Copyright FAQ

[telophase]

OK, I've had it up to here with the disinformation and misinformation being thrown around DeviantArt about copyright, and am doing something I've threatened to do for a long time, which is to write up a FAQ about US copyright law. I'm posting it here for beta-ing: if you see something that I've gotten wrong or if you have another question which you think should go on here, let me know.



This will be posted to DA after I make sure I've got my info correct, and after any further questions that anyone has are answered. :)

---

ETA: It's been posted to DeviantArt now. Also - please feel free to discuss, but since part of my aim in making this FAQ is to cut down on the amount of non-lawyer speculation about what copyright is and isn't, I'm not going to add anything to it unless I have a citation or opinion from a legal professional. Argue and speculate at will in the comments, though!

Also, please note that this is U.S.-centric. I made a decision not to add anything from other countries because there's so much information out there it could get unwieldy. You are encouraged to create your own FAQs for your countries.

Be sure to check the comments - people are leaving some good links to useful information.

ETA 2: This is getting passed around the fanfic community, so I wanted to make it clear that it started as a FAQ for visual artists and that my experience has been with the visual arts, and so it is loaded heavily towards the visual arts, and thus some things do not apply to the written arts. Please keep this in mind when using it as ammunition in forum wars. No FAQ or amount of discussion with people who aren't legal professionals can be a substitute for going to the U.S. Copyright Office yourself and looking it up. Their FAQ is pretty clearly written.

---

Copyright Tutorial

First, a note on spelling and grammar:

It is spelled "copyright." That is "right" as in "rights you have under the law," not "write" as in "put words on paper" or "wright" as in "person who makes something." Copyright. You may copyright something and you may exercise your copyright. A work may have a copyright or be copyrighted but never copywritten - that's a meaningless word coined from copywrite. Copywriting is when you write copy (text for an ad, for example) and has nothing to do with the rights involved in intellectual property.

There. Now that's over, I can take off the grammar snark hat and get on with the tutorial.


How are you qualified to talk about it?

I'm a librarian. We deal with copyright all the time. My previous job was as a slide curator, where I had to prevent students and faculty from breaking copyright law by duplicating slides of artwork, and in the course of that I talked to copyright lawyers and read a lot about it. So, while I am not a lawyer and this is not official legal advice, it is informed advice and, as far as I know, correct as of the day of posting. (Copyright law is, of course, subject to change.)


Where can I go to learn more about copyright?

If you are not in the US, your country's government probably has a web site for their copyright office, and that would be the first place to look.

If you are in the US, the U.S. Copyright Office is the first place to go. Their FAQ has clear, simple answers to the most frequent questions asked.

If you want another explanation of copyright, and a really good discussion of what the Doctrine of Fair Use is and what it is not, the University of Texas' Crash Course in Copyright is the place to go.

The Harvard Law School Art Law page has a information and links on copyright and the law as it specifically relates to the visual arts.


I'm not in the US. Do I need to know about US copyright law?

It's not a bad idea to know. Most countries are part of the Berne Convention, which is an international agreement that says they will respect the copyright laws of the other countries in the agreement. It doesn't hurt to have an idea of what those laws are.


What is copyright?

Copyright is a form of protection given to works of art, the expression of intellectual works, and several others, that gives the copyright owner the right to do or authorize a number of things, including reproducing the work, make derivative works from it, to distribute or sell copies of it, to perform or display it in public, to claim authorship (creatorship) of the work, and to prevent any distortion or modification of the work that might be prejudicial to the creator's reputation.

That means, for your own original works of art, you and nobody else can: make copies. write sequels. make different versions. sell it. give it away. perform it. display it. claim to be the creator. stop someone from doing things you don't approve of with it, or authorize someone to do all of the above.

Copyright does not protect inventions, discoveries, or ideas (although anything you write about them may be protected). Patents protect inventions and discoveries, and trademarks protect symbols, designs, and words that identify goods and services as coming from a particular source (i.e., a company logo and slogan).


How do I copyright something?

Copyright is automatically assigned to you once your work is fixed in a tangible form. Tangible form is data on a disk, words on a piece of paper, markings on a piece of paper, and so on. You do not have to do anything, because you automatically own the copyright.


What is copyright registration?

When you register a copyright, you deposit a copy of the work with the U.S. Government Copyright Office, and pay them a fee. This is a way to prove that you are the copyright owner of a work, but it is by no means the only way to prove that.


