What are Moral Rights under Copyright Law?

Historical and Jurisdictional Development of Moral Rights

Moral rights, or droit moral, originated in French law, and are exceptions to the common rule that once an author has assigned their economic rights, the assignee holds the authority to sue for infringement. This concept has been widely adopted across various jurisdictions, including India, where it is reflected in Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957[1]. The provision emphasizes that authors, regardless of economic right assignments, retain the ability to claim authorship and protect their works from distortion, modification, or mutilation that could harm their honor or reputation.

The 1957 Indian Copyright Act, which introduced moral rights into Indian copyright law, significantly elevated the status of intellectual property by granting authors special rights beyond material gains. Section 57[2], often referred to as the “Author’s Special Right,” grants authors the right to claim authorship and prevent unauthorized changes that might be detrimental to their honor or reputation. The Act defines moral rights broadly, covering visual, audio, and literary manifestations. The Delhi High Court, in Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd.[3], emphasized the wide applicability of Section 57[4] in safeguarding the intellectual property and dignity of authors.

The Berne Convention and the International Framework

Internationally, moral rights are recognized under Article 6b of the Berne Convention[5], which India has ratified. The Berne Convention framework provides authors with the right to claim authorship, prevent distortion of their work, and ensure their name is associated with their creations. These rights are widely regarded as inalienable, emphasizing that moral rights cannot be transferred or waived, highlighting their distinct and enduring nature compared to economic rights.

Moral rights have evolved to support cultural enrichment and protect the reputation of creators, which aligns with the principles upheld in the Indian copyright system. The Copyright (Amendment) Act of 1994 and the Copyright (Amendment) Act of 2012 have further strengthened moral rights, particularly by reinstating perpetual protection, which separates moral rights from the author’s economic rights. The 2012 amendment also extended these protections to performers, acknowledging the evolving role and contribution of various creative individuals within the copyright ecosystem.

Moral Rights of an Author

Moral rights are a fundamental set of entitlements under copyright law that protect the personal and reputational interests of authors and performers beyond their economic rights. These rights preserve the author’s personal connection to their work, focusing on maintaining the integrity of the work and preventing unauthorized modifications that could harm the creator’s reputation. The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, primarily recognizes moral rights in Section 57[6], granting authors and, as of the 2012 amendment, performers the ability to protect their work’s integrity and assert their authorship, even after transferring economic rights.

1. The Right of Paternity

The right of paternity is the author’s entitlement to claim authorship of their work and prevent others from falsely claiming ownership. It ensures that the original creator is appropriately recognized and credited, thereby maintaining their reputation and the integrity of the work. This right also safeguards against unauthorized claims, which is crucial for upholding the author’s reputation.

An important case demonstrating the right of paternity is Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Parag M. Sanghavi[7], where the Supreme Court of India ruled against the defendant for using a similar movie title, finding it detrimental to the distinctiveness of the iconic movie Sholay. This case illustrates how the right of paternity serves to protect the reputation and legacy of a work, ensuring that subsequent iterations or adaptations do not diminish its cultural significance.

2. The Right of Integrity

The right of integrity allows an author to prevent any distortion, mutilation, or modification that might damage the work’s original character and, by extension, the author’s reputation. It ensures that the work remains as the creator intended, free from modifications that would harm its authenticity or meaning.

In Sajeev Pillai v. Venu Kunnapalli & Ors[8], the Kerala High Court addressed this right by halting unauthorized pre-release publicity for a film. The court reasoned that such actions could harm the reputation and exclusivity of the work, which violated the author’s right to maintain the work’s integrity. This case underscores the significance of the integrity right in protecting the original vision of creators, preventing unauthorized parties from making changes that could misrepresent or degrade the work.

3. The Right of Retraction

The right of retraction allows authors to withdraw their work from public display if it has been altered or presented in a way that could harm their reputation. This right acknowledges an author’s autonomy over their work, allowing them to distance themselves from misrepresentations that detract from its original value.

In the landmark case Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India[9], the Supreme Court granted an artist the right to retract a damaged sculpture from public display. The court awarded compensation and issued a mandatory injunction, allowing the author to protect their reputation by withdrawing the work. This case set an important precedent, highlighting the author’s prerogative to retract their work in cases of gross misrepresentation or damage.

Moral Rights of Performers under Section 38B

The Copyright (Amendment) Act of 2012 introduced Section 38B[10], granting performers independent moral rights. Performers now have the right to be identified with their performance and to prevent any distortion or modification that would harm their reputation. The provision specifies that minor technical changes for editing purposes do not constitute a violation of moral rights. This amendment recognizes that performers contribute significantly to creative works and deserve protection from modifications that could affect the integrity of their performances.

Judiciary’s Role in Shaping Moral Rights

Judicial interpretations of moral rights have played a key role in defining their scope. In Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India[11], the court emphasized the importance of Section 57[12] in protecting artists’ creative works from destruction, which constitutes the most severe form of mutilation. This case established that destruction or substantial modification of a work has a detrimental effect on an author’s creative legacy and reputation. The Court identified distinct types of moral rights: Paternity, Dissemination, Integrity, and Retraction, each supporting an author’s right to protect their connection with their work.

Conversely, in the Raj Rewal v. Union of India[13], the Delhi High Court had to balance the constitutional right to property with an author’s moral rights. Here, the Hall of Nations, a cultural landmark, was demolished despite the author’s appeals, due to conflicts with the property rights of the Indian Trade Promotion Organisation (ITPO). The court ruled that while the plaintiff had moral rights, they could not override the defendant’s constitutional right to property. This ruling highlights the complexities and potential conflicts inherent in moral rights cases, particularly when they intersect with property law.

The Societal Importance of Moral Rights

Moral rights recognize that an author’s relationship with their work transcends financial considerations. By securing the integrity of creative works, moral rights support the enrichment of society and preserve cultural heritage. Section 57[14] of the Copyright Act ensures that moral rights elevate the status of intellectual property, focusing on the personal connection between creators and their work. This emphasis aligns with the judiciary’s interpretation that law should protect cultural enrichment, and Section 57 is one mechanism that upholds this social interest.

Conclusion

Moral rights in Indian copyright law provide a robust framework for protecting the personal and reputational interests of authors and performers. Section 57’s protections affirm that moral rights are inalienable, extending beyond economic considerations. Recent legal developments, including the introduction of Section 38B[15], expand moral rights to performers, highlighting the law’s adaptability in safeguarding evolving forms of creative expression. The judiciary has shaped these rights through landmark rulings, illustrating the balance between an author’s creative autonomy and other legal interests, such as property rights. This comprehensive approach underscores the enduring significance of moral rights in protecting authors’ relationships with their work, fostering cultural enrichment, and preserving intellectual property.

[1] The Copyright Act, 1957, s. 57.

[2] Ibid.

[3] AIR 1987 DELHI 13.

[4] Supra at 1.

[5] The Berne Convention, 1886, art. 6b.

[6] Supra at 1.

[7] (2004) 3 SCC 393.

[8] AIRONLINE 2019 KER 773.

[9]  (2002) 5 SCC 370.

[10] The Copyright Act, 1957, s. 38B.

[11] Supra at 9.

[12] Supra at 1.

[13] AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 911.

[14] Supra at 1.

[15] Supra at 10.