<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name"> <a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2012/05/pirate-party-plans-for-copyright-reform.html">Pirate Party Plans for Copyright Reform</a> </h3><div class="post-header"> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH0SKpcvLP13WfSFmaaG2SC4tROIR1YTWNxfV0_bVZYRKdvrAoxEUtubryEBBciZXAx0an4I6WQfWZBNVB6UNQkWxc23Td7LS6mTXjkZTUStr2CxGGUz2Vh8v4aVictlT1Fd7jdaxmrN2d/s1600/logo.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH0SKpcvLP13WfSFmaaG2SC4tROIR1YTWNxfV0_bVZYRKdvrAoxEUtubryEBBciZXAx0an4I6WQfWZBNVB6UNQkWxc23Td7LS6mTXjkZTUStr2CxGGUz2Vh8v4aVictlT1Fd7jdaxmrN2d/s1600/logo.png" /></a></div>In recent weeks, copyright critics and author's rights aficionados in Germany have been waging a war of words in a multitude of open letters (eg <a href="http://www.drehbuchautoren.de/nachrichten/2012/03/offener-brief-von-51-tatort-autoren-0">here</a>, <a href="http://www.wir-sind-die-urheber.de/">here</a>), newspaper articles (overview <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=offener%20brief%20urheberrecht&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=urheberrecht&hl=en&tbm=nws&prmd=imvnslb&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:m&sa=X&ei=sJC6T_iDPMHwsgaZoqGFCA&ved=0CCUQpwUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=730ade30fd4169d6&biw=1276&bih=728">here</a>) and at birthday brunches (or maybe that was just the birthday brunch I attended yesterday...). At the core of the debate is the political success of the Piratenparty ("Pirate Party") that runs, inter alia, on the slogan of "de-criminalisation of non-commercial file sharing". The Piratenpartei is keen to stress that they do not want to abolish copyright protection outright, but that they envisage a better deal for authors and users alike (at the expense of the much-loathed content industry). Others point out that "de-criminalisation" of file sharing amounts to much the same thing as the abolition of copyright.<br /> <br /> This morning, the Piratenpartei published what they deem the ten most important issues that should be addressed in reforming the current copyright law (<a href="http://www.piratenpartei.de/2012/05/21/die-zehn-wichtigsten-punkte-einer-urheberrechtsreform/">here</a>). As it is only available in German, I have translated (and somewhat summarised) them below:<br /> <br /> 1) The term of protection shall be shortened to 10 years post mortem auctoris. Among other things, this would alleviate the orphan works problem.<br /> 2) Authors' shall receive stronger rights vis-à-vis right holders: authors shall regain their rights faster in case of non-exploitation and exclusive licences shall be limited to a maximum term of 25 years.<br /> 3) Beyond the initial purchase price, institutions of public education shall not be required to pay for using copyright works.<br /> 4) Libraries shall be entitled to store works in digital archives; free access for educational purposes shall be guaranteed.<br /> 5) The right to make private copies shall be defined and guaranteed; the creation of "remixes" and "mashups" shall be facilitated. Technological protection measures and digital rights management shall be abolished.<br /> 6) Basically the same as 2): reform of copyright contract law.<br /> 7) Private, direct, non-commercial file sharing and the passing on of works shall be de-criminalised.<br /> 8) New business models shall be developed (for instance "micropayment", crowd funding, levies). Authors shall receive equitable remuneration but data protection must be guaranteed; mutual trust and new distribution channels are essential.<br /> 9) The practice of sending warning letters to private individuals (asking them to cease and desist from infringing copyright and to pay the incurred attorneys' fees) shall be stopped; in order to have free WLAN networks, the concept of "Störerhaftung" ("disturbance liability" - secondary liability for someone else's infringement due to a breach of duty care) shall be abolished.<br /> 10) Copyright law shall meet the expectations of contemporary "media savvy" users and shall not restrict creative uses.<br /> <br /> In addition, the Piratenpartei has appealed to authors, right holders and users to participate in a constructive dialogue on copyright law, with public debates concerning the following topics: collecting societies, rock and pop culture, classical music, authors/journalists, creators of films, software, and education/school (<a href="http://www.piratenpartei.de/2012/05/21/piratenpartei-ladt-zu-basisdemokratischer-debatte-uber-das-urheberrecht-ein/">here</a>). For each topic, there is a document on the Piratenpartei's website where anyone interested can add questions or comments to be discussed in the respective debate. The first two debates are scheduled for 6 June (on collecting society GEMA) and 7 June (on authors, journalists and photographers).

