Does U.S. Copyright Law Permit Recovery for "Reputational" Damage?
Nearly a century ago, a revision to the Berne Convention was amended to protect an author's right of attribution and integrity.1 However, the United States resisted any formal recognition of moral rights in a work of authorship at that time.2 In fact, the United States did not accede to the Ber...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Intellectual property & technology law journal 2020-09, Vol.32 (8), p.17-19 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 19 |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | 17 |
container_title | Intellectual property & technology law journal |
container_volume | 32 |
creator | Kunze, Jason T Schnapp, Daniel A |
description | Nearly a century ago, a revision to the Berne Convention was amended to protect an author's right of attribution and integrity.1 However, the United States resisted any formal recognition of moral rights in a work of authorship at that time.2 In fact, the United States did not accede to the Berne Convention until over 60 years later.3 The well-known case Gilliam v. American Broadcasting raised the issue of moral rights, in particular the right of Monty Python to prevent reputational damage resulting from the mutilation of its works via the editing process for U.S. television.4 Because irreparable harm was likely to result from audiences attributing the poorly edited works to Monty Python, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted a preliminary injunction. To support its decision, however, the court relied on contract and trademark law principles.5 The Gilliam case provided an important steppingstone, by supporting the idea that an author should be protected from reputational harm arising from misattribution. Black Panther was massively successful in theaters, grossing over $700 million in the United States and $1.3 billion worldwide.9 In Viktor v. Top Dawg Entertainment LLC et al., the music video for All the Stars, by Kendrick Lamar and SZA, was alleged to infringe paintings based on ancient Egyptian and African symbolism by an artist named Lina Viktor.10 Viktor had created distinctive gold leaf on black paint paintings, and alleged that the music video shows unauthorized copies of her paintings in a 19-second clip that can be seen at the three-minute mark of the video. See supra note 3, (stating that the provisions of the Berne Convention "do not expand or reduce any right of an author of a work, whether claimed under Federal, State, or the common law - to claim authorship of the work; or to object to any distortion, mutilation, or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the work, that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation."); see also 17 U.S.C. 104(c). |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2524961145</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2524961145</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_25249611453</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYeA0NDU20TU2M7TgYOAqLs4yMDA0MzMy4GRwcslPLVYI1QvWU3DOL6gsykzPKFHwSSxXCEgtys0sUQhKTc4vSy2qVEjLL1JQCkotKC1JLMnMz0vMUVJwScxNTE-152FgTUvMKU7lhdLcDMpuriHOHroFRfmFpanFJfFZ-aVFQB3F8UamRiaWZoaGJqbGxKkCAICVN6g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2524961145</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Does U.S. Copyright Law Permit Recovery for "Reputational" Damage?</title><source>Business Source Complete</source><creator>Kunze, Jason T ; Schnapp, Daniel A</creator><creatorcontrib>Kunze, Jason T ; Schnapp, Daniel A</creatorcontrib><description>Nearly a century ago, a revision to the Berne Convention was amended to protect an author's right of attribution and integrity.1 However, the United States resisted any formal recognition of moral rights in a work of authorship at that time.2 In fact, the United States did not accede to the Berne Convention until over 60 years later.3 The well-known case Gilliam v. American Broadcasting raised the issue of moral rights, in particular the right of Monty Python to prevent reputational damage resulting from the mutilation of its works via the editing process for U.S. television.4 Because irreparable harm was likely to result from audiences attributing the poorly edited works to Monty Python, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted a preliminary injunction. To support its decision, however, the court relied on contract and trademark law principles.5 The Gilliam case provided an important steppingstone, by supporting the idea that an author should be protected from reputational harm arising from misattribution. Black Panther was massively successful in theaters, grossing over $700 million in the United States and $1.3 billion worldwide.9 In Viktor v. Top Dawg Entertainment LLC et al., the music video for All the Stars, by Kendrick Lamar and SZA, was alleged to infringe paintings based on ancient Egyptian and African symbolism by an artist named Lina Viktor.10 Viktor had created distinctive gold leaf on black paint paintings, and alleged that the music video shows unauthorized copies of her paintings in a 19-second clip that can be seen at the three-minute mark of the video. See supra note 3, (stating that the provisions of the Berne Convention "do not expand or reduce any right of an author of a work, whether claimed under Federal, State, or the common law - to claim authorship of the work; or to object to any distortion, mutilation, or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the work, that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation."); see also 17 U.S.C. 104(c).</description><identifier>ISSN: 1534-3618</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Clifton: Aspen Publishers, Inc</publisher><subject>Appeals ; Authoring ; Authorship ; Business law ; Conventions ; Copyright ; Damage prevention ; Federal court decisions ; Music videos ; Reputations ; State court decisions ; Trials ; Visual artists</subject><ispartof>Intellectual property & technology law journal, 2020-09, Vol.32 (8), p.17-19</ispartof><rights>Copyright Aspen Publishers, Inc. Sep 2020</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kunze, Jason T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schnapp, Daniel A</creatorcontrib><title>Does U.S. Copyright Law Permit Recovery for "Reputational" Damage?