# Copyrights in the Information Age **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 23, 2001, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyrights-in-the-information-age/94840 "2001-11-23T02:26:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2001, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyrights-in-the-information-age/94840/81 "2001-12-03T15:33:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dave Stewart \* > \*\*This is another example of greater restrictions in other countries: moral rights of the author. I think somehow the US gets let off the hook on this one. Most countries say that you are not allowed to change or mutilate the work of art. So if you buy a picture, you can’t draw a moustache on it. But IIRC the US doesn’t have this - which is odd, because its a TRIPs requirement. \*\* Well, not entirely; the U.S. does have “moral rights” on the books, but they’re not nearly as extensive as they are in other Berne Convention nations. You’ll find the U.S. moral rights codified at 17 U.S.C. § 106A. Summary: The United States recognizes the moral rights of attribution and integrity, meaning that you can’t say you painted the painting that Joe Bob painted, and you can’t draw a mustache on it and say that’s the way Joe Bob wanted it. If you paid for it, you can go ahead and burn the painting, however, because the statute only protects works of “recognized stature” from flat-out destruction. Limitations of the U.S. right: it’s only for works of “visual art”, which limits it pretty much to paintings and statues; motion pictures and other audiovisual works are specifically exempted from the statute. Also, the moral rights die with the author; when you’re dead, you have no reputation to protect, evidently. Most other nations, as I understand it, have made the moral rights inheritable and allow the moral rights to last at least as long as the economic rights (life plus 70 years or thereabouts). I think France and Poland have decided that moral rights last forever, but don’t quote me on that. They also recognize more moral rights than we do (“retraction” and “disclosure”, anyone?). The U.S. has a bit of common law on the subject, too, notably _Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Company_, 538 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1976). But I’m done for this morning. (Can you tell I kinda like this stuff? Will someone please please give me a job relating to copyright when I get out of law school in six months?) Incidentally, on both this and the previous post: I am like SO totally not a lawyer, and this is like SO totally not legal advice. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2001, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyrights-in-the-information-age/94840/82 "2001-12-03T15:37:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Max Torque \* > **The NET act made some pretty significant changes in the law; formerly, in a criminal proceeding, the government would have to show that the infringement was done willfully or for commercial advantage or private financial gain.** Dangit. That should read: The NET act made some pretty significant changes in the law; formerly, in a criminal proceeding, the government would have to show that the infringement was done willfully **and** for commercial advantage or private financial gain. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2001, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyrights-in-the-information-age/94840/83 "2001-12-03T21:11:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dave Stewart \* > \*\*Yeah it is a copy, at least in my jurisdiction. We’re starting to get away from the originality concept here, though. The key case I’m familiar with is called the Colonel Bogey case (_Hawkes & Son (London) Ltd vs Paramount Film Service [1934] 1 Ch 593 at 604-6). You know how they used to show movie newsreels at cinemas? This is a case about one of those - the footage portrayed a marching band, playing a part of a tune called “Colonel Bogey”._ [hijack] Just out of curiosity, is this the “Colonel Bogey March” made famous in the film _Bridge Over The River Kwai_? (e.g., the song the soldiers whistle throughout the film) [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2001, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyrights-in-the-information-age/94840/84 "2001-12-04T07:13:59Z")
Yeah I think that’s the tune. **Max** - thanks for the non-advice ;). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyrights-in-the-information-age/94840.md?page=4)