Do I have to register my copyright?

No. All registration does is give you the ability to sue for standard monetary damages. You can still sue someone for copyright violation if you have not registered the work, and you can even sue for monetary damages. You're just likely to get more money if you register it than if you don't, and it makes it easier to prove that yes, you own the work in question.

Should you register your copyright? That's something you have to decide for yourself, but unless you're creating something that's near publication quality, it's probably not worth it. If you can afford the fee and it makes you feel better, go right ahead, but if you don't, no need to worry about it.


Does "poor man's copyright" work?

"Poor man's copyright" is the name of the practice of putting a copy of your work into an envelope, mailing it to yourself, and storing it unopened in order to prove that you created that work before that date at a later time. It has never been tested in a court of law, so there is no proof that this method will work. If it makes you happy to do it, go for it, but do not fool yourself that this is a proven method of asserting your copyright. Want proof? How about the U.S. Copyright Office's own word on the matter? (scroll to near the bottom of the page.)


Do I have to put the copyright symbol on a work of art?

Before 1989, works had to have a notice of copyright on them, but that is no longer the case. It's not a bad idea, however, because it serves as a reminder to others that you are asserting your copyright.


I write fanfic or draw fanart. Can I copyright it?

Good question. Fanfic and fanart are what we call derivative works, and the right to produce or authorize derivative works lies squarely with the copyright owner. However, while the characters and world do not belong to you, the method of expression does. This means that if you write a Harry Potter fanfic, none of the Harry Potter characters are yours, but the words you use to talk about them are. And your original characters belong to you, of course. Fanart is a greyer area, because the visual expression of a character is that character, for all intents and purposes. That does not mean that someone has a legal right to post your fanart on another board and claim they made it, it just means that if you tried to get a lawyer involved they probably wouldn't take the case because it would be too complicated to figure out where the owner of the characters' copyright ended and yours began. You are free to write and draw for your own personal enjoyment, and many copyright owners don't object to small-scale selling of artwork you created if the poses are original (small-scale being the operative word here), but that is entirely up to their discretion.


But I'm not making a profit on my fan work! Doesn't that make it fair use?

Not automatically. There are other things that have to be considered before a work of art can be considered fair use. For a really good explanation of this, go to the University of Texas' Crash Course on Copyright and read the Fair Use of Copyrighted Material page, especially the Four Factor Fair Use Test. Pay VERY CLOSE ATTENTION to the fourth factor in the test, which is: "Avoids payment for permission (royalties) in an established permissions market." There is a well-established licensing market for books, anime, manga, TV, movies, and other works, and fan works avoid paying for permission to use the characters, backgrounds, and situations in them.


I have a photograph/painting by someone else and re-drew it/painted it/painted over it. Since I changed it from a photo to a drawing, I own the copyright, right?
Or: I changed it by 10% (15%, 20%, 25%...), so that means it's a new work, right?

No. There's a misconception that the law says a work can be changed by a certain percent and be considered an entirely new work. This is wrong. Only the owner of the work can change it or authorize someone else to change it. Here is the U.S. Copyright Office FAQ that deals with this.

Changing it from a photo to a painting, or from a painting to a sculpture, or anything like that still makes it a derivative work, and thus a violation of copyright if done without permission. The Copyright Office's Circular 14 clearly spells this out and gives as examples of derivative work and sculpture based on a drawing and a painting based on a photograph. There was a court case where the sculptor Jeff Koons created a work based on a photograph. He was sued for copyright infringement and lost. The Wikipedia entry on the case. The text of the Second Court's decision in the case. The Harvard Law School Art Law page has images of the photograph and sculpture.


Don't I have to defend my copyright in order to keep it?

Not really. You're thinking of trademarks, which you do have to actively defend in order to keep. But this is a copyright tutorial and not a trademark tutorial, so I shall refer you to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office for more information on that.


Can I copyright an original character, even though I don't have a picture?

Your character may be copyrighted as part of a textual work - this is not standing by itself, but as part of a longer work - as long as the character has sufficient originality. This may be accomplished with a specific name and distinct appearance, as defined by the court in the Gaiman vs. MacFarlane case, but it must have more distinctiveness than a stock character to it. Read about character copyrights and Gaiman vs. MacFarlane here, in an article by the attorney Ivan Hoffman (the first part deals with trademarks - scroll down to the copyright section).

