Wow, the EFF are being rather deceptive here:

>"The treaty would also allow “performers” (which, remember, usually means Hollywood producers) to restrict the availability of their performances" //

Moral rights aren't transferable, if they were then they'd merely be bought by the studios along with the other rights and there would be no cases ever to answer.

>"Whilst it is fair that an artist receives attribution for their work, to allow them to control how the performance is used after its fixation goes too far." //

The idea is to provide a very limited control. The case mentioned in the article wouldn't impinge moral rights: Moral rights come in when you defame yourself by means of trickery or some other such conceit - actors act and it's quite clear that the actress in the OP (Garcia) is acting and that she was hired accordingly. If she didn't want to be in a specific type of film she should be sure to get a better contract - contract law would then allow her to sue.

Primarily moral rights means attribution. It also covers something like modifying a work to present a _real_ person as having said something they did not. I'm surprised at the EFF's apparent position here. It must be Art.5(1)(ii) that the judge mentioned is supposed to have felt bears on the case of the Actress in the OP:

>"(ii) to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his performances that would be prejudicial to his reputation, taking due account of the nature of audiovisual fixations." [1] //

It doesn't sound like the Actress's performance would have prejudiced her reputation as she was hired to perform as a character - her claim appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the premise of acting and in particular a complete misconstrual of the process of producing a film. The Treaty doesn't make provision for anything like "an actor can prevent distribution if those of feeble mind could confuse the actor with the character they portray". I have enormous sympathy with the actress's fear of reprisal but this treaty really appears irrelevant to the situation she is in. That said I could see a plaintiff wishing to raise issue under the treaty in court - perhaps that's why the judge mentioned it?

In [2] EFF say:

>"If every person captured doing something creative on film could claim a copyright in it, service providers could find themselves flooded with takedown notices under the DMCA, resulting in the silencing of all kinds of lawful speech."

Seems highly fanciful given Art.12 allows for rights of Art.7-11 to be transferred. Art.6 rights concern fixation of performances, so once that's done a performer's rights would be exhausted there. Basically leaving only Art.5 - attribution and "misrepresentation" of the performance.

That actors, artists, etc., might choose to exercise their moral rights - perhaps using the DMCA if that is enabled in the ratification [I don't know if it would be] - rather than the DMCA being used almost exclusively as a weapon of the massive multimedia conglomerates – to ensure no presentation without profit – seems like a very strange objection for the EFF to take. Oh noes the DMCA might be used by an actor to ensure their acting credit isn't removed from a show they were in; whatever will we do now?!?

As for the idea Google will get swamped with actors or performers issuing DMCA notices, that process surely will not change and their involvement is de minimis - [which I understand to be] take down on a properly issued complaint, reinstate on a properly made counter-statement and then wait pending a court decision? Almost entirely automated I'd expect except for acting on the court decision?

---

[1] The Beijing Treaty text - http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/avp_dc/avp_dc_2..., start with Art.5 and then Art.12 to get a good overview in about one page of text. Articles 1-4 and 19+ are pretty much boiler plate.

[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/every-orc-author-rehea...