Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Did you read the exact wording I posted? It very specifically protects > > exactly the author's intention. Nothing more. > What if the author's intention is that anyone do whatever they want > with the work, and explicitly says "I hereby waive any of my so-called > moral rights"? He cannot do that. But his action of releasing the work under a free license will have the coincidental effect that it becomes impossible to violate the artistic integrity of the work, because the integrity consists exactly in the work being free. > In that case, his heirs can *still* come back and say "no waiver is > possible", The moral rights cannot be waived, but they can become irrelevant, which is the situation we're taling about here. > and "your modification of the work makes his artistic > integrity look bad", and it will be their judgment and the court's > that controls. The heirs' judgement controls nothing at all. The court's does, of course, but the unless the court purposefully misunderstands the intent of the law and the author's intention [1] it will of course rule in favor of the author's explicit wishes. [1] In which case every bet is off. But in that case the problems arise IN SPITE OF to the law, not BEACAUSE of it. -- Henning Makholm "... not one has been remembered from the time when the author studied freshman physics. Quite the contrary: he merely remembers that such and such is true, and to explain it he invents a demonstration at the moment it is needed."