The US Copyright Office, to its credit, has recently
launched
a
consultation on moral rights, an issue that has struck
fear into American corporate copyright interests for almost a century, since
the concept was embraced in the Berne Convention in 1928. This fear resulted in
a less than convincing accession to the Berne Convention in 1988. The late
Director General of WIPO, Dr. Arpad Bogsch, compromised his once considerable
credibility by turning a blind eye to fact that the USA basically did not
provide adequate, if any, moral rights protection as required by the Berne
Convention. Indeed, a few years later, the USA managed to exempt moral rights from dispute resolution proceedings under the WTO TRIPS agreement. The current
consultation is at least an implicit if not explicit recognition that something
needs to be done.
To date, the only explicit moral rights protection in US law
is for visual artists as a result of
a bill championed by the late Senator Edward Kennedy.
Canada has had explicit moral rights protection consistent with the Berne
Convention since 1931. There has been little litigation and little controversy,
and the provisions have been updated as needed. See
s. 14 here and
s. 28 here.
Controversy and misunderstandings about moral rights
continues unabated. For example, not long ago in 2012 the iconic IPKat blog hosted
this blog by
Mira Rajan, which then blogmeister Jeremy Phillips
characterized in prefacing
her rejoinder as having “become more or less instantly one of the most
controversial pieces to appear on the 1709 Blog”. My own take on this
controversy can be
found here.
Likewise,
Public Knowledge (“PK”) states
that “We are concerned that extending additional statutory protection to
include rights of attribution and integrity would be difficult to define with
sufficient precision and predictability, and may have little benefit.”
EFF and PK – which are both normally defenders of balanced, principled
and well-informed advocacy about copyright – find themselves here in apparent substantial
agreement with the
Motion Picture Association of America (“MPAA”) which states
that:
Granting creative contributors statutory rights of
attribution and integrity vis à vis the
producer of a motion picture risks undercutting the ability of that producer to
distribute the work in the way it finds most desirable; threatens conflict with
fundamental principles of copyright law (including the work for hire doctrine)
that have well served all players in the motion
picture ecosystem; and would potentially violate the First Amendment rights of
producers, artists, and third parties who wish to make lawful use of others’
works. For these reasons, among others, the MPAA believes new legislation in this
area is ill-advised.
The law should recognize the right of authors to be acknowledged as
creators of our
works. This is especially important for those of us who create in order
to contribute to
knowledge and culture. Attribution serves not only our interests as
authors, but also the reading public’s interest in knowing whose works they are
consuming and society’s
interest in an accurate record of the intellectual heritage of
humankind.
Politics often makes strange bedfellows. Other comments submitted by the initial deadline
of March 30, 2017 can be found
here. There are surprisingly
only 42 submissions, perhaps reflecting cynicism about the difficulty of
progress, confirmed by the fact that the EFF and PK on the one hand are in
agreement with the MPAA. The deadline for commenting on these submissions is
May 15, 2017.
One hopes that Americans will eventually realize that, when
it comes to moral rights, they should do the right thing and that “the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself”.
HPK
Posts