The exact point at which the character goes from an uncopyrightable stock character to a copyrighted original character is fuzzy - best to spend some time developing that character's appearance, history, and personality to make sure. The character will be better for it, anyway.


I paid an artist for a drawing of my character. Do I own the copyright on that picture?

Not necessarily. It's a grey area because the artist owns the copyright on the picture while, if you've done your character-creation work right and have a longer work that the character is part of, you own the copyright on your character. But the artist may own the copyright on the visual representation of that character. It's really, truly, for the best to talk about this and get it in writing before money changes hands. If you don't want the artist to have the ability to sell prints of that picture, you need to talk to the artist when you're commissioning them. Most artists are happy to assign the copyright to you, often for an additional fee to compensate for income they will not get from selling prints of the image.


I sold a work of art to someone, and they're selling it! I don't want them to do that! Or: I want a cut of that!

Unless you have it in writing or you live in California*, under U.S. law, the owner of a work of art may sell the original piece of art as they wish and do not have to give the original artist a cut, even if they do not own the copyright. They cannot make copies of it, nor may they claim that they created it, but they may sell or dispose of the original work of art. The moral of this is: make sure you put your wishes in writing before any money changes hands.

* In California, the artist or the artist's heirs (until 20 years after the artist's death) are entitled to 5% of the resale amount of the work of art unless the resale price is less than $1000, or if the resale price is lower than the original sale price. A summary of the California law by the lawyer Ann Avery Andres. Basically, the majority of you will never have to deal with this, because most people on DeviantArt are not selling anywhere near the $1000 range.

Comments

[the-z.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting that. I really hope people take the time to read it! I get so tired of the misinterpretations of copyright and 'free use'. People think if you post your art publically, it's free to use anywhere, no credit neccessary. They honestly believe it.

[telophase.livejournal.com]

There's just so much going around. I mean, I understand that if someone takes my fanart and posts it elsewhere that I don't have much of a legal leg to stand on as regards to protecting my copyright, but they still do not have the right to take it - they're violating two copyrights in that case: the original rights-holder for the characters and mine for the expression of it. And don't even get me started on the poor man's copyright, which I've seen in, like, three different places this past week. IT DOESN'T EXIST!

Watching uninformed people advisng other uninformed people on DA is just painful. Even when I didn't know a damn thing about copyright, I knew some of the advice they're giving was wrong, wrong, wrong.

[i-read-2-much.livejournal.com]

it's nice to know however that the Poor man's copyright thing does give you a legal leg to stand on in the UK from what i have read in a few websites, you may want to check if those places are from the UK to see if they do have a small bit of sense. Although it's late and i'm in no mood to check up on this so you could probably prove me wrong :P

[telophase.livejournal.com]

Well, three seconds' work on Google gave me the UK Copyright Office and two clicks brought me to the answer. :)

[selenite.livejournal.com]

You should've come to the Carla Ulbrich house concert. She played "If I Owned the Copyright On the Word F---" (http://www.carlau.com/lyrics/fword.html) (using a whistle in place of the word, so my toddlers aren't scorching the paint of the walls).

"I could retire on New York alone!"

[telophase.livejournal.com]

Hee!

[badnoodles.livejournal.com]

A more direct link to the four-factor fair use test or one with more practical/relevant examples for students, original artists, & fan artists would be very useful. Given what I've seen of the reading level and general comprehension of DA members, something as short and concrete as possible would be a real boon to them.

Yes, I realize that "short and concrete" doesn't really exist when it comes to discussing copyright law.

[telophase.livejournal.com]

I have no idea if such a link exists - the gawdawful design of that site doesn't seem to have internal links, or I can't find them if it does, and I haven't run across a better explanation anywhere. :D If I find one, I'll post it.

I know that whatever I post is going to be misinterpreted or contradicted by as many as possible. I also fully expect people to show up and start arguing with me in the comments once I post it. *sigh*

[telophase.livejournal.com]

* or it has easy-to-see links and I TOTALLY FUCKING SPAZZED.

[telophase.livejournal.com]

Changed, and moved to after the fanart/fic question, which makes much more sense.

But I'm not making a profit on my fan work! Doesn't that make it fair use?