Pirate Party Plans for Copyright Reform In recent weeks, copyright critics and author's rights aficionados in Germany have been wa...

Read more »

<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name"> <a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2012/05/is-it-time-for-super-society.html">Is it time for a super society?</a> </h3><div class="post-header"> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> </div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaIZxVUVvrvzYirm5FSRDTernSqf3MZ29JY4d1ApZ0JJxoeOTPK6Dv1MEQg5XhwG_InAXA851mqB4k6eY0REJ0Txs1v1JFrKnGZ3EKXbhyphenhyphen9qCiHOUiZdVanw432OBX6uBM0sJBbNNOT7w/s1600/super+society.gif" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaIZxVUVvrvzYirm5FSRDTernSqf3MZ29JY4d1ApZ0JJxoeOTPK6Dv1MEQg5XhwG_InAXA851mqB4k6eY0REJ0Txs1v1JFrKnGZ3EKXbhyphenhyphen9qCiHOUiZdVanw432OBX6uBM0sJBbNNOT7w/s1600/super+society.gif" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Some of the criticsms levelled at the music industry in the digital age have been those directed at outdated and ineffective licensing models - especially where internet start ups are looking at a global market, whereas as rights owners, often territorially limited collection societies, are mandated to licence within their national borders only. Early entrants in the music sphere spoke of the need to negotiate with hundreds of different organisations each offering 'blanket' licences for just one country - to run a global music streaming service. It took Spotify two years to negotiate basic clearances - as the pirates made merry!</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /> </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The problem has not escaped the European Commission  who are keen to promote (at least) pan-European licensing regimes: Digital Commissioner Neelie Kroes recently said <span style="font-style: italic; text-align: left; text-indent: -0.38in;">Digitisation has fundamentally changed content industries, but licensing models simply have not kept up with this. National licensing can create a series of Berlin cultural walls. The price, both in pounds and frustration, is all too real, as creators are stifled and consumers are left empty-handed. It is time for this dysfunction to end. We need a simple, consumer-friendly legal framework for making digital content available across borders in the EU". </span></span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: -0.38in;"><br /> </span></span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: -0.38in;">Problems with digital licensing</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> have also not escaped the attention of the UK government, currently advancing plans for the 'Digital Rights Exchange' proposed in the </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Hargreaves Report. But in my own opinion </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">even a pan-European licensing regime is of little real use or relevance in the digital age. Surely a UK 'licence' for the digital age is becoming more and more redundant! </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /> </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To solve Neelie Kroes' concerns, surely <b>just one</b> <b>European society</b> for, say, music might well be an effective solution - at least for potential licensees - as a 'one stop shop': BUT, a sole player might not be so good for content owners such as songwriters (who can presently shop around the various music collection societies such as PRS, GEMA and SACEM), or for the board members, or the staff at individual existing societies - although at least some of the latter could and would (I imagine) be redeployed.  And I have some real concerns on behalf of the end users - customers. Actually, it will be the board members who offer the most resistance as they see their cosseted positions at certain societies threatened by  the threat of closure, merger or takeover; but </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">the conundrum that remains is one of competition law.</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /> </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In 2005 when this who area was looked at, The EC's three solutions were (a) to do nothing (b) allow the existing (then 24) societies to offer pan-European licences in competition with each other (prompting speculation that this will just encourage a 'race to the bottom' on licensing tariffs or (c) allow rights holders to choose one EU online rights manager. At the moment the EC is </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">waiting for the Court of Justice to determine the way forward in the <b><i>CISAC </i></b>case: where it stands now is that </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: -0.38in;">there is an order in place </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: -0.38in;">prohibiting the 24 European collecting societies from restricting competition by limiting their ability to offer their services to authors and commercial users outside their domestic territory BUT </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: -0.38in;">the decision allowed collecting societies to maintain their