THE RIGHT OF AUTHORSHIP
The French 1978 decree defines the competence of the
Musée Rodin in article 1, as quoted already in Part I:
Original editions in bronze. These are executed from
models in terra cotta or plaster realized by Rodin and under the direct
control of the Museum, acting as the holder of the artist´s right of
authorship.
Now what does this mean: "acting as the holder of
the artist´s right of authorship. ". Judging from my experience as
an artist an text author, authorship is a quality bound to a person and
can not be transferred or inherited at all – unlike
copyright.
This notion is confirmed, for example, by the 1957
Copyright Act of India, Chapter XII, Article 57, on the author´s special
right:
(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— a) to claim the authorship of the
work (..)
(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.
[From: www.naukri.com/lls/copyright/section12.htm]
This means, the legal representatives of the author may
obtain the copyright, but can not claim authorship.
The following example illustrates what happens when
"authorship" and "copyright" are mixed up, like they
were in the USA :
In 1989, the U.S. signed the Berne Treaty. Through this
action, the U.S. guaranteed the highest level of protection for its
copyrighted works in the world market. While copyright-holders now reap
the benefits of adherence to the Berne Treaty, American film artists are
still unable to do so.
Under present U.S.law, the owner of copyright is considered to be the
author, even though the owner may be a financing or a corporate entity and
not an artistic author. The failure of the law to distinguish between
"authorship" and "ownership" has resulted in the legal
elevation of economic principles over personal rights and has set a stage
whereon property (economic) considerations completely outweigh artistic
considerations (the reputation of the artist and the work itself).
By virtue of this interchangeability between "authorship" and
"ownership", "authorship" can be sold along with
copyright. Therefore, the accredited authors of a work can change every
time a work's copyright is sold, thus throwing into doubt its
authenticity.
Against this backdrop, film artists are vigorously challenging the notion
that moral rights are embedded in U.S. law in adherence to Berne, because
there is no protection in U.S. law for individual true authors who
"work for hire."
In 1990, Congress partially recognized a deficiency in U.S. adherence to
Berne by passing the Visual Artists Rights Act, which grants moral rights
to painters, sculptors and certain still photographers -- but excludes
from its definition of "visual works" those works made for hire.
By this device, motion pictures are excluded from the Act's definition of
"visual works."
[From: Artist´s Right Foundation Website http://artistsrights.org/legal/legalmain.htm]
We see the 1990 VARA partly repaired this deficiency in
American law and now guarantees painters and sculptors the exclusive right
of attribution, that means of signing their works and presenting
themselves as the author, to be distinguished from the copyright:
If the rights of attribution and integrity apply to a
work, they are given exclusively to the artist who created the work. Only
the artist can assert moral rights, not collectors, gallery owners,
dealers, or museums. (…)
The right of attribution gives an artist the right:
(1) to claim or disclaim authorship of a created work;
(2) to prevent the use of his or her name in association with a work that
he or she did not create; and
(3) to prevent the use of his or her name as the artist of a work that has
been modified in such a manner that would be prejudicial to the artist's
honor or reputation. (…)
The right of integrity gives artists the right:
(1) to prevent intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification
of their work that is pre-judicial to their honor and reputation;
and
(2) to prevent any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a work
of recognized stature.
[From:
http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic36-02-006_4.html]
|