> > The main problem with moral rights seems to be inalienability. As far as > > I understand it, artists can decide at the time of the use of the work > > whether they believe it is prejudicial to their "honor and reputation." > > That's a misunderstanding. It is not the artist who decides this. > Sure, the artist may have an *opinion* about it, but the law calls for > an *objective* judgement. And if the use does not objectively violate > the artistic character of the work, the artist's opinion will not help > him in court.
Thanks for the clarification. > > They cannot promise to never raise such an objection. You seem to be > > implying that by applying the GPL to a work, the developer irrevocably > > divests herself from certain moral rights. > > No. The moral rights still exist, but they must be interpreted in the > context of the particular work. If the particular work is created to > be free, the moral right becomes harder to violate. > > > Second, I would imagine that a developer can argue or reinterpret > > their initial intent. > > Possibly, but that is not a case of moral rights - it is just a matter > of conventional contract interpretation. Yes, but a free software developer cannot walk into court and argue that they did not intend to grant the right to redistribute -- free software licenses are clear on that point, but generally silent on moral rights issues. At the very least, the GPL and most other free software licenses are be problematic in moral rights jurisdictions simply because the developer's intentions with respect to moral rights are not made clear by those licenses. The trouble is, developers choose free software licenses for all kinds of reasons, including legal necessity (e.g. when they derrive from a GPL'd work). > > For example, they may never have thought that a particular piece of > > code could find its way into a DRM system. > > Stupidity does not create rights. (Opposite in some other parts of the > world where one can become rich simply by being too stupid to imagine > that coffee might be hot). Say hypothetically that the LAME developers have an artistic vision to allow music fans to freely (as in freedom) rip music from the CDs the purchase. Universal Records uses LAME to make copy protected CDs (see http://news.com.com/2100-1023-277197.html). How is it stupid if the LAME developers walk into a moral rights jurisdiction and ask Universal to stop? Best regards, Greg Pomerantz