Not automatically. There are other things that have to be considered before a work of art can be considered fair use. For a really good explanation of this, go to the University of Texas' Crash Course on Copyright and read the Fair Use of Copyrighted Material page, especially the Four Factor Fair Use Test. Pay VERY CLOSE ATTENTION to the fourth factor in the test, which is: "Avoids payment for permission (royalties) in an established permissions market." There is a well-established licensing market for books, anime, manga, TV, movies, and other works, and fan works avoid paying for permission to use the characters, backgrounds, and situations in them.

[madame-manga.livejournal.com]

Brava. I don't hang out on DeviantArt, but I do on another large artist's forum, and I cannot count the number of times I've had to post the link to the US copyright code and otherwise interject a little factual information into discussions. Some artists get downright belligerent when given the straight dope, as if ignorance could protect them from the consequences of copyright violation.

This is a nice succinct FAQ on the subject, but maybe you could also treat this question: the common thing we run into on that other art forum is people posting copyrighted photos as source material. Then they bring up that phantom "20% (or 10%, or 15%, or 25%) alteration rule" to justify copying someone else's work. Of course there's no such rule, though I've heard it over and over even from professionals. Some of them even think that the mere act of making a drawing or painting from a photo somehow transforms the image enough to make it yours. O_o

MM

[telophase.livejournal.com]

Oh, good one. It's most definitely not true, and there's a court case where someone made a sculpture from a photograph, got used for copyright infringement, and was ruled to have violated the original photographer's copyright. and that is significantly more change than just making a drawing or painting from a photo since it went from 2D to 3D.

I'll work on that after I get back from lunch.

[telophase.livejournal.com]

Added. Along with a couple more questions about characters and selling artwork.

[sophia-helix.livejournal.com]

I wish this information were more widely-available in the fan community (both writers and artists), and it's reminding me how sad I am that I would really have to move to the east coast to pursue copyright law. Years of participating in internet fandom is what got m interested in IP law to begin with. :)

Thanks for the nifty FAQ, and I will link it if you don't mind, once finished.

[telophase.livejournal.com]

:D Thanks! And no prob about the linking; this is info that needs to get out there.

I've just been diddling with the bits about character copyrights - as far as I can tell, if you don't have a textual work (which might just be a written description of the character) then your original character may not be copyrighted. If you have any idea or references on that bit, I'd be mucho grateful. Hard enough on lawyers to figure that mess out, and I'm certainly not one.

[pinkfinity.livejournal.com]

Are you on fandom_lawyers?

[sophia-helix.livejournal.com]

I am! I joined recently, and never have anything to contribute. :)

[dusk.livejournal.com]

Thank you for posting this. Hopefully it will cut down on the 'accidental' copyright infringements that have been going on... -_-;

[telophase.livejournal.com]

Well, one can dream... :)

If it will just get people to stop advising each other to mail a copy of their fic to themselves, I'll be happy. It would be too much, however, to get people to realize that DEAR GOD THERE'S NO NEED TO REGISTER YOUR GODAWFUL X-MEN CLONE SCRIPT BECAUSE IT'S SO BAD NOBODY WOULD WANT TO STEAL IT.

Er, excuse me. I went away for a while. I'm back now.

[lanisatu.livejournal.com]

Copywrite isn't a mis-spelling if used properly. Copywriting refers to, for example, writing the body copy for a printed advertisement. I suspect that's more of a design industry term.

It's a homonym error if someone uses the word "copywrite" instead of "copyright."

As for "copywritten," I have to agree with you. I can't think of any context where that would make sense.

[telophase.livejournal.com]

Details, details. :D I edited it a bit. :)

[lanisatu.livejournal.com]

thanks :)

[theblackscorpio.livejournal.com]

This ends up in my Memorable posts.

[telophase.livejournal.com]

:D Enjoy! Keep coming back, though - it's changing here and there as people post new questions or corrections for me. I suspect it'll always be a Work In Progress (TM).

[executrix.livejournal.com]

There is almost no case law on unauthorized derivative works, and surprisingly little on fair use in general. There is a case-law rule that parody is a type of fair use, and the cases accept that a parody has to use at least enough of the original content to be recognizable. What there isn't, is a case-law rule in favor of AUs!

There are at least a few decisions saying that alteration of images (of the kind involved in making an icon, for example) constitutes adaptive fair use.

BTW, even if Work #2 infringes on the copyright of Work #1, Work #2 is almost certainly copyrightable--it takes almost no originality for a work to be copyrightable.

