# The moral right of the author? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [October 11, 2002, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-right-of-the-author/131761 "2002-10-11T02:07:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![reprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@reprise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reprise)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2002, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-right-of-the-author/131761/1 "2002-10-11T02:07:17Z")
Quite often when reading books published in the US, I’ll come across a notice on the copyright page stating that “The moral right of the author has been asserted”. Can someone explain why this notice is necessary and what rights it confers upon the author which are not already granted by normal copyright? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2002, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-right-of-the-author/131761/2 "2002-10-11T03:35:47Z")
It has to do with the Berne Convention – international copyright law (which the U.S. only partially recognizes). In most countries, the author has the right to be identified as the author of the work, and can object to any use of the work that he feels is detrimental to the work or to his reputation. This is primarily an issue with subsidiary rights: if you create a character, you have a say in how that character is used. Hollywood hates the idea. They want to use characters without having to worry about authors saying, “Wait a minute; she’d never do that. The project is off.” This is especially true in TV. If you create a character (I’ve met the person who created Barclay for ST:TNG, for instance), they have the right to use that character again (you do get paid, so long as it’s not a cameo). But they can do whatever they want. They also do not have to acknowledge the fact that you created the character. Under U.S. law, moral right (which is a misleading translation of the original French term, “droight morale”) has no legal standing. However, the claim does mean something in the rest of the world. Thus if the book shows up in another country, the author has to be properly credited and paid. Personally, I think the U.S. should fully adopt the Berne convention (and not just the parts that are convenient, like 70-year copyright). ---
**Author:** ![reprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@reprise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reprise)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2002, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-right-of-the-author/131761/3 "2002-10-11T03:44:54Z")
Thanks for that explanation **RealityChuck**. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2002, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-right-of-the-author/131761/4 "2002-10-11T04:35:18Z")
reprise writes: \> Quite often when reading books published in the US, I’ll come \> across a notice on the copyright page stating that “The moral \> right of the author has been asserted”. Say what? It’s books published in the U.K. that say that, not books published in the U.S. ---
**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:** [October 11, 2002, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-right-of-the-author/131761/5 "2002-10-11T07:30:09Z")
To quote myself from [a thread a year ago](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100479): > [@](#): > > 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). ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2002, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-right-of-the-author/131761/6 "2002-10-14T02:57:00Z")
**Max Torque** : Is that _Terry_ Gilliam? ---
**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:** [October 15, 2002, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-right-of-the-author/131761/7 "2002-10-15T20:36:02Z")
Whoops, sorry I didn’t reply sooner. For some reason the thread view still showed my post as the last one, so I didn’t know anyone had replied. Yep, that’s Terry Gilliam. He sued ABC back in the 70s. ABC bought the rights to broadcast episodes of _Monty Python’s Flying Circus_, but decided to make some cuts for broadcast. It wasn’t just nudity or language that was cut, as I recall, but sometimes entire skits were cut out in order to add commercial space. Gilliam and friends weren’t pleased; they felt that their reputations would be harmed if the sloppily-altered episodes were presented as though the performers had wanted them that way. ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2002, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-right-of-the-author/131761/8 "2002-10-16T00:18:40Z")
Ohhhhhhhh. I thought it was about **Brazil**. I know that film has been one big headache for him, from the treatment right up till now. But condensing **MPFC**? That’s abominable!