On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 06:55:48PM +0100, Ken Brown wrote:
- publication the creator can control if and how his work gets published. only he may cite from or describe his work in public as long as neither the work nor a description of it are published with his permission. (e.g. even the publisher can't leak stuff without the author's consent)
This is basically copy right as already existed in England, & not one of the moral rights.
IANAL, but this is not the same as the "regular" publication clause, because that one is still a seperate (the german copyright law has three parts - moral rights, economic rights and other rights.
- defense against disfiguration (?) creator can fight against attacks on the integrity of his work, within limits. this is the complicated part. as I parse it, the intention was that if you, say, write a poem against communism and by some freak accident the communist party adopts it as their hymn, you can stop them from doing so (unless you enjoy the irony of it).
I don't know about the German laws but this is not, I think, the case in most other countries. Just borrowing a poem & using it somewhere else would (at worst) count as parody, which is legally protected speech in the US (& usually in England as well).
I think the law is more intended for the Alan Smithee situation, where a publisher (or record company, film studio, broadcaster, whatever) takes a work and changes it so that the author thinks it makes them look bad, and they don't want to be associated with it.
yes, that is what I meant. except that the law as I read it does not require a change. I don't think parody would violate it.
PS in English these are "moral" rights - "morale" is borrowed from French and means the mental state of an army :-)
whoops. I mixed those up before.
/me is not a native english speaker. :)
--
New GPG Key issued (old key expired):
http://web.lemuria.org/pubkey.html
pub 1024D/2D7A04F5 2002-05-16 Tom Vogt