KINDS OF RIGHTS

MORAL RIGHTS
MORAL RIGHTS
 Moral rights secure the bond between an author and
his work through several legal ties.
 For example by securing for an author the right to
be attributed where ever the work is used.
 The rationale that underlies moral rights is that the
rights of an author, in the broad sense of a creator
of an original work, in his work include not only
rights required to derive financial benefit from it, but
also rights to protect the author's investment of her
own creative energy and personality in her work

 There are four basic rights that constitute the moral rights
of an author; not all systems recognize all of them. They
are:
 the right of publication (droit de divulgation),
 the right of paternity ( droit de paternite or droit au
respect du nom),
 the right of integrity ( droit de respect de l'oeuvre), and
 the right of withdrawal ( droit de repentir or de retrait).
 The right of publication is the right of the
author to choose whether or not to
present his work to the public
 The right of paternity is the right to claim
authorship of one's work, to prevent
others from unjustly claiming authorship,
and to prevent having one's name falsely
associated with another's work.
 The right of paternity includes the right to
publish pseudonymously.
 The right of integrity includes the "right to
authorize or prohibit any modification of
the author's work," and to protect against
distortion of the work.
 It also includes the right to prevent
mutilation of or derogatory action
towards the work.
 The right of withdrawal is the least exercised moral right.
Its formal existence is rare outside France and countries
that derive their law from France.

 There is wider recognition of a right to make corrections,

particularly in later editions. The author may be
required to pay damages when he withdraws a work
from circulation, as is clearly the case in Spain. .
BERNE CONVENTION
 Paragraph 1 of Article 6 bis of the Berne
Convention protects the rights of paternity and
integrity.
 Art 6 bis (1) Independently of the author's
economic rights, and even after the transfer of
the said rights, the author shall have the right to
claim authorship of the work and to object to
any distortion, mutilation or other modification
of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the
said work, which would be prejudicial to his
honour or reputation.
 (2) The rights granted to the author in
accordance with the preceding paragraph shall,
after his death, be maintained, at least until the
expiry of the economic rights…………..
 Although compliance with the general
substance of the Berne Convention is
mandatory under TRIPS, compliance with
article 6 bis was specifically excepted, at the
insistence of the U.S. delegation.
Moral rights in India

 Section 57
 It is independent of the author’s copyright
 Even after the assignment either wholly or
partially or the said copyright, the author of the
work shall have the moral rights.
 Right to claim authorship of the work
 To restrain or claim damages in respect of any
distortion, mutilation, modification, or other act
Which is prejudicial to his honour and
reputation.
 Manu Bhandari v Kala Vikas pictures
AIR1987 Del 13
 Facts: filming rights of the novel “aap ka
bunty” were assigned to the kala vikas
picutres who produced the picture
“samay ki dhara” based on the novel.
 The complaint was of the mutilation and
distortion of the novel.