</title><title>Intellectual property & technology law journal</title><description>Nearly a century ago, a revision to the Berne Convention was amended to protect an author's right of attribution and integrity.1 However, the United States resisted any formal recognition of moral rights in a work of authorship at that time.2 In fact, the United States did not accede to the Berne Convention until over 60 years later.3 The well-known case Gilliam v. American Broadcasting raised the issue of moral rights, in particular the right of Monty Python to prevent reputational damage resulting from the mutilation of its works via the editing process for U.S. television.4 Because irreparable harm was likely to result from audiences attributing the poorly edited works to Monty Python, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted a preliminary injunction. To support its decision, however, the court relied on contract and trademark law principles.5 The Gilliam case provided an important steppingstone, by supporting the idea that an author should be protected from reputational harm arising from misattribution. Black Panther was massively successful in theaters, grossing over $700 million in the United States and $1.3 billion worldwide.9 In Viktor v. Top Dawg Entertainment LLC et al., the music video for All the Stars, by Kendrick Lamar and SZA, was alleged to infringe paintings based on ancient Egyptian and African symbolism by an artist named Lina Viktor.10 Viktor had created distinctive gold leaf on black paint paintings, and alleged that the music video shows unauthorized copies of her paintings in a 19-second clip that can be seen at the three-minute mark of the video. See supra note 3, (stating that the provisions of the Berne Convention "do not expand or reduce any right of an author of a work, whether claimed under Federal, State, or the common law - to claim authorship of the work; or to object to any distortion, mutilation, or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the work, that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation."); see also 17 U.S.C. 104(c).</description><subject>Appeals</subject><subject>Authoring</subject><subject>Authorship</subject><subject>Business law</subject><subject>Conventions</subject><subject>Copyright</subject><subject>Damage prevention</subject><subject>Federal court decisions</subject><subject>Music videos</subject><subject>Reputations</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><subject>Trials</subject><subject>Visual artists</subject><issn>1534-3618</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNpjYeA0NDU20TU2M7TgYOAqLs4yMDA0MzMy4GRwcslPLVYI1QvWU3DOL6gsykzPKFHwSSxXCEgtys0sUQhKTc4vSy2qVEjLL1JQCkotKC1JLMnMz0vMUVJwScxNTE-152FgTUvMKU7lhdLcDMpuriHOHroFRfmFpanFJfFZ-aVFQB3F8UamRiaWZoaGJqbGxKkCAICVN6g</recordid><startdate>20200901</startdate><enddate>20200901</enddate><creator>Kunze, Jason T</creator><creator>Schnapp, Daniel A</creator><general>Aspen Publishers, Inc</general><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200901</creationdate><title>Does U.S. Copyright Law Permit Recovery for "Reputational" Damage?</title><author>Kunze, Jason T ; Schnapp, Daniel A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_25249611453</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Appeals</topic><topic>Authoring</topic><topic>Authorship</topic><topic>Business law</topic><topic>Conventions</topic><topic>Copyright</topic><topic>Damage prevention</topic><topic>Federal court decisions</topic><topic>Music videos</topic><topic>Reputations</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><topic>Trials</topic><topic>Visual artists</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kunze, Jason T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schnapp, Daniel A</creatorcontrib><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Intellectual property & technology law journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kunze, Jason T</au><au>Schnapp, Daniel A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Does U.S. Copyright Law Permit Recovery for "Reputational" Damage?</atitle><jtitle>Intellectual property & technology law journal</jtitle><date>2020-09-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>17</spage><epage>19</epage><pages>17-19</pages><issn>1534-3618</issn><abstract>Nearly a century ago, a revision to the Berne Convention was amended to protect an author's right of attribution and integrity.1 However, the United States resisted any formal recognition of moral rights in a work of authorship at that time.2 In fact, the United States did not accede to the Berne Convention until over 60 years later.3 The well-known case Gilliam v. American Broadcasting raised the issue of moral rights, in particular the right of Monty Python to prevent reputational damage resulting from the mutilation of its works via the editing process for U.S. television.4 Because irreparable harm was likely to result from audiences attributing the poorly edited works to Monty Python, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted a preliminary injunction. To support its decision, however, the court relied on contract and trademark law principles.5 The Gilliam case provided an important steppingstone, by supporting the idea that an author should be protected from reputational harm arising from misattribution. Black Panther was massively successful in theaters, grossing over $700 million in the United States and $1.3 billion worldwide.9 In Viktor v. Top Dawg Entertainment LLC et al., the music video for All the Stars, by Kendrick Lamar and SZA, was alleged to infringe paintings based on ancient Egyptian and African symbolism by an artist named Lina Viktor.10 Viktor had created distinctive gold leaf on black paint paintings, and alleged that the music video shows unauthorized copies of her paintings in a 19-second clip that can be seen at the three-minute mark of the video. See supra note 3, (stating that the provisions of the Berne Convention "do not expand or reduce any right of an author of a work, whether claimed under Federal, State, or the common law - to claim authorship of the work; or to object to any distortion, mutilation, or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the work, that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation."); see also 17 U.S.C. 104(c).</abstract><cop>Clifton</cop><pub>Aspen Publishers, Inc</pub></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1534-3618 |
ispartof | Intellectual property & technology law journal, 2020-09, Vol.32 (8), p.17-19 |
issn | 1534-3618 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2524961145 |
source | Business Source Complete |
subjects | Appeals Authoring Authorship Business law Conventions Copyright Damage prevention Federal court decisions Music videos Reputations State court decisions Trials Visual artists |
title | Does U.S. Copyright Law Permit Recovery for "Reputational" Damage? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T01%3A51%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Does%20U.S.%20Copyright%20Law%20Permit%20Recovery%20for%20%22Reputational%22%20Damage?&rft.jtitle=Intellectual%20property%20&%20technology%20law%20journal&rft.au=Kunze,%20Jason%20T&rft.date=2020-09-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=17&rft.epage=19&rft.pages=17-19&rft.issn=1534-3618&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2524961145%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2524961145&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |