed there is a change in the re- arrangement of sound. This alteration would amount to violating the moral rights of the author.
In conclusion, there does exist controversies as regards this principle of moral rights. The economic viewpoint is the most striking one. In contemporary times where individuals are trying to make the maximum profit out of anything they take up, our country is justified in granting protection to the author of the work to ensure that no mutilation or distortion takes place in relation to his work and that it is presented in a proper manner.
7
Ibid