Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software?
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <email@example.com> wrote:
> > If I transfer my copyright, I can not stop you from harming
> > my reputation. That's why the law has the extra provision that
> > helps me protect my moral rights.
> If I transfer my copyright to you, you can't (IMHO) damage my reputation
> by doing silly things to my work. You can damage _your_ reputation by
> doing that.
People will think you made the silly modifications, and so
your reputation is harmed. I am not required by law to say
I modified the work if I bought the copyright from you.
> > This approach means that authors will be forced to accept
> > any kind of modifications, even those that directly go against
> > their artistic wishes. The US system thinks this is OK since
> > you got paid. The European system thinks this is not OK.
> I think it's okay. If you no longer hold copyright, how can it affects
> your reputation?
See above. People will recognize certain works as behind from
a certain author. It could be the author sold the copyright,
but that's not important. If I see a painting or a photo, I
do not care who has the copyright but I do care who is the
painter. If it's a good painting, maybe I'll ask the painter
to make one for me as well. If it's a silly painting, I will
think the painter is silly.
So what you do to works I created could harm my reputation.
> This is _not_ a legal argument. It's a common sense argument.
> Unfortunately some laws don't make sense.
Indeed. So I guess the question is, do you want to pay
any attention to laws that do not make sense? Are you
worried about the (remote) possibility of free software
authors accusing people of violating their moral rights
to stop certain modifications?
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/