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.