6. C - moral rights

Question 1

Noah v Shuba

Answer 1

treatment includes adding 17 words to C’s medical guide

Question 2

Morrison v Lightbond

Answer 2

cutting up songs into mega mix = treatment

Question 3

Hutson v Turner

Answer 3

colouring B&W film can count as treatment

Question 4

Tidy v Natural History Museum

Answer 4

prejudicial to honour and reputation of author = derogatory

• bw cartoons: reduced size and added coloured background
• TREATMENT YES
• DEROGATORY NO
  (reductions not distortion)

TEST: was the view artist objectively reasonable?
- need evidence of how public perceived before

Question 5

Snow v Eaton Centre (Canada)

Answer 5

YES TREATMENT (tied ribbons to birds’ neck on sculpture)

YES DEROGATORY

• as long as artists’ view is not irrational, his word is sufficient
• subjective test
• NB. Snow also had expert support

Question 6

Pasterfield v Denham

Answer 6

OBJECTIVE TEST for derogatory treatment
- “not sufficient that author himself is aggrieved”

not derogatory treatment:

• omissions of trial matter
• colour variations
• reductions in size

differences TOO trivial in this case (change must affect INTERNAL INTEGRITy)

Question 7

Confetti Records v Warner Music

Answer 7

YES treatment

NOT derogatory

• too difficult to decipher words in rap
• no evidence of damage to reputation (C himself used these kinds of lyrics)

IF NO EVIDENCE OF HONOUR/REP OF C = NOTHING TO HARM

Question 8

Clark v Associated Newspapers

Answer 8

false attribution depends on meaning the work conveys to national reasonable reader

• counter statements must be as BOLD, PRECISE, and COMPELLING as the false statement to neutralise it