Does an architect, as the creator and legal ‘author’ of a building having artistic significance, have the right to object to the modification or destruction of their work by the owner of the building? DH Court held “the court held in broad terms that the destruction of a work does not constitute a violation of the rights under Section 57, and also restricted the scope of moral rights to those expressly codified under the Copyright Act,” But earlier HELD “There would therefore be urgent need to interpret Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957 in its wider amplitude to include destruction of a work of art, being the extreme form of mutilation, since by reducing the volume of the authors creative corpus it affects his reputation prejudicially as being actionable under said section. Further, in relation to the work of an author, subject to the work attaining the status of a modern national treasure, the right would include an action to protect the integrity of the work in relation to the cultural heritage of the nation.”

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

Existing Users Log In
   

Related Posts