 Does the assignment of the filming rights

mean the end of the author's rights ?
Does it mean that the Director has
absolute freedom to 'make any changes
in the theme and characters?
 The court said that to decide the dispute the scope of
section 57 was to be examined?
 One of the clauses in the contract was
 That you have agreed that the above-mentioned Hindi film being made
basing on your novel, "Aap Ka Bunty", will be the sole and exclusive
property of M/s. Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd. and that we shall have the
complete right to utilise and exploit the same in any commercial form
such as release in cinema Theatres, Radio, T. V., Video Tapes,
Gramophone records, dubbing and sub-titling etc. In other words we
will be the exclusive copy right holder of your all work done on the
novel "Aap Ka Bunty" in this regard (except its publication rights).
 Another clause said
 that you have agreed to allow us to make certain modifications in your
novel to make it suitable for a successful film.”
 How does this contract impact sec 57 of the Act?
 The rights are independent of author’s copyright.
 Section 57 confers additional rights on the author
of any work.
 The special protection of the intellectual property
is emphasized by the fact that the remedies of
restraint order or damages can be claimed “even
after the assignment of the said copyright”
 Thus section 57 clearly overrides the terms of the
contract of assignment of the copyright
 In other words the contract of assignment would
be subject to the provisions of section 57 and
the terms of contract cannot negate the special
rights and remedies guaranteed by section 57
 The contract of assignment will have to be
construed as to be consistent with section 57.
 The assignee of a copyright cannot claim any
rights and immunities based on the contract
which are inconsistent with the provisions of
section 57.
 The words "other modification" appearing in the sub-
clause (a) will have to be read ejusdem generis with the
words "distortion" and "mutiliation". The modification
should not be so serious that the modified form of the work
look quite different work from the original. "Modification" in
the sense of the perversion of the original, may amount to
distortion or mutilation. But, there can be a modification
simplicitor such as where 'A' is changed to 'B', both being
quite, distinct. Sub-clause (a) thus provides inviolability to
an intellectual work. Sub-clause (b) provides for remedies
for protection of honour and reputation of the author.
 The modification should not be so serious that the
modified form of the work looks quite different work from
the original.
 Regarding the case court held:
 Construing the contractual terms in compliance
with section 57 only certain modifications which
are necessary for converting the novel into a film
version are allowed.
 Reading the contract with section 57 it is
obvious that modification, which are permissible,
are such modifications, which do not convert the
film onto an entirely new version from the
original novel. The said modifications should
also not distort or mutilate the original novel.
 Court directed deletion of certain scenes
which were harmful to the honour of the
author, and also denied some objections
raised by the author.
 It was held that under section 57 court
cannot sit as a sentinel of public morals
or super- censor in exercise of its power.
 Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India 2005 (30)
PTC Del. 260
 This is a case which widened the scope of
moral rights in India by including the right
against destruction of a work of art.
 Court considered two views:
 One side argued that where a work is
destroyed, since it no longer exists and cannot
therefore be viewed by anyone, where is the
occasion of prejudice to author’s reputation.
 On the other side it was argued that destruction
of the work can prejudice an author’s reputation
by reducing the volume of his creative corpus.
 Deletion to or mutilation is after all a treatment
of a work and so is destruction or removal. It is
the extreme and ultimate form of mutilation.
 Mutilation is nothing but destruction so as to
render the work imperfect.
 Court agreed with the second view that
section 57 is wider in amplitude to
include destruction of a work of art,
being the extreme form of mutilation,
since by reducing the creative corpus it
affects the reputation of the author
prejudicially as being actionable under
said section.
 Court situated the issue of protecting the
moral right to integrity of work in the
broader framework of protection of
culture and heritage.
 Court read the section in light of India’s
international commitments towards the
same.
 Raj Rewal vs Union of India, 2019 Delhi High Court
 The question which arises is, whether the laws relating
to artistic work of architecture and the copyright therein,
expressed on land belonging to another, can be
interpreted without regard to the laws relating to land.
 As distinct from copyright, which is purely a statutory right
and not even a natural or common law right, right to
land/property, is not only a human and common law right
but also a constitutional right and till the year 1978, was
also a fundamental right.
 The Legislature has enacted Copyright Act only to amend
and consolidate the law relating to copyright and not the
law relating to property/land. None of the provisions
thereof can thus be construed as affecting a right in
property/land.
 Thus, unless a right to exclude/prevent the owner of the
land, on which artistic work of architecture is executed,
from using his land as he may desire including by
removing the said work of architecture, is expressly
provided, the owner cannot be so excluded in the garb of
copyright.
 Court also said: While distorting or
mutilation or modification of one of the
embodiments of the work renders the work
imperfect, prejudicing the honour or
reputation of the author, destruction of the
work in its entirety i.e. making it disappear,
cannot be, prejudicial to the honour or
reputation of the author. No imperfections
can be found in what cannot be seen,
heard or felt.
 Neha bhasin v Anand Raaj Anand (2006) 32 PTC 779
(Del).
 Where a person lawfully does anything for another
person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so
gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit
thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the
former in respect of, or to restore the thing so done or
delivered
 Plaintiff has a right in equity for being given proper credit
for the song sung by her.
 If her voice is used and commercially exploited she has
the right to prevent it being attributed to somebody else.
 The damage and injury caused and being
caused to the plaintiff is twice over. First she is
not described as the lead female singer and in
her place someone else is described as lead
singer. Second, the plaintiff, who indeed was
the lead/main singer, has been demoted to the
status of a mere back up singer.
 The later act in itself is likely to cause grave
harm and injury to the reputation of the plaintiff
as a singer.
 Moral rights of performers in
international IP
 Earlier no moral rights were granted to
the performers. But now under the WIPO
Performances and Phonograms Treaty,
1996 the rights have been extended to
include these moral rights.
 In every performance a performer has:
 (1) the right to be identified as the performer;
 (2) the right to object to any distortion,
mutilation or other modification or other
derogatory action in relation to the
performance, which would prejudice his or her
reputation;
 (3) in addition to these rights, every person has
the right not to have a performance falsely
attributed to them
 Indian law has been amended accordingly.