[telophase.livejournal.com]

What there isn't, is a case-law rule in favor of AUs!

Yip, a veeery grey area there. :D

There are at least a few decisions saying that alteration of images (of the kind involved in making an icon, for example) constitutes adaptive fair use.

I don't doubt you. Can you supply citation? I'm not going to put anything in the FAQ without them, because it cuts down on the friend-of-a-friend chain of transmission, which is something I'm trying to short-circuit with the tutorial. not bloody likely to work, but it's something, at least.

BTW, even if Work #2 infringes on the copyright of Work #1, Work #2 is almost certainly copyrightable--it takes almost no originality for a work to be copyrightable.

It's still an infringement, though, and I fully expect that if you try to take it to an intellectual property lawyer, they'll decline to take the case and then laugh behind your back. That's when we get into ethics - it's obviously unethical to take someone else's work, no matter if it's unauthorized derivative work or no, and assert that you created it, and no reasonable person is going to say otherwise. Whether you have a legal footing to sue ... much more of a problem area.

[executrix.livejournal.com]

Hahaha, funny you should ask:
http://executrix.livejournal.com/186875.html

I might be updating it if I end up doing a copyright/trademark program at con-txt next month.

Really, though, in any very conventional genre of fiction (e.g., romances, cozy detective stories, private eye tales, sub-sub-sub-Tolkien fantasy) there's a LOT of overlap and a LOT of elements that get used and re-used and not necessarily as conscious use of someone else's work.

The "scene a faire" doctrine says that Work #2 doesn't plagiarize Work #1 if the common elements that they share are "obligatory scenes" for the type of work it is.

[matt-ruff.livejournal.com]

There is almost no case law on unauthorized derivative works, and surprisingly little on fair use in general.

I don't know that it's that surprising. Independent artists rarely have the money to fight a fair use case in court, and publishing houses rarely have the desire.

[executrix.livejournal.com]

Replying to matt_ruff: it's a significant issue, though, and while print publishing is a fairly small part of the economy, film, music and television are not.

[matt-ruff.livejournal.com]

Well, with some of these media there are special copyright provisions that cover common situations that might otherwise lead to fair use disputes. For example, with music, you can get a performance license that allows you to play any song in the ASCAP catalog without having to negotiate the rights for each one, and "compulsory licenses" that allow you to record and sell cover versions of songs without the copyright holder's permission.

[executrix.livejournal.com]

I've often argued that the ability to track and make micropayments makes the compulsory license model an even better one in the computer age. If it were up to me (and of course it isn't!) there would be an alternate publishing model where things just went into a big database and you paid for the right to access the part of the book or article you wanted, with the payment being streamed to the various rights holders. And if it were up to me, you'd be able to buy a fanfic license (at an affordable price) to adapt a work. Because of compulsory license, the composer doesn't have to like the way you interpret the composition, and the same would go for this hypothetical fanfic license.

[matt-ruff.livejournal.com]

I, too, would love it if the world worked that way.

Of course, there are musicians right now lobbying for the repeal of the compulsory licensing rule on the grounds that it interferes with the free market exercise of their copyright monopoly...

[bassfingers.livejournal.com]

Hey, Matt. Welcome to LiveJournal. Hope you update semi-regularly; I don't often have much reason to prod storytellers (or the new domain name) to see what you're up to.

[kutsuwamushi.livejournal.com]

Before I read the comment about DeviantART, I thought this was in response to some of the copyright idiocy that's been spouted on Fandom Wank. XD

[telophase.livejournal.com]

I think we could just substitute "The Internet" and still be frighteningly accurate. :D

[pinkfinity.livejournal.com]

The only substantive change I'd recommend is that you change "standard monetary damages" to "statutory monetary damages". If I were doing this I'd also include a "But isn't plagiarism illegal?" and "someone created something similar to something I created!" issues but it's comprehensive as is.

[electricalgwen.livejournal.com]

Hey, I really enjoyed this.



I read through the Fair Use links - nice - and had a bizarre thought about the fourth factor, the revenue issue. It struck me that rather than "competing with sales of the originals", the authors of the fanfic I read have actually (in a very small way) increased the revenues of the copyright owners! I just went out and bought Buffy season one on DVD (and I own almost no DVDs, this is a significant event). My interest has been revived, in a show that I haven't seen on TV in 3 years (no cable), by my discovery of fanfic some months ago; I went out and got these because I'd never actually seen s1 and was fed up with not getting references/injokes.

