Moral rights

Legend:

• ∞: infinity (to identify perpetual moral rights, though countries and areas may have different wordings in their laws and regulations)
• = economic rights: equal to or same as economic rights

In most of Europe, it is not possible for authors to assign or even broadly waive their moral rights. This is following a tradition in European copyright itself, which is regarded as an item of property which cannot be sold, but only licensed. The author can agree to waive them to a limited extent (and such terms are very common in contracts in Europe). There may also be a requirement for the author to 'assert' these moral rights before they can be enforced. In many books, for example, this is done on a page near the beginning, in and amongst the British Library/Library of Congress data.[13]

Section 14.1 of Canada's Copyright Act protects the moral rights of authors.[14] The moral rights cannot be assigned, but can be waived contractually. Many publishing contracts in Canada now contain a standard moral right waiver.

Moral rights in Canada were famously exercised in the case of Snow v. The Eaton Centre Ltd.[15] In this case Toronto Eaton Centre, a large shopping mall, had commissioned the artist Michael Snow for a sculpture of Canada Geese. Snow successfully stopped Eaton's from decorating the geese with bows at Christmas.

Article 20 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (1990) provides unlimited term of protection of the rights of authorship, alteration, and integrity of an author. As Article 55 of the same Law provides retroactive protection of unexpired term on the date of entry into force of this Law, the Chinese perpetual moral rights are retroactive as well. The 2001 version retains this provision and the original Article 55 becomes Article 59.

Art. 18, Copyright Act, 2005 provides perpetual moral rights. The moral rights in Art. 6 are for proper attribution and against any distortion, mutilation or other modification of the work where that act would be or is prejudicial to the reputation of the author or where the work is discredited by the act.

Moral Rights is specified under Copyright Ordinance (Chapter 528) Division IV, starting from section 89.[16] Author of computer program does not have Moral Rights (section 91). Moral Rights cannot be transferred unless on the death of moral rights holder (section 105 and 106).

Moral rights are recognised under section 57 of India copyright act. Section 57 of India Copyright act refers to Author's Special rights. It states:

(1) Independently of author's copyright, and even after the assignment either wholly or partially of the said copyright, the author of the work shall have the right to claim 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.

(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 representatives of the author.

The issue of moral rights was discussed in Amar Nath Sehgal V Union of India & Ors.(Amar Nath Sehgal V Union of India & Ors CS/OS/No.2074/1992 decided on 21st Feb 2005. Court of Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog). The case pertained to a mural that was commissioned in 1957 by Government of India during construction of Vigyan Bhavan at New Delhi. The mural in question was made of bronze had span of 140 feet sweep of 40 feet. The mural remained on display and was much appreciated till pulled down in 1979 and then consigned to storerooms of Union of India. Delhi High Court specifically referred to Berne Convention in delivering judgement. Court also awarded damages Rs. 500000 (half million) and also decreed in favor of the Amar Nath Sehgal that he would have an absolute right to recreate the mural at any place and right to sale the same.

The Court accepted existence of moral rights despite the work being commissioned work and copyright had passed over to union of India and suit being brought 13 years after the said act(defense of limitations as pleaded by Government was rejected by the court).

Article 41 of the Decree-Law_n.o_43/99/M provides inalienable, unrenounceable and imprescriptible author's personal rights.

In Taiwan, the Copyright Act has provided authors' perpetual moral rights with regard of attribution and protection against alteration in bad faith, even if the works are in the public domain, as follows:

• Article 25 of the Copyright Act 1928
• Article 21 of the Copyright Act 1944
• Article 21 of the Copyright Act 1948, unchanged from the 1944 Act (The effective jurisdiction of the Republic of China became limited to Taiwan Area in 1949.)
• Article 21 of the Copyright Act 1964, unchanged from the 1948 Act
• Article 26 of the Copyright Act 1985
• Article 26 of the Copyright Act 1990, unchanged from the 1985 Act
• Section 3, Articles 15-21 of the Copyright Act 1992, with the Article unchanged in the subsequent versions of the Copyright Act

In Singapore, the Copyright Act 2021 which came into effect in November 2021 provides for selected moral rights of authors and performers including the right to be acknowledged, right not to be falsely identified, amongst others.

Moral rights traditionally have not been recognized in American law.[17] Some elements of moral rights do exist in the United States, but are usually protected through specific contract provisions between parties, or else through individual states' laws or the derivative work rights in U.S. copyright law.[17] U.S. copyright law emphasizes protection of financial reward over protection of creative attribution.[5]^: xiii The exclusive rights tradition in the United States is inconsistent with the notion of moral rights as it was constituted in the Civil Code tradition stemming from post-Revolutionary France. When the United States acceded to the Berne Convention, it stipulated that the Convention's "moral rights" provisions were addressed sufficiently by other statutes, such as laws covering slander and libel.[5]^: 30

Some individual states have moral rights laws, particularly pertaining to visual art and artists (See, e.g. California Art Preservation Act, Artists Authorship Rights Act (New York)). However, it is unclear if these laws, or portions thereof, are preempted by federal laws, such as the Visual Artists Rights Act.

In Gilliam v. American Broadcasting, the Monty Python comedy troupe made a claim of "mutilation" (akin to a moral rights claim) in 1975 in legal proceedings against American TV network ABC for airing re-edited versions of Monty Python's Flying Circus.[18] However, the case was primarily decided on the basis of whether the BBC was licensed in such a way as to allow ABC to edit the videos (paragraph 20).

The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 grants authors of a "work of visual art" - e.g. photographs, paintings, sculptures, etc. - the non-transferable[19] right to

• claim authorship
• prevent the use of one's name on any work the author did not create
• prevent use of one's name on any work that has been distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation
• prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation
• prevent the destruction of a work of art if it is of "recognized stature"[20]

These rights are distinct from any rights of copyright and ownership of a copy of the work.[21]

Copyright holders have the right to control adaptations, or the preparation of "derivative works". This right is given under copyright law. See 17 U.S.C. § 106.

Section 43 of the Lanham Act governs false and misleading advertising, and can apply in some instances to attribution of protected works. However, it cannot be used to create moral rights for works outside of the Act. See Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox.

By the start of the twentieth century, U.S. decisions on unfair competition found that representing as the author's work a version of the work that substantially departed from the original was a cause of action.[22] Section §43(a) of the Lanham Act, which protects brands and trademarks, also provides similar protection to laws based on moral rights. For any goods or services, it bans false designation of origin or a false description or representation.[5]^: 30 In Gilliam v. American Broadcasting the British comedy group called Monty Python took action against the ABC network for broadcasting versions of their programs which had been correctly attributed to them but had been extensively edited, in part to remove content that their audience might consider offensive or obscene. The judgement of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was in favor of Monty Python, finding the cuts might be an "actionable mutilation" that violated the Lanham Act.[23]

Authors occasionally wish to distance themselves from work they've been involved with, some to the point of not wishing to be recognized as the work's author. One way they may do this is by signing the work under a pseudonym. Alan Smithee was a traditional, collective pseudonym used between 1968 and 1999 by discontented Hollywood film directors who no longer wanted to be credited. This courtesy was not always extended, however. The director of Highlander II, Russell Mulcahy, wanted his name removed after the completion bond company took over film production, but he was contractually obliged not to impugn the film and he was told that using a pseudonym would impugn it.

If the work was unfinished, sometimes the original author will choose a pseudonym as permission for the copyright holder to do whatever they wish to finish and market the unwanted work, cutting ties from the product.