Variety reports here on how copyrights have actually prevented the classic Fugitive television program from being re-distributed in its original form.

One of the reasons I tend to dismiss the notion of 'moral rights' for artists is because of how it is selectively enforced (in addition to the obvious dangers of creating a mutant form of 'super-copyright). The Fugitive is a clear example. If the concept applies to painted canvases, then why not television shows?

Of course this is not a new phenomenon. My own personal experience (and confession) with the problem can be found:

Here and here and here.

Moral rights are not proprietary rights (as W.Patry agreed with me recently - before deleting my comment and his reply when I subsequently let him know 'Anonymous' was me).

The artists who produced WKRP or the Fugitive have a moral right that anything purporting to be their original work may not be modified (even with their permission). If it is modified, then such modification and its extent must be made clear to all, and the resulting travesty called something like 'An inferior reworking of X with significant cuts and alterations'.

You can draw a moustache on the Mona Lisa, but you can't then call it The Mona Lisa or the work of LdV. Well, you could if the painting didn't also have a preservation order on it. Fortunately with digital art one can make perfect copies - if the unethical privilege of copyright didn't stupidly attempt to prevent this.

Nevertheless, if the perfect or imperfect copy doesn't preserve the integrity of the art it cannot be described as true to the original, e.g. an MP3 is an imperfect copy, but it can still be true to the original work.

Moral rights are definitely worth protecting. Unfortunately because of copyright and its ridiculous notion of proprietary rights over all copies wherever they are, people confuse moral rights as proprietary ones (believing that an artist can stop people modifying copies wherever they are). Only god owns all his creations in all their likenesses wherever they are. Mere mortals must make do with owning only the creations in their possession.

Crosbie,

I don't think moral rights exist in the U.S., at least not like in Europe, France in particular. For a good critical analysis of them, see Tom G. Palmer's essay "Are Patents and Copyrights Morally Justified? The Philosophy of Property Rights and Ideal Objects," Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 13 (Summer 1990), pp. 841-49. It's available in a link at his homepage.

He points out that works of art exist independently of their creators after their creation. They depend for their continued existence on audiences, not the artists who made them.

Call me a Philistine, but an artistic work belongs to its owner, who has a right to do with it what he wants, including mutilating and destroying it. Destroying a work of art wouldn't invade the creator's moral or other rights. As Tyler Cowen has pointed out many times, art and artists flourish much more under capitalism and the market than under statism and intervention. This would seem paradoxical only to someone who was ignorant of history and economics.

And Patry deleted your comment, eh? Not the first time. He did one of mine as well. I find his legal arcana boring compared to the historical stuff and book notices, which he doesn't seem to do much anymore.

Yes, I can't see how destroying your own intellectual property can violate an artist's moral rights.

Moral rights primarily concern the truth, which is a right that protects individuals collectively and publicly.

Thus the moral right to integrity protects the truth concerning an artistic work, which includes its attribution and integrity. Note that this doesn't necessarily obligate attribution and the preservation of a work's integrity, only that the truth concerning these things is not impaired.

Thus if you edit one of my comments such that its integrity is lost (you don't simply add a missing apostrophe, but distort my meaning) without making this clear when you present it to another or publish it, then this violates what has been termed the artist's moral right to the integrity of their works.

It is not a proprietary right of the artist over what you may do to his work, but a right for the artist to have himself and his work presented truthfully (and this right is shared by those to whom his work is presented, who have that right for the artist and his work to be presented truthfully).

So, of course, you can take my comment and do what the heck you like with it. You simply can't then present the result as true to the original comment or a truthful representation of the commenter or the commenter's views - unless of course, despite your editing, it still is.

So, the artist and the audience's right to integrity is violated when a movie is shown on an aeroplane with a few minor cuts, but where this hasn't been made clear, and the cuts haven't been highlighted. According to the proprietarian distortion of the moral right of integrity, it can't be shown at all if the artist argues that the integrity of their work has not been sufficiently preserved. According to the natural moral right of integrity, it is not just up to the artist, but up to the public as a whole as to whether integrity of a work has been preserved (and this still involves the artist, but the artist can't say integrity has been preserved if it plainly hasn't). A movie could however be shown with cuts and edits if it was instead truthfully presented, i.e. as a bowdlerised derivative and such that the edits are brought to the audience's attention when they occur - should such edits not otherwise be obvious. Of course, if an audience has specifically requested a bowdlerised version, then they do not need the edits brought to their attention (they are aware that integrity has been lost).

I think Patry knows copyright is doomed, but that given he can't do anything about it he might as well stick to a world in which it isn't doomed, i.e. shut out the voices of doomsayers and abolitionists (even if some of their comments are otherwise agreeable).

I don't think there is such a thing as a moral right to integrity. Integrity after all is at least partly someone's subjective opinion about another person. No one can own an opinion. The truth, which can also be subjective, is also not a right. I don't believe than an artistic work can be true (or false). It is what it is and different people will have different opinions about it. The operative word is opinions.

No one's right to integrity is violated when a movie is shown with a few cuts. Does an abridged novel violate the author's right, or that of a reader who chooses to read it?

And the bottom line with Patry is that he has made a career out of being a copyright lawyer. You probably saw the line on his blog where he mentioned he used to charge $700/hour for his services. That's a lot of legislated jack. He's now Google's chief copyright attorney. That's about 97% of what you need to know about where his opinions are coming from.

I don't believe than an artistic work can be true (or false). It is what it is and different people will have different opinions about it. The operative word is opinions.

True or false? No. True or false to the original? Sure. Whether or not a work was altered is not a matter of opinion, but of fact, at least in cases where the original remains available to examine.

No one's right to integrity is violated when a movie is shown with a few cuts. Does an abridged novel violate the author's right, or that of a reader who chooses to read it?

Depends what you mean by "chooses to". The issue at hand here is disclosure.

Ultimately, this stuff seems like a job for defamation/trademark law rather than copyright law. Claiming another's work as your own -> trademark infringement (just grant automatic trademarks in combinations of title and author, except for anonymous works); claiming your own butchery of their work was their doing -> defamation.