Talk:Moral rights

message: What about classical music and movies? 
I heard that "moral rights" were what prevented artistic works that would normally be in the public domain to be used for commercial purposes in any modification whatsoever. For example, the Mona Lisa is used in advertising in Italy, but, say, "Nude Descending a Staircase" might not be. Early modern musical works are prevented from being cut into passages and used in movies because the descendants of the authors are still around and don't want this done. A counter-example is that Ed Wood got the music for movies free by going to the British Copyright Office and taping the "examples" of the music, similar to a model of a patentable machine. The prevention of this is what I thought "moral rights" were all about. --69.16.84.5 19:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moral rights exist for the duration of the copyright time, i.e. currently for 70 years after the creator's death, so during this time the creator and his/her descendants may object to what can be perceived as derogatory treatment of the work. In the case of Ed Wood, however, he probably made use of the "quotation right", i.e. the right to quote short passages of text (or music). As long as he didn't start cutting and re-arranging each quote within itself, but just added one to another, if could probably not be regarded as an infringement of the creators' moral rights. But, on the other hand, the UK didn't accept the concept of moral rights until 1988, so it probably wasn't an issue anyway. Thomas Blomberg 20:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope

message: "Moral rights" is also another term for natural rights. RJII 16:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this context it's a bit different. Perhaps there should be a comment about this in the article. In this context it is meant to apply to the intellectual property concept of "moral rights," or droit de suite.LH 18:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moral rights as pertaining to intellectual property come from natural law.  It is the belief that the author retains a value in the integrity of the work after its completion.  This was not invented by any particular statute or international treaty.  Moral rights trump the freedom of expression for those countries that recognize both.  In the US, the freedom of expression is given a higher order through the doctrine of fair use, whereas moral rights enjoy a higher order in other countries.  US Copyright textbooks state that the US does not recognize moral rights and distinguishes them from derivative works.  The Berne convention is not a self-executing treaty, and the US Berne Convention Implementation Act excludes the US from the moral rights section. Legis Nuntius (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am editing the article to include your sentence about the US Berne convention and the US exclusion, as I believe it contributes to the clarity of the article in expressing how different the US law is from everything preceding it. I do not however, have a citable source and would appreciate if you would edit my edit with such for your claim so that it does not run into a Citation issue as far as site policy goes. Tylerjharden (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Natural rights

message: I didn't add the template, but I think it's a good idea. This is an international topic, however the only subheading right now is on the U.S. This is somewhat ironic given that the U.S. is the most reticent to implement moral rights regimes. A french perspective in particular would be appreciated, along with any other civil law systems.LH 18:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template is no longer US-centric. For the civil law systems, Commie China, Free China (now in Taiwan Area), and Macao all have perpetual moral rights. While editing List of countries' copyright length, Rule of the shorter term, and Official text copyright, I will look for more national and regional rules if I see them while I just added Ghana.--Jusjih (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The table contains more countries than are listed in the following paragraphs, but some of the countries discussed below are not included in the table. It would seem appropriate to at least add those to the table, as well as any additional countries that have moral rights - for example, France and Germany are mentioned in the introduction but are not in the table. I will work on expanding this section over the next couple weeks. Cgriffioen (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I expanded the table to at least include all of the countries listed below, as well as a few others. This table would continue to benefit from expansion.--Cgriffioen (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Perspective 

message: I was hoping to find some discussion of how this term came about.  "Moral rights" is a loaded-sounding phrase, that seems more all-encompassing than the actual definition.  Anyone know the derivation of this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnitzi (talk • contribs) 03:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In part, see the discussion above about "moral rights" versus "natural rights." It's my understanding the term is French in origin, but I'm unsure. Does anyone else have additional information?LH (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology?

message: A user deleted the following sentence
:Those jurisdictions that include moral rights in their copyright statutes are called droit d'auteur states, which literally means "right of the author".
and gave the comment "I have deleted the reference to droit d'auteur states - it is inaccurate and ignores common law protection of moral rights."
I do not know if this is accurate or not, however the poster should provide some additional explanation. My understanding was that the sentence was saying that some states were termed droit d'auteur states and others were not. The common law protection of some rights that overlap with the rights protected by droit d'auteur states wouldn't make this sentence inaccurate. On the other hand, if the term's used inaccurately here then this is a good reason for removal. In either case, I don't know.
I am not aware of the precise meaning of the term droit d'auteur. I would ask for the reviser to provide some background.LH (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Droit d'Auteur 

