Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The heirs' judgement controls nothing at all. The court's does, of > course, but the unless the court purposefully misunderstands the > intent of the law and the author's intention [1] it will of course > rule in favor of the author's explicit wishes. > > [1] In which case every bet is off. But in that case the problems > arise IN SPITE OF to the law, not BEACAUSE of it.
The heirs certainly matter because it would be they who bring suit. If nobody brings suit, the court says nothing. The court might well say "he certainly couldn't have intended a change that was defamatory of him", and declare that essentially irrebutable. The whole European concept of "author's rights" makes me sick; it's bad enough that it exists. The fact that it's *irrevocable* in any way makes it a jillion times worse. If you, the artist, don't want someone destroying your work, then dammit, don't sell them the painting. It's bad enough that if an artist sells a painting (or an architect sells a house) he retains a permanent right to control what you do with it. It's extremely horrid that there is no way for him to relinquish that control.
