Many filmmakers may not understand that every country applies their own copyright law. There is no international copyright law that applies universally across the globe.
The United States has joined several international copyright conventions to protect American works from infringement in foreign countries. These accords essentially provide for reciprocity of treatment of foreign nationals. For example, France agrees to protect the works of American authors in France. In return, we agree to protect the work of French authors in the United States. This means that the United States will protect a French author in the United States in the same manner and extent as the United States protects American authors. It does not mean that French authors will have the same rights in the United States that they have in France under French law. Thus, it is often said that copyright laws are territorial in their application. French law applies in France; American law applies in the United States. This application can produce unexpected results because American copyright law and French copyright law are significantly different.
American law recognizes the work-for-hire doctrine under which the initial “author” of a work can be the employer of an artist, not the artist himself. This doctrine is not recognized in many countries. On the other hand, some countries have doctrines that do not exist under American law. France expressly recognizes the moral rights (“droit moral”) authors have in their work. American copyright law only recognizes moral rights in the realm of fine art. Moral rights prevent others from changing the author’s work (the right of integrity) or taking the author’s name off of it (the right of paternity), even if the author has sold the physical work and its copyright. Under French law, the rights of integrity and paternity are perpetual, inheritable, inalienable, and imprescriptible. Thus, the heirs of an artist could object to the use of their ancestor’s work, even if that work’s copyright expired.
A landmark case that illustrates the difference between the United States and France in their approaches to moral rights in film is Huston v. La Société D’Exploitation de la Cinquième Chaine de Television, La Cinq, (“Huston v Le Cinq”) in which the highest court in France enjoined the broadcast of a colorized version of director John Huston’s black and white motion picture, “The Asphalt Jungle,” on the grounds that the director’s right of integrity of his work was violated when the film was “colorized” by Turner Entertainment. John Huston opposed colorization and intentionally shot the film on black and white stock at a time when many films were shot in color.
The holding of France's highest court reversed a lower court which had concluded that France had to take the law of the country of origin of the work into account in deciding who was the “author” of the work. After reviewing United States law, the lower court held John Huston was not the “author” because he worked on the film as an employee under a “work made for hire” contract with the studio. The court therefore allowed the broadcast of the colorized version by Turner Entertainment.
The higher court reversed the lower court and reinforced the principle that the moral rights of the author may not be transferred and/or assigned and will pass to the author’s heirs upon the death of the author. This holding was made, even though when the work was created, Huston was an employee of MGM/Loew’s in the United States under the work made for hire doctrine. In the United States MGM would be considered the author, not Huston. As French law now stands, a director or other “author” who disapproves of colorization or of extreme editing of his films that is injurious to his reputation or honor will probably be able to object an injunction stopping distribution of the modified version.
This case is significant in international copyright law, particularly on the protection of moral rights. It highlights the conflict between different legal systems; specifically French moral rights and the contractual agreements often favored in the US. The French court's decision emphasizes the importance of recognizing an author's moral rights, even when they conflict with contractual agreements or the laws of other countries.
Differences in copyright law have become more of an issue as films are distributed internationally. Streaming a film in 100 different countries means being subjected to the laws of many different legal systems.
The United States has joined several international copyright conventions to protect American works from infringement in foreign countries. These accords essentially provide for reciprocity of treatment of foreign nationals. For example, France agrees to protect the works of American authors in France. In return, we agree to protect the work of French authors in the United States. This means that the United States will protect a French author in the United States in the same manner and extent as the United States protects American authors. It does not mean that French authors will have the same rights in the United States that they have in France under French law. Thus, it is often said that copyright laws are territorial in their application. French law applies in France; American law applies in the United States. This application can produce unexpected results because American copyright law and French copyright law are significantly different.
American law recognizes the work-for-hire doctrine under which the initial “author” of a work can be the employer of an artist, not the artist himself. This doctrine is not recognized in many countries. On the other hand, some countries have doctrines that do not exist under American law. France expressly recognizes the moral rights (“droit moral”) authors have in their work. American copyright law only recognizes moral rights in the realm of fine art. Moral rights prevent others from changing the author’s work (the right of integrity) or taking the author’s name off of it (the right of paternity), even if the author has sold the physical work and its copyright. Under French law, the rights of integrity and paternity are perpetual, inheritable, inalienable, and imprescriptible. Thus, the heirs of an artist could object to the use of their ancestor’s work, even if that work’s copyright expired.
A landmark case that illustrates the difference between the United States and France in their approaches to moral rights in film is Huston v. La Société D’Exploitation de la Cinquième Chaine de Television, La Cinq, (“Huston v Le Cinq”) in which the highest court in France enjoined the broadcast of a colorized version of director John Huston’s black and white motion picture, “The Asphalt Jungle,” on the grounds that the director’s right of integrity of his work was violated when the film was “colorized” by Turner Entertainment. John Huston opposed colorization and intentionally shot the film on black and white stock at a time when many films were shot in color.
The holding of France's highest court reversed a lower court which had concluded that France had to take the law of the country of origin of the work into account in deciding who was the “author” of the work. After reviewing United States law, the lower court held John Huston was not the “author” because he worked on the film as an employee under a “work made for hire” contract with the studio. The court therefore allowed the broadcast of the colorized version by Turner Entertainment.
The higher court reversed the lower court and reinforced the principle that the moral rights of the author may not be transferred and/or assigned and will pass to the author’s heirs upon the death of the author. This holding was made, even though when the work was created, Huston was an employee of MGM/Loew’s in the United States under the work made for hire doctrine. In the United States MGM would be considered the author, not Huston. As French law now stands, a director or other “author” who disapproves of colorization or of extreme editing of his films that is injurious to his reputation or honor will probably be able to object an injunction stopping distribution of the modified version.
This case is significant in international copyright law, particularly on the protection of moral rights. It highlights the conflict between different legal systems; specifically French moral rights and the contractual agreements often favored in the US. The French court's decision emphasizes the importance of recognizing an author's moral rights, even when they conflict with contractual agreements or the laws of other countries.
Differences in copyright law have become more of an issue as films are distributed internationally. Streaming a film in 100 different countries means being subjected to the laws of many different legal systems.