message: I'https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Uploads/Dpcomefast44#/notificationsd... never heard of moral rights until today.  I encountered a contractual waiver of them in Section 6 of the "Terms of Use" for Monster.com .  Anyhow, in doing research I ran across an article , which seems like a possible addition to the list of "See also"-type links for this page.  Would it be worth adding to the list of links? -- 76.104.101.162 (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically the WP standard for external links is that they should contain information that would not otherwise be contained in a featured article quality article. This would be stuff that's too detailed for the original article, has copyright issues about why it can't be included, and things that don't otherwise fit into the article, but are relevant. WP:EL. I'd go there for the most formal guidance. LH (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link 

message: Surely there must be some scholarship (in law or philosophy) attacking this principle.  The article makes it sound like this concept is universally accepted (even the U.S. section only talks about it being "adequately covered by existing law" rather than "this legal theory is nonsensical", and I'm certain some U.S. scholar must have taken the latter view).  18.26.0.5 (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there no controversy? 

message: All of the reference links to webpages at wipo.net in the table are broken, except for the one to Barbados. Mariuskempe (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed most of these (when I could find the correct source) while adding to the table.--Cgriffioen (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken References

message: I've attempted to improve the verifiability of this article by adding additional references, mostly in the overview and the section on moral rights in the US. --Cgriffioen (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Citations

message: About a year ago this article (the one on the copyright law subject, not the disambiguation page) got moved with no discussion back to Moral rights, from which it had been moved four years earlier following a talk page consensus.
Apparently this talk page never got moved with it, so I originally made these comments at Talk:Moral rights, the talk page for the disambiguation page, which was until a moment ago serving as the talk page for this article.
I thought that move should be undone. Other articles link to moral rights meaning "natural rights" instead, and people following those links shouldn't unexpectedly end up at this article instead. I have undone it now. The talk pages match up once again as well, so this is a copy of my comments at Talk:Moral rights#Move and disambiguation (with modifications to reflect their new location) for the record. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move and disambiguation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Moral rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://portal.unesco.org/culture/admin/file_download.php/ag_copyright_2002_en.pdf?URL_ID=30468&filename=11428561303ag_copyright_2002_en.pdf&filetype=application%2Fpdf&filesize=1272593&name=ag_copyright_2002_en.pdf&location=user-S%2F
*Added  tag to http://portal.unesco.org/culture/admin/file_download.php/az_copyright_1996_en.pdf?URL_ID=30319&filename=11422428463az_copyright_1996_en.pdf&filetype=application%2Fpdf&filesize=421208&name=az_copyright_1996_en.pdf&location=user-S%2F
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120805224132/http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/details.jsp?id=319 to http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/details.jsp?id=319
*Added  tag to http://portal.unesco.org/culture/admin/file_download.php/gh_copyright_2005_en.pdf?URL_ID=30226&filename=11416586343gh_copyright_2005_en.pdf&filetype=application%2Fpdf&filesize=526153&name=gh_copyright_2005_en.pdf&location=user-S%2F
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Moral rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212103910/http://195.83.177.9/code/liste.phtml?lang=uk&c=36&r=2497 to http://195.83.177.9/code/liste.phtml?lang=uk&c=36&r=2497
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110626054115/http://www.zamp.com.mk/Zakon_za_Avtorskoto_pravo_i_srodnite_prava_115_31082010.pdf to http://www.zamp.com.mk/Zakon_za_Avtorskoto_pravo_i_srodnite_prava_115_31082010.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114021804/http://www.mocioman.gov.om/Main-Menu/Laws-and-Regulations/Laws/copy-right-law.aspx to http://www.mocioman.gov.om/Main-Menu/Laws-and-Regulations/Laws/copy-right-law.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The contents of the table was unclear to me, even after several readings. The inclusion of both symbols and words to mean the same thing seems redundant - and makes the reader wonder if "perpetual", "unlimited" and "permanent" means different thing. If I understand the content correctly, I believe that a list of definitions would be better than a legend -  getting rid of the symbols altogether:
* perpetual: Rights are recognized for eternity.
* temporary (=economic rights): Rights are recognized only for a certain period, normally the same as economic rights. 
* imprescriptible: No prescription (deadline) for asserting rights following a violation?
* must be asserted: rights do not apply until (or unless?) positively asserted
 (non-)assignable: Rights can (not) be transferred to a different legal person in contract. How does this relate to inheritance and waiving of rights? 
* (non-)waivable: Authors can(not) waive their rights.
* (in)alienable: same as waivable?
* inheritable: I would guess this is the case in all countries? What about assignability of inherited rights?
NisJørgensen (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table is unclear 

message: "Creational" is a word you invented, @User:‎Alain.souloumiac. And you can't use your own blog-post on medium.com as a source for this stuff. Get a WP:RS to refer to your article, and then you might be able to get it in as a statement about what your opinions are; but you can't just jam this stuff in using Wikipedia's voice. MrDemeanour (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Creational"