tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post6583474694011603138..comments2024-03-26T10:41:35.852+00:00Comments on The 1709 Blog: Crime Without a Remedy: The Destruction of ArtworksMarie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-84285103691203966082013-07-25T08:43:28.761+01:002013-07-25T08:43:28.761+01:00The problem with moral rights is that they are rel...The problem with moral rights is that they are relatively weak, civil matters which are not widely understood within the the general population. They also rely upon the artist or their heirs to enforce them. This means that their deterrent value is also weak. To take the case of the Romanian mother, would she have been aware of the moral right of integrity and would this knowledge have overridden her desire to protect her son, assuming that she did in fact destroy the paintings?<br />In most cases where artworks are destroyed or defaced as a form of public protest (at least in the UK) the legal remedy lies in criminal damage. Surely this remains a stronger deterrent because the sentences are greater (compared to civil damages for instance) and the offence is more widely understood.<br />I think the Indian court was right to de-couple the artist's reputation from the issue of the loss to public culture. If the integrity of the work and the artist's reputation are too closely bound together, then where does that leave important works by anonymous artists? <br />The artificial legal construct of copyright as a monopoly (and to a lesser extent, the legal acknowledgement of moral rights) is justified by the fact that the work will ultimately enrich society as a whole (the public good). When the work is destroyed, this bargain is broken and the public are cheated. Similar thinking lies behind UNESCO's World Heritage programme amongst other things, and is in no way tied to any author or artist for its moral justification.Andy Jnoreply@blogger.com