Comment by ryzellon on 09/02/2014 at 07:19 UTC

23 upvotes, 0 direct replies (showing 0)

View submission: The history of the /r/xkcd kerfuffle.

It's noble for you to try and protect the integrity of the artist, but you have no objective footing--that's not how IP law works. Copyright has a moral rights aspect, but (1) it's pretty weak in the US despite the Berne Convention, and (2) it's entirely work-centric. The most powerful distillation of moral rights relating to copyright is quite limited as it only applies to visual artists, and only protects the

* right to claim authorship

right to prevent the use of one's name on any work the author did not create
right to prevent use of one's name on any work that has been distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation
right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification of a work that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation

Having negative things associated with the work is not within the scope of that moral right. It is, arguably, a moral-in-the-generic-sense violation, but that's highly subjective and not something for the law to judge.

Replies

There's nothing here!