current system of bi-lateral agreements and to keep their right to set levels of royalty payments due within their domestic territory. </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /> </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Why bother with all that - lets go for efficiency! Lets have just the one society! A super society! D</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">igital start ups - especially offering content - want access to ALL content in their sector (whether its films, music, books, news content, whatever) and almost always want to be able to offer and sell that content Worldwide. Whilst </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> I am sure that the EU would need to consider consumers as a sole European collection society  would be a monopoly - and a monopoly based on the 'monopoly' of music copyrights (if you want Kylie's songs - you can only come to us)  surely one society is a </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">potential solution? Just one collection society for recorded music and just one for songs in Europe - or even just one covering <b>all </b>music rights - at least the EC could potentially regulate this, possibly in the same way the Copyrig</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">ht Tribunal  reviews licensing schemes in the United Kingdom. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But globally, now that is a bit more tricky  .....</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /> </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Europe good - global better? Surely any solution has got be be global? If we have leant nothing else in the last 10 years, we have learnt that this is a 'must have' generation of consumers - if they can't get content legally - they will get it illegally. </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /> </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Universal Music Group's proposed acquisition of EMI's recorded music division from Citigroup has again focussed thoughts on global licensing, with some supporters of the merger pointing to the fact that with a near 50% combined market share, a combined Universal-EMI could be an effective one stop shop on its own for licensing recorded music content, There is the counter argument of course - a combined UMG-EMI (or indeed in the publishing world a combined SonyATV-EMI music publishing)  could equally block any new entrant if they so wanted which must surely be an issue worrying competition regulators. </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /> </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One problem is that the music industry's record on anti-competitive (antitrust) behaviour is not wonderful,  not least because of that nagging antitrust case called <i><b><a href="http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_case?case=14033777573756811716&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ei=nKK4T6eENeK-0QWH3OCaCA&ved=0CAYQgAMoADAA">Starr v Sony</a></b> </i> which I am sure the labels would like everyone (including the US courts to forget) about; it's all about the major labels madcap digital start-ups all those years ago called PressPlay and MusicNet. On top of that there is the rather public 2002 settlement by the majors and three of the biggest high street retailers in the USA for price fixing of CDs - and two separate <b><a href="http://www.musiclawupdates.com/?p=3166">2005</a> </b>and <b><a href="http://www.musiclawupdates.com/?p=2564">2007</a></b> settlements for<b> <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2007-04-13-2144814802_x.htm">payola</a>.</b> That said, the recorded music industry is a significantly different business than it was ten years ago – and whatever your views are on digital piracy – it cannot be ignored – and nor can the rise of new independent distribution systems such as Apple’s iTunes, and streaming services such as Spotify.  But whether that justifies the creation of a dominant player with a possible 50% market share is debatable. But at least the concentration of rights into one 'manager' makes licensing easier - and payment possible - doesn't it ..... ?</span><br /> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /> </span><br /> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia9hpV4rDYQSqceBBs76taDPqxrbLdF4R4x2JsaJkDyZwwUs9CeHO9E_APsSeefgrUiDUTcc1hbWotavQhpk2exJ3q8UeWXWyzrrrQZMJjGJpcRAYPAx0wpgglg8jmU6MLZvEQQCTwvK8/s1600/neurons.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="158" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia9hpV4rDYQSqceBBs76taDPqxrbLdF4R4x2JsaJkDyZwwUs9CeHO9E_APsSeefgrUiDUTcc1hbWotavQhpk2exJ3q8UeWXWyzrrrQZMJjGJpcRAYPAx0wpgglg8jmU6MLZvEQQCTwvK8/s200/neurons.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But that got me thinking, and as I am very uneasy about having just two 'super-majors' in the music industry, surely to prevent further consolidation in the recorded music sector and yet allow for effective licensing, it would be better for Sony, EMI, Warners and UMG along with the independent record sector (represented perhaps by Merlin) to form their own 'super society' to collectively licence ALL recorded music on a global basis. Then potential licensees could have their much wanted 'one stop shop' - and consumers would have legal access to to the World's music. Perfect eh?