Sci Journals, authors, internet

[Ken Brown]

Lucky Green wrote:
> 
> Peter wrote:
> > (Hmm, I wonder if it can be argued that making stuff intended
> > for public  distribution inaccessible violates the creator's
> > moral rights?  I know that  doesn't apply in the US, but in
> > other countries it might work.  Moral rights  can't be
> > assigned, so no publisher can take that away from you.
> 
> Peter has an interesting point, since in addition to common law applies
> to a trend in copyright that is prevalent in Europe (and presumably some
> other countries), but rather alien to the US, taking that trend further.

[...snip...] 

> Bills are pending or have
> already passed, that make it illegal for a buyer of a work of art to
> simply dispose of the work, or use it as kindling in his fireplace, once
> he no longer desires to own it. No, you can't just burn that painting
> you bought from some street corner painter five years ago. Though you
> are permitted to give the painting back to the artist. Without
> compensation, of course.

[...snip...] 

True, but it is an old process. In French law there has been a concept
of "moral rights" in a work for a very long time. 
These are inalienable, you can't sell them. The two most important are
(IIR the jargon correctly) "integrity" and "paternity".

The right of integrity means that if someone buys the copyright to a
work, then alters the work in a way that could affect the reputation of
the originator, they can be sued. So, for example, if a painter paints
a  picture, sells it to a publisher, then the publisher prints a defaced
version as a book cover, the painter can perhaps sue the publisher.

The right of paternity is the right to be known as the originator. It
was  imported into English law in, IIRC, 1989, but has to be asserted -
which  is why nearly all books published in Britain these days have a
note asserting the rights of the author to be known as the author.

These rights did not exist in the USA (& still don't, quite),  but the
US didn't really have copyright law in the European sense until the
1980s anyway - what they /called/ copyright was something you had to
apply for and register - very different from our English tradition which
is based on an idea of the natural property rights of an artist or
author in their own work, and so has never had to be registered or
applied for, any more than you have to get government permission to own
the clothes you stand up in. The moral rights limit the freedom of
action of publishers to the benefit of artists and authors, not, as far
as I know  the ultimate purchasers, but then IANAL and
IA-certainly-NA-French-L.

Some people who know a lot more about it than I do have said that
English law traditionally treated copyright as a matter of property,
French as a matter of personality, and the US as a sort of government
licenced monopoly or patent. But they are all much closer to each other
these days, with international copyright law being a compromise between
the old systems.

Ken Brown