tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post3641012579060012816..comments2024-03-10T10:55:11.119+00:00Comments on The 1709 Blog: The Devil is in the Footnotes: Moral Rights and the Beijing TreatyMarie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-33864274746514648602012-07-23T18:47:46.812+01:002012-07-23T18:47:46.812+01:00Andy, nothing I have ever written has suggested th...Andy, nothing I have ever written has suggested that<br /> moral rights should be "both mandatory and<br /> universally applied." If things were so simple, I don't <br />think this subject would be worth examining in a <br />book-length study (or indeed, in 4 of them, as at <br />least 4 books on moral rights, by different authors, <br />have been published in recent years). There are so <br />many issues to consider - what subject-matter <br />should attract moral rights, which rights, for what <br />duration, with or without waiver, who should be able <br />to claim, what needs to be proven and by whom, <br />international or national protection, the applicability <br />of torts, collaborative creation... This post, in <br />particular, doesn't claim anything like what you <br />assert. What it says is that the footnote to Article 5 <br />of the Beijing Treaty renders the Article itself largely <br />devoid of substantive content. I don't see anything in <br />your comments that suggests otherwise. Your <br />opinion simply seems to be that moral rights should <br />NOT be protected in stronger language, and I <br />suppose that means that you agree with the Beijing <br />approach - some observers will, others won't. In any <br />case, most of the examples that you've cited, such <br />as dubbing, would almost certainly NOT qualify as a <br />violation of moral rights in any jurisdiction. In <br />France, for example, it has long been standard <br />practice for films and TV programs to be dubbed. <br />The question of what a director can do with a <br />performance may involve balancing the moral rights <br />of both (if the moral rights of performers are going <br />to be recognized at all), and French law already <br />outlines a scheme that tries to address the potential <br />problem of conflict between multiple contributors to <br />a film.Mira Sundararajannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-59046162412461001252012-07-23T01:21:32.503+01:002012-07-23T01:21:32.503+01:00A individual economic right that can not be traded...A individual economic right that can not be <i>traded </i> is not an economic right.john walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09294818072841970915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-50981651515676943222012-07-20T21:22:17.598+01:002012-07-20T21:22:17.598+01:00As with her earlier posts, Dr Rajan raises the iss...As with her earlier posts, Dr Rajan raises the issue of moral rights as if they should be both mandatory and universally applied, but without any practical argument about why this is necessary or desirable.<br />Surely the provisions of Article 5 of the Beijing Treaty are just a pragmatic reflection of the real world. The performer's moral right to integrity cannot be absolute; it is and must be subject to the production process involved in recording the performance, starting with, in the case of a movie actor, the wishes of the director and subsequently the editor, not to mention the commercial decisions of the producers etc. Taking that a step further, when the film is released in another language, dubbing may be essential for commercial reasons, and later when the film is shown on TV, additional editing for decency or length may be necessary. And if the director or film company release the film on DVD, should it be possible for the performer to veto the director's cut or the outtakes which often feature on such disks? How can the performer realistically have the right to object to these post-performance changes which might necessarily alter or even remove their performance as originally recorded? And it is worth bearing in mind that performer in this context could just be an extra or small-part player. Clearly the more prominent the performer, the greater influence they will have (usually through their contract) to protect the integrity of their performance, but even that will be limited to some extent.<br />What about the recording of an orchestral piece? It is fairly standard practice to record more than one performance, and then to digitally meld two or more recordings together to achieve the very best overall recording. Should an individual member of the orchestra have the absolute right to say which of his two renditions of the piece should be used in the final version, even though the record producer wants a different one for good aesthetic reasons?<br />As for what the US will bring in to law following ratification of the Treaty, I suggest it will be as little or as much as movie and record industries deem acceptable, given their considerable influence in Congress. Since the US has yet to reflect Article 6 bis of the Berne Convention in their legislation, despite acceding to the Convention in 1989, I won't be holding my breath in anticipation.Andy Jnoreply@blogger.com