</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /> </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Except it would be a super monopoly ....... so I am back to the problem the EC faces trying to balance the need to have effective licensing and the need to have a competitive market place (and we know post <b><i><a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/murphys-law-of-licensing.html">MPS v Murphy</a></i></b> competition law trumps copyright!). But at least within Europe there is at least the potential for a mechanism to regulate such a monopoly - even if it were a European wide Digital Rights Exchange. But with a <b>global </b>super society .......  who would be the 'World Police'?</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /> </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Anyway, thoughtful comments would be MOST WELCOME ......</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /> </span><br /> <br /> <b style="text-indent: -27.35pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">The CISAC case: </span></b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -27.35pt;">COMP/C2/38.698 CISAC and<b> CISAC v. Commission; </b>Case T442/08</span><br /> <span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-weight: bold; line-height: 19px;"><br /> </span><br /> <span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-weight: bold; line-height: 19px;">Starr v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment,</span><span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 19px;"> 592 F. 3d 314 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2010</span><br /> <span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 19px;"><b><br /> </b></span><br /> <span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 19px;"><b>Karen Murphy v Media Production Services</b> / <b>Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure and others </b> joined cases C-403/08 and 429/08</span>

Is it time for a super society? Some of the criticsms levelled at the music industry in the digital age have been those directed at ...

Read more »

<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name"> <a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2012/05/homage-or-humiliation-moral-rights.html">Homage or Humiliation? Moral Rights, Vertigo, and The Artist</a> </h3><div class="post-header"> </div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody> <tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlYbLRRjgPJo0O_PB-aiBHMavdsxW6Hthr-fvc-Ob_4hB2slmVIeZPTpcWeFqq1vTvOofekbOpsjCangd04Cbe5PZz17u7uUuwyqOIvVZ5WEZO3WkAA7Ud2zrqu6F1ck3qOD94X0dy58Y/s1600/mira+photo+by+martin+dee.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlYbLRRjgPJo0O_PB-aiBHMavdsxW6Hthr-fvc-Ob_4hB2slmVIeZPTpcWeFqq1vTvOofekbOpsjCangd04Cbe5PZz17u7uUuwyqOIvVZ5WEZO3WkAA7Ud2zrqu6F1ck3qOD94X0dy58Y/s1600/mira+photo+by+martin+dee.jpg" /></a></td></tr> <tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Photo by Martin Dee;<br /> smile by Mira</i></td></tr> </tbody></table>The 1709 Blog is delighted to bring readers the first in a series of guest blog posts by <b><a href="http://professormira.com/">Mira T. Sundara Rajan</a></b> on moral rights. Mira should require little introduction to anyone who is concerned with this important subject, since this blog reviewed her book,<i> Moral Rights</i>, last year (<b><a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2011/12/moral-rights-book-review.html">here</a></b>). Mira's next book, <i>Moral Rights: A Guide to Global Practice</i>, is in the pipeline. The subject of her first guest post is ...<br /> <blockquote> <b>Homage or Humiliation? Moral Rights, Vertigo, and The Artist</b><br /> <br /> Michel Hazanavicius’ film, “The Artist,” was a sensational 2011 tribute to silent movies - and also, as the director has since argued, to Hitchcock’s classic 1958 film, “Vertigo” (see <b><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16482624">BBC News</a></b>, 10 Jan. 2012)<b>.</b> The climactic scene of The Artist plays out to the accompaniment of the haunting score from Vertigo, composed by brilliant film composer and long-time Hitchcock collaborator, Bernard Hermann. In a silent film with no accompanying dialogue or environmental sounds to distract, the juxtaposition of new visuals and old music could not be more stark. For those familiar with Hitchock’s original -- called, by some critics, the greatest film of all time (while Hermann’s film score has been called “the greatest score ever written for Hollywood”: see <b><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/02/the-artist-best-original-score.html">Alex Ross</a></b>, The New Yorker, Feb. 24, 2012) -- the feeling of déjà vu is intense. Actress Kim Novak, who played dual roles as Hitchcock’s mysterious heroine in Vertigo, called it a “rape”: “I feel as if my body - or at least my body of work - has been violated by the movie” (<b><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16482624">BBC News,</a></b> 10 Jan. 2012).