Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
ausip:moralrights [2019/03/10 07:09]
jessiej_87 update content
ausip:moralrights [2019/03/10 13:03] (current)
jessiej_87
Line 105: Line 105:
 Moral rights are loosely derived from the French system of droit moral. The French authorities are not directly relevant, but may serve as an illustration of the types of treatments which may be found to be derogatory in Australia. Moral rights are loosely derived from the French system of droit moral. The French authorities are not directly relevant, but may serve as an illustration of the types of treatments which may be found to be derogatory in Australia.
  
-__*Perez & Ors v Fernandez[2012] FMCA 2__+__//Perez & Ors v Fernandez// (([2012] FMCA 2))__
  
 The case of [Perez & Ors v Fernandez](http://​classic.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FMCA/​2012/​2.html) involved Perez '​Pitbull',​ the US-based author of the song “Bon, Bon”. Fernandez, a Perth-based DJ, had planned to host Perez on-tour in Australia, and Perez had recorded a promo referring to and supporting Fernandez 'DJ Suave'​. The case of [Perez & Ors v Fernandez](http://​classic.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FMCA/​2012/​2.html) involved Perez '​Pitbull',​ the US-based author of the song “Bon, Bon”. Fernandez, a Perth-based DJ, had planned to host Perez on-tour in Australia, and Perez had recorded a promo referring to and supporting Fernandez 'DJ Suave'​.
Line 119: Line 119:
 Fernandez'​s use was not reasonable in the circumstances. Fernandez'​s use was not reasonable in the circumstances.
  
-__*Schott Musik International GmbH v Colossal Records of Australia(( (1996) 71 FCR 37 (Carmina Burana case),​[1997] FCA 531))__+__//Schott Musik International GmbH v Colossal Records of Australia// (( (1996) 71 FCR 37 (Carmina Burana case), [1997] FCA 531))__
  
 The case of [Schott Musik International Gmbh v Colossal Records Australia](http://​classic.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​1997/​531.html) involved a a techno remix of a classical musical work and questioned whether this remix ‘debased’ the original. Before the introduction of moral rights, Section 55(2) previously prevented a recording artist from obtaining a statutory licence to record a musical work if the adaptation '​debases'​ the original work. The case of [Schott Musik International Gmbh v Colossal Records Australia](http://​classic.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​1997/​531.html) involved a a techno remix of a classical musical work and questioned whether this remix ‘debased’ the original. Before the introduction of moral rights, Section 55(2) previously prevented a recording artist from obtaining a statutory licence to record a musical work if the adaptation '​debases'​ the original work.
Line 144: Line 144:
 - Material distortion of his work prejudicial to honour or reputation. ​ - Material distortion of his work prejudicial to honour or reputation. ​
  
-__*Snow v The Eaton Centre Limited(1988) 70 CPR (2d) 105__+__//Snow v The Eaton Centre Limited// (( (1988) 70 CPR (2d) 105))__
  
 A Canadian shopping centre had bought a sculpture of 60 flying geese from the plaintiff. When the shopping centre tied Christmas ribbons around the necks of the geese, Snow applied for an injunction. A Canadian shopping centre had bought a sculpture of 60 flying geese from the plaintiff. When the shopping centre tied Christmas ribbons around the necks of the geese, Snow applied for an injunction.
Line 150: Line 150:
 Snow said it was prejudicial to his honour – reducing it to crass advertisement of Christmas. ​ Snow said it was prejudicial to his honour – reducing it to crass advertisement of Christmas. ​
  
-__*Morrison Leahy Music Limited and another v Lightbond Limited[1993] E.M.L.R. 144.__+__//Morrison Leahy Music Limited and another v Lightbond Limited// (([1993] E.M.L.R. 144.))__
  
 In 1993, George Michael was granted a preliminary injunction preventing the release of a medley of a number of George Michael'​s songs. The Court of Appeal in London found that it was arguable that the remix record could constitute derogatory treatment of George Michael'​s works. In 1993, George Michael was granted a preliminary injunction preventing the release of a medley of a number of George Michael'​s songs. The Court of Appeal in London found that it was arguable that the remix record could constitute derogatory treatment of George Michael'​s works.
  
-__*Confetti Records v Warner Music[2003] EWCh 1274 (ch) [150]__+__//Confetti Records v Warner Music// (([2003] EWCh 1274 (ch) [150]))__
  
 In 2003, the UK High Court found that there was no infringement of moral rights when rap lyrics were recorded over the top of a remix of an original song, at least without any expert evidence as to what the lyrics actually meant. In 2003, the UK High Court found that there was no infringement of moral rights when rap lyrics were recorded over the top of a remix of an original song, at least without any expert evidence as to what the lyrics actually meant.
  • ausip/moralrights.1552162164.txt.gz
  • Last modified: 10 days ago
  • by jessiej_87