This question relates to moral rights. In particular the right at
stake is attribution, ie the right - to use the language of Article 6-bis of
the Berne Convention - of an author to claim authorship of his/her work.
The protection of moral rights has been traditionally regarded as particularly strong in those jurisdictions that follow the traditional French-style droit d'auteur approach to copyright protection, including Italy. This is indeed the country where this question may be raised.
The
latest news is in fact that the latest film by well-known film director and
writer Fausto Brizzi,
due for release on 15 December and entitled Poveri ma ricchissimi, may
appear in cinemas without indication of his name as the director of
the film.
In
the wake of the Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, etc etc scandals, it
is rumoured (so far no confirmation has been provided though) that
Brizzi might have sexually assaulted a number of Italian actresses. According
to Corriere della Sera, [the translation from Italian is mine]
"[Brizzi's] film is produced by
Wildside [a production company in which Brizzi himself used to hold a minority
quota until recently] and Warner Bros, which is also the film distributor. And
Warner is currently assessing the option to release Poveri ma
ricchissimi without the indication of Brizzi's name, as if it was a
film without a director. The US entertainment colossus would thus follow a
policy that in the US has been in place since the Weinstein scandal, as it also
happened to Kevin Spacey who has been erased from the new Ridley Scott
film."
Aside from the consideration whether a move of this kind would be appropriate
in the case of a person, Brizzi, who so far has not been explicitly identified (nor found to have actually behaved as claimed) as "the well-known, 40-year-old film-maker" that a number of Italian
actresses referred to when revealing their own experiences of sexual harassment to Italian TV programme Le Iene, the question that
arises is whether Italian copyright law would allow an initiative like the one considered by Warner.
Directors
as authors, and their moral rights
In
line with what is required under EU law [on the issue of directors of cinematographic works as
authors, see the important decision of the Court of Justice of the European
Union in Luksan,
C-277/10], the Italian Copyright Act (Legge 633/1941) recognises
directors among the authors of a cinematographic works. Article 44 states
in fact that the principal director of the work shall be considered to be the
author of a cinematographic work, together with the authors of the film plot,
screenplay, and soundtrack.
|
Fausto Brizzi |
What
about the moral rights of directors as authors then?
Article 20(1) (and with a similar tone, with specific regard to cinematographic works, Article 48) provides
that independently from the exclusive economic rights, and even after their
transfer, the author shall have the right to be recognised as the author of
his/her work. However, Article 22 states
that, while moral rights are non-assignable, the author who has known and
accepted the modifications to his/her work shall not be entitled to prevent its
execution and seek its destruction.
The scope of attribution
In
all this, it would appear that Warner might find it potentially difficult to distribute Brizzi's film without the mention of his name.
Brizzi's consent would be necessary, but might not be sufficient. In fact, at least two further points would require consideration.
The first is whether the omission of the authorship
credit may be regarded as some sort of 'modification' of the work. If the answer was yes, then the author could consent to it and be prevented from opposing the subsequent release of the film. However, the answer to this question might be potentially problematic because 'modification' appears to relate more to another key moral right, this being the right of integrity [see again the language of the Berne Convention, Article 6-bis], rather than attribution.
The second point (directly related to the answer to the point above) is whether and to what extent the moral right of attribution may be waived. This issue is still debated, both in Italian scholarship and case law. The conclusion that one is entitled to waive his/her moral right of attribution would be hardly
acceptable to those who hold the view that moral rights are not just
non-assignable, but also unwaivable. In this respect, one might recall that it is not entirely clear under Italian law whether an agreement by means of which
one waives his/her right of attribution, eg in the context of ghostwriting, is valid and binding or, instead, should be regarded as void because contrary to
the imperative norms on moral rights protection.
In
all this, Brizzi's case is fairly unprecedented, and it will be interesting to
see whether and to what extent Warner goes ahead [the initiative seems already to have been taken: see here] with the initiative of
'erasing' the director's authorship credit from Poveri ma ricchissimi.
Updated on 13 November 2017
Update on 14 November 2017: Warner Bros Italia has confirmed that Poveri ma ricchissimi will be promoted and distributed without any reference to Fausto Brizzi: see here.
"In all this, it would appear that Warner might find it potentially difficult to distribute Brizzi's film without the mention of his name." . I agree: looks it's "very difficult", in light of art. 48 of the Italian Copuright Act
ReplyDeleteThanks Lorenzo. Yet, it seems it's happening already: see http://www.huffingtonpost.it/2017/11/13/la-warner-bros-cancella-il-nome-di-fausto-brizzi-dal-suo-ultimo-film_a_23275444/
ReplyDeleteYes I know, but according to italian law it seems a quite uncomfortable road ... (usually you cannot react to a breach of contract with another breach of contract: unless the law admits it)
ReplyDeleteor, better: "you cannot react to a breach of contract with another breach of contract and/or with a violation of a -expressely declared- unavailable right". Unless -perhaps- if complying with this right might cause a significant damage: in this case the judge will balance the two opposite damages. Interesting case, thanks Eleonora! Let us know possible developments!
ReplyDelete