{"title":"Deconstructing Moral Rights","authors":"C. Rigamonti","doi":"10.7892/BORIS.69876","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the most noteworthy developments in transnational copyright law over the past twenty years has been the adoption of statutory moral rights regimes in a number of countries that had previously ardently rejected the civil law concept of moral rights as completely alien to their legal tradition, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand. The standard scholarly reaction to these developments is to ask what they mean for the two classic questions of comparative moral rights law, namely whether the common law countries fulall the requirements for moral rights protection under international law and whether the common law countries provide a degree of protection comparable to that available in civil law countries.1 In this context, the enactment of statutory moral rights appears to be simply another factor to be considered when measuring the substantive level of moral rights protection in the United States, just as the Supreme Court’s recent Dastar decision,2 the copyright management information provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998,3 or the Family Movie Act of 20054 are factors","PeriodicalId":35765,"journal":{"name":"Harvard International Law Journal","volume":"64 1","pages":"353-412"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"44","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard International Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7892/BORIS.69876","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 44
Abstract
One of the most noteworthy developments in transnational copyright law over the past twenty years has been the adoption of statutory moral rights regimes in a number of countries that had previously ardently rejected the civil law concept of moral rights as completely alien to their legal tradition, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand. The standard scholarly reaction to these developments is to ask what they mean for the two classic questions of comparative moral rights law, namely whether the common law countries fulall the requirements for moral rights protection under international law and whether the common law countries provide a degree of protection comparable to that available in civil law countries.1 In this context, the enactment of statutory moral rights appears to be simply another factor to be considered when measuring the substantive level of moral rights protection in the United States, just as the Supreme Court’s recent Dastar decision,2 the copyright management information provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998,3 or the Family Movie Act of 20054 are factors
期刊介绍:
In an opinion survey published in The International Lawyer, senior scholars in the international and comparative law fields ranked the Harvard International Law Journal as having the “strongest academic reputation” of all student-edited international and comparative law specialty journals published in the United States. The ILJ publishes articles on international, comparative, and foreign law, the role of international law in U.S. courts, and the international ramifications of U.S. domestic law. These articles are written by the most prominent scholars and practitioners in the field and have been recognized as important contributions to the development of international law.