The creators of copyrighted works are often recognized to have moral rights to the work. Within these moral rights, coming from the French droit moral, is the ability granted to the authors of controlling the fate of the works they have created. This right is the connection between the author and the work, it is a connection that is personal rather than monetary, it’s value being merited on it’s personal worth to the author. Within these somewhat intangible rights are the rights of attribution, the right to have the work published under a pseudonym or anonymously along with the right to the integrity of the work. These rights, though, are not tied to any economic rights within the normal copyrights and are such that even if the copyright rights are given away to another party, the original author still remains in control of the moral rights. 

The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works formalized aspects of modern copyright law, having introduced the concept of a copyright existing the moment that a work is created in an tangible form (a document or recording) instead of the necessary registration to be allowed copyright ownership. It’s creation, as well, enforces that the signatory countries of the convention recognize the copyrights of citizens from the other signatory countries. The fair use of copyrighted works in broadcasts or publications is allowed within these signatory countries. 

It was the French writer Victor Hugo who instigated the Berne Convention, having been influenced by the French ideal of droit d’auteur (right of the author) which was the French copyright law in the 18th century. A contrast to the Anglo-Saxon idea of “copyright”, their philosophies are intrinsically different. The Anglo-Saxon concept was, as previously stated with what copyrights usually deal with, concerned itself with the economic aspects of the created work while the French concept concerned itself with the philosophical and moral aspect of the created work. Under that belief of droit d’auteur, the copyrights for works of the arts are automatically applied the moment that the work is in a tangible form. 

Before this, the copyright laws of each nation was only applied to the works published within those countries, elsewhere, they were fair game. After this convention, copyright was regulated at an international level.

After the Berne Convention, five other treaties regarding intellectual and copyright laws came into place to protect all aspects of the aforementioned laws and rights. Most, if not all, of the countries in the world are participant to these treaties, including the Holy See and the European Union. A large amount of these countries consider moral rights to be inalienable, unlike the transferable economic rights, these creative rights cannot be waived nor given away. 

It is these laws that protect the expression of the personality and philosophies of the authors of the created works. These are the laws that are the best friends of film makers and directors, especially when they are justifying the ownership of their creative work. In fact, it is film makers that have been the most successful in protecting their creative work. An example of this is the famous case of Turner Entertainment Co. v. Huston, CA regarding the attempt to colorize “Asphalt Jungle”, a black and white film that the production company colorized after the the creator’s death. The heirs of the creator’s attempted to prevent the colorized version to be broadcasted on French television on the basis that directors and scriptwriters claim the authorship of the work by the sole fact that they created it and fixed it into tangible form.  Poetic justice being that it was the Cour de cassation, one of France’s courts of last resort, that ruled in the favor of the creator’s heirs and solidified the strength of the claim of moral rights. 

Yet, the powerful claim of moral rights has yet to reach the U.S., the copyright laws within the U.S. are varying due to the different views of what art was. In fact, it was members of the film industry that argued against the protection inherent within the laws of moral rights. It was argued that film were the property of the studios and producers, and, although, the Director’s Guild of America fought that position, the studios won. This battle was won on the basis that those rights prevented any possible investment in the creation of films. 

It is the position that prevents any possible protection to be guaranteed to any filmmaker whose movie is produced in the U.S., there is no promise that the work will not be distorted through editing or any other manner. Monty Python has successfully sued against ABC for just that reason, through the heavy editing of three of their episodes, the broadcasting company had so changed the content and nature of the work, that, the work was no longer what it had been meant to be, being an implicit act against the moral rights that Monty Python was owed as the creators. Although the comedy team, and others, may have won against the infringement upon their rights, there is still no protection within the U.S. regarding the moral rights of filmmakers and other artists. Although we are in the 21st century, we are still following laws from the 18th that are focused on economics rather than philosophy.

Works Cited

Ardito, Stephanie C. Legal Issues - Moral Rights for Authors and Artists. Legal Issues - Moral Rights for Authors and Artists. N.p., 2002. Web. 25 May 2016.

Mas-Guidnal, Julia. The Motion Picture Industry: Critical Issues Concerning Moral Rights and Authorship | JOLT Digest. JOLT Digest RSS. Jolt Digest, 31 Dec. 2011. Web. 26 May 2016.

Rosenblatt, Betsy. Moral Rights Basics. Moral Rights Basics. Harvard, Mar. 1998. Web. 25 May 2016.

Waiver of Moral Rights in Visual Artworks. Waiver of Moral Rights in Visual Artworks. Library of Congress, n.d. Web. 25 May 2016.