re: Moral Right of Retraction!!

[James Miller <jamiller@cyberdude.com>]

I think the analysis would go, I posted my work, you made adapatation or 
"copying" into your work of it, the elements incorporated need to be 
redacted out of your now infringing work--short some right to use them.

I haven't looked at rights of derivative authors after the original 
authors terminate rights outside of the U.S. context.  In the U.S. 
however there are some interesting cases which in effect weigh the 
rights of the original author over the derivative authors works once the 
original author pulls rights.  (Also note termination rights under U.S. 
law sec. 304(c) have some narrow constraints, unlike with a moral right 
of retraction which is broader..)

I will ask my professor about this and see if we can find some cases on 
point in the moral rights jurisdictions...

There is a kind of waterfall effect possible but I don't think, there's 
too much concern in this regard.

> > I agree. I'd also like to add that this presents a problematic 
> > international comparative problem because in French and other 
> > Jurisductions recognizing the right of retraction these posts (and 
> some 
> > much else...) is all subject to retraction, perhaps despite any 
> > contractural waiver or other assignment of economic rights for 
> copying 
> > or adapatation..
>
> Hmmm. If a post were retracted, wouldn't that logically (or legally)
> necessitate that any other posting in reply to that post also be 
> retracted,
> quoted or not? Looking at the mailing lists as a *discussion*, if some
> utterance is retroactively taken away, no utterance in response to it 
> could
> logically exist.
>
> -- Ferret