Somehow I doubt the copyright owners of the Buffyverse are going to pay advertising revenue to my favourite fanfic authors. :)

[telophase.livejournal.com]

Thanks! XD I haven't figured out where it was recced, either: the only person I know who posted it has a small friendslist and none of them have commented, so it's a Mystery! When I started it, I was thinking more of fanart and all the people on the DA forums with original fic and comic scripts who were worried about people steling them most of them are so bad it's a non-issue, IMHO, but it seems to work well for fanfic, too.

Hee - yeah, I'd say that there's a small gain in audience from people reading fic and seeing art. But I suspect the courts are going to look more at the bit about the established licensing system instead. XD

Somehow I doubt the copyright owners of the Buffyverse are going to pay advertising revenue to my favourite fanfic authors.

We can but dream. XD

[electricalgwen.livejournal.com]

I suspect the courts are going to look more at the bit about the established licensing system instead. Oh yeah, of course. It just struck me as funny.
I can't offer any comment on DA because I know nothing about it, but the quality thing holds true in fanfic too, of course. Sometimes it seems those who are the most concerned are those whose stuff isn't worth nicking... :P

[duskpeterson.livejournal.com]

I just popped over here from the origslash_news blog, which linked to your thread. Two thoughts after reading your extremely helpful summary, which I hope many people will consult.

1) Without entering into the debate myself - because I'm sure as heck not qualified to do so - I'll briefly mention that a minority of folks believe that fan fiction and fan art fall under the category of parody rather than derivative works. As I'm sure I don't have to tell you, parody is often regarded as fair use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody

2) As a middle ground between reserving all rights and giving away all rights by releasing works into the public domain, there now exist various licenses that allow authors and artists to reserve certain rights while giving other rights away. An example is the Creative Commons license, which has various national versions.

http://creativecommons.org/

Thus, for example, an author can decide to allow their work to be reprinted noncommercially and to allow derivative works to be made from their original work. The license would show under what circumstances that could be done. It's possible to search Google, Yahoo, and probably other search engines specifically for Creative Commons licensed works.

Likewise, of course, if anyone here wants to use such licenses for their own copyrighted work, they can do so. Just remember, though, that the license can't be revoked; once your story is licensed, it's licensed forever.

[amise.livejournal.com]

Here via ithiliana. This is a very interesting and helpful post. Another site that you might find of use is http://www.authorslawyer.com/.
The gentleman who owns it is an IP lawyer who, as one might guess, specializes in publishing.

[telophase.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[matt-ruff.livejournal.com]

A couple quick corrections:

Copyright...gives the copyright owner the right to do or authorize a number of things, including...to claim authorship (creatorship) of the work,

Copyright is transferable, so the copyright holder and the author are not necessarily the same person. If Stephen King sells me the rights to "Carrie," I don't get to pretend I'm him.

and to prevent any distortion or modification of the work that might be prejudicial to the creator's reputation.

Under U.S. copyright law this is not true either, except to the extent that a copyright holder is allowed to set conditions on the sale of subsidiary rights. If you buy the movie rights to one of my novels and make a crappy film, I don't get to revoke permission just because I think the film reflects badly on me. In theory I could insert a clause in the contract giving me final approval of the finished film, but no movie studio would ever accept a deal like that.

There is a concept in European law called "moral right" that may be what you're thinking of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_right

Moral right may sound like a good idea, but in practice it often ends up being used as a tool of censorship.

[telophase.livejournal.com]

(reposting for formatting)

As I said, this started as a FAQ for artists on DeviantArt, and my experiance in my job is with the visual arts and is thus loaded towards the visual arts. I shall make that slightly more clear, since it seems to be getting passed around the fanfic community at the moment.

>>and to prevent any distortion or modification of the work that might be prejudicial to the creator's reputation.

>Under U.S. copyright law this is not true either...

That was me paraphrasing these bits concerning the rights of visual artists from section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a):

106A(2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; ...

(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right —

(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, ...

You're right about the holder/author thing, though.

[matt-ruff.livejournal.com]

Ah, my bad -- you're right, visual arts are a special case.

The case I always think of when this topic comes up is the Pierre Hugo lawsuit over the "Les Miserables" sequel:

http://www.writermag.com/wrt/default.aspx?c=a&id=368

Leave it to the French...