<br /> <br /> As a lawyer interested in the moral rights of authors and artists, I couldn’t agree more. The situation surrounding the music for The Artist is a perfect, practical illustration of just how a moral rights violation can occur. Moral rights are based on the twin principles of attribution, which means adequate acknowledgement of the authorship of a work, and integrity, the notion of maintaining the quality of a work intact. The moral right of integrity is particularly relevant where the treatment of the work might cause damage to the author’s reputation.<br /> <br /> In the case of Vertigo and The Artist, a highly original work was removed from its creative context and placed into an entirely new one. The use of the original music raises questions of both attribution and integrity. In the film titles, The Artist make no mention of Hermann at all, but only credits Ludovic Bource as the author of the film’s original score -- Hermann’s name appears deep within the end credits (see <b><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/02/the-artist-best-original-score.html">Alex Ross</a></b>, above). While the scene is playing, there is no indication that the film has moved from original music to the Vertigo score. The music that is played is taken from Vertigo with no alterations. It is the music from Vertigo’s crucial love scene, in which the doomed heroine re-appears as if resurrected from the dead. And, although the images from Vertigo are not featured, anyone who is familiar with the original film will be reminded of them. Can moral rights in a film be infringed by an evocative allusion through the use of its music, even though the images per se have not been “copied”?<br /> <br /> The integrity question, of course, is still broader. Does the removal of film music from its original context amount to a violation of integrity? Is the fact that the music was played without any alteration support the argument that its integrity was maintained by the makers of The Artist, or does it, in fact, violate integrity to replicate exactly the same music in a new context -- akin to copyright infringement in the usual sense? And what about the integrity of the musical score in the new film? Could Ludovic Bource have sued the film’s director for overriding his choices, and substituting the segment from Vertigo for Bource’s own, original composition?<br /> <br /> The nature of film-making brings an added level of complexity to these questions. Film is a composite work based on the contributions of many individuals -- producer, director, author of the screenplay, author of the original musical score -- and, of course, the actors who deliver original performances. Worldwide, there is little agreement on who should be considered the “author” of a film. Many jurisdictions, including France, recognize co-authorship, with both director and author of the musical score acknowledged as joint authors of the film. In the case of the film composer, he or she may be simultaneously entitled to two authorial copyrights -- one for the original score, and one in the film as a whole. At WIPO, a new treaty on copyright in “audiovisual performances” is currently pending; if this is adopted, it appears very likely that the moral rights of actors to the attribution and integrity of their performances in films will be explicitly entitled to protection, as authors’ moral rights are now protected under the<b><a href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/ap_im_09/ap_im_09_inf_3.pdf"> Berne Convention</a></b>.<br /> <br /> In the case of Vertigo, whose moral rights have been violated? Bernard Hermann’s, as the composer of the musical score? Alfred Hitchock’s, as the director who was responsible for the combined effect of music plus images, and gave the music its narrative significance? The actors -- Kim Novak and Jimmy Stewart -- who played their parts against the background of the music, and infused it with emotional intensity and poignancy? <br /> <br /> Finally, the central role played by technology in this dilemma can hardly be overstated. Who says that moral rights have lost their relevance in a technological age? On the contrary, we live in the age of sampling, re-using, and remixing. The juxtaposition of Vertigo and The Artist is only made possible by the technology that remasters and integrates the original musical score into the new production. Moral rights are not only relevant to technology; they represent some of the key cultural issues of our time. <br /> <br /> Those familiar with economic copyright might instinctively feel that what happened in The Artist is a form of free-riding on the labours of another. From a moral rights perspective, it amounts to emotional blackmail. As Kim Novak points out, the makers of The Artist are "using [the] emotions [that Vertigo] ... engenders as if it [they] were their own." Ironically, “The Artist” hails from France -- a country that arguably has the longest-standing and most powerful tradition of protection for moral rights in the world. In view of this cultural and legal tradition, the directorial choices in “The Artist” are even more difficult to understand. </blockquote>

Homage or Humiliation? Moral Rights, Vertigo, and The Artist Photo by Martin Dee; smile by Mira The 1709 Blog is delighted to bring ...

Read more »