tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post5872110368413526305..comments2024-03-10T10:55:11.119+00:00Comments on The 1709 Blog: Non-copying alterations under UK law: a paradoxical result?Marie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-18875764490897610592014-02-24T21:56:31.821+00:002014-02-24T21:56:31.821+00:00Minor point , the Mona Lisa is not a reproduction ...Minor point , the Mona Lisa is not a reproduction and is not in itself covered by copyright. ( And if you were to try and deface the picture hanging in the Louvre, you would be quickly bundled off to the Bastille, for life). <br />Do moral rights extend to the protection of 'reproductions' ?john r walkerhttp://johnrwalker.com.au/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-46513342263264586292014-02-19T17:29:36.394+00:002014-02-19T17:29:36.394+00:00Yes, I guess a clarification as to the relationshi...Yes, I guess a clarification as to the relationship between moral rights (notably integrity) and parody is much needed, unless they think that a parody, caricature or pastiche never involves a "treatment" of a work (in this case, no question of infringement of the right of integrity would arise)Eleonora Rosatihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05629420303968805446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-43111956175755112512014-02-19T17:28:47.754+00:002014-02-19T17:28:47.754+00:00One unanswered question is the conflict between th...One unanswered question is the conflict between the moral rights provisions in Chapter IV Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 which, inter alia, give the author the right to object to derogatory treatment of a work - which can include an 'addition' to the work - and the new permitted act, intended by parliament specifically to facilitate parody and pastiche.<br /> <br />Surely what is needed is an explicit statement either within Section 81 (the exceptions to the moral rights provisions) or within the wording for the new permitted act as to which takes precedence?Robin Frynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-24366343276909236742014-02-19T17:28:14.664+00:002014-02-19T17:28:14.664+00:00Thanks so much for your comment Robin. I find Leon...Thanks so much for your comment Robin. I find Leonardo's question very interesting. Certainly, the introduction of this new exception may facilitate things, although I personally expect that what amounts to parody, caricature and pastiche will raise controversy ...<br />Eleonora Rosatihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05629420303968805446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-77276148892701333042014-02-19T17:27:08.768+00:002014-02-19T17:27:08.768+00:00Of course, there first needs to be a restricted ac...Of course, there first needs to be a restricted act for the issue of copyright infringement first to occur.<br /> <br />But we do expect, in April, the issue of a new statutory instrument introducing a parody exception. The wording previously put out for consultation by the Intellectual Property Office here http://www.ipo.gov.uk/techreview-parody.pdf proposed a permitted act of:<br />'Copyright in a copyright work is not infringed by any fair dealing with the work for the purposes of caricature, parody or pastiche'<br /> <br />Even if finally issued in a different form, such use by Leonardo may well fall squarely into this new permitted act.Robin Frynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-68442995121808589642014-02-19T17:10:08.869+00:002014-02-19T17:10:08.869+00:00A transformative work surely?A transformative work surely?Peter Lawtonnoreply@blogger.com