Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Why do you think the concept is bogus? In principle I think it's > > > a good idea to have something that prevents others from mutilating > > > my work. The implementation sucks greatly though. > > > > We already have that concept. "Ownership". We even have an extra > > thing: "Copyright". Both of these, under US law, are fully sufficient > > to prevent others from "mutilating" your work without your consent. > > If I transfer my copyright, I can not stop you from harming > my reputation. That's why the law has the extra provision that > helps me protect my moral rights.
If I transfer my copyright to you, you can't (IMHO) damage my reputation by doing silly things to my work. You can damage _your_ reputation by doing that. > > If you don't want it mutilated, don't sell it. Or sell it subject to > > a contract that prevents unauthorized modification. > > This approach means that authors will be forced to accept > any kind of modifications, even those that directly go against > their artistic wishes. The US system thinks this is OK since > you got paid. The European system thinks this is not OK. I think it's okay. If you no longer hold copyright, how can it affects your reputation? > > > He can only insist that a particular modification be retracted > > > because it damages his honor or reputation. And the court has to > > > be convinced that it does damage him. If the work is not modified > > > it would be very difficult for him to assert his moral rights. > > > > We have seen the claim that a change in the color of curtains > > constitutes a damage to honor or reputation. > > Indeed. And the court awarded that claim, so I suppose the judge > found some merit in the claim. Courts follow the law, however silly the law may be. This is _not_ a legal argument. It's a common sense argument. Unfortunately some laws don't make sense. Peter
