An author who sells the copyright in a work has sold the right to exploit it. They have not sold their name on it, or their right to object when it is defaced. Indian law calls these the author’s special rights; everyone else calls them moral rights. They belong to the author personally, survive any assignment, and can be enforced by the author’s heirs.
Quick reference
| Attribution | The right to claim authorship of the work |
| Integrity | The right to restrain or claim damages for distortion, mutilation, modification or other act prejudicial to the author’s honour or reputation |
| Who has them | The author — not the owner, not the assignee |
| Survive assignment? | Yes |
| After death | Exercisable by the author’s legal representatives |
| Not covered | Failure to display a work, or displaying it in a way the author dislikes; permitted adaptations of software |
The two rights
The right of paternity — to claim authorship. An author whose name is left off a published work, or whose work is published under someone else’s name, can sue for it. The right is not a right to be credited in a particular way, and it does not compel the owner to publish; it is a right not to be denied authorship when the work is used.
The right of integrity — to restrain, or claim damages for, any distortion, mutilation, modification or other act in relation to the work, done before the copyright term ends, that would be prejudicial to the author’s honour or reputation. Not every change qualifies. Editing a manuscript, abridging a text with the author’s knowledge, or cropping a photograph to fit a page is ordinarily not prejudicial. Rewriting a novel’s ending, colourising a film against the director’s stated wishes, or hacking a mural into pieces is.
The Act adds two carve-outs. Failure to display a work, or displaying it in a manner the author objects to, is not a breach of integrity — a museum that stores a painting or hangs it badly has not infringed. And adapting a computer programme in the ways the Act permits users to do is not a modification the author can object to.
The case
The right of integrity in India was established by Amar Nath Sehgal in the Delhi High Court in 2005. The government had commissioned a bronze mural for a Delhi convention centre in the 1950s, owned it outright, and in 1979 took it down and dumped the pieces in a store, where they were damaged. The sculptor sued. The court held that destroying or mutilating a work of art violates the author’s right of integrity even where the state owns both the object and the copyright, ordered the remains returned to the artist, and awarded damages. The case is the reference point for the proposition that ownership of the work and ownership of the copyright are both subordinate to the author’s moral rights.
The 2012 amendment
Two changes. Before 2012 the right of integrity could be asserted only for acts done before the expiry of the copyright term; the amendment removed that limit, so the integrity right can outlast the economic copyright. And the amendment removed a carve-out that had prevented the author’s heirs from asserting the right of paternity, so that both rights are now exercisable by the author’s legal representatives after death.
Who has them
The author — the writer, composer, artist, photographer, or, for a film or sound recording, the producer. Not the employer, even where the employer is the first owner; not the assignee; not the licensee. A company that owns copyright in a work made by its employee owns the economic rights; the employee retains the moral rights. Performers have equivalent moral rights in their performances.
Can they be waived?
The Act is silent. Indian courts have not squarely decided whether a contractual waiver of moral rights is enforceable, and the personal, non-assignable character of the rights suggests a blanket waiver may not be. What is safer than a waiver is consent: a clause in which the author agrees that specified kinds of modification — editing, adaptation, localisation, updating, integration with other material — will not be treated as prejudicial, and agrees to the credit convention the commissioning party will use. A consent to particular acts is easier to defend than a purported surrender of the right itself.
For commissioning parties
Anyone who commissions creative work — an agency, a publisher, a software company, a developer commissioning public art, a brand commissioning a jingle — should assume the author keeps moral rights and draft accordingly:
- an assignment of copyright, which deals with the economic rights
- a consent to the modifications the work will foreseeably undergo, listed
- a credit clause saying how, and whether, the author will be named
- for works installed in buildings or public places, an express term about removal, relocation and alteration
A modification that goes beyond the consent, or a use that strips the author’s name, remains actionable however complete the assignment.
Frequently asked questions
What are moral rights in Indian copyright law? The author’s right to claim authorship of the work, and the right to restrain or claim damages for distortion, mutilation, modification or other acts prejudicial to the author’s honour or reputation. They belong to the author personally.
Do moral rights survive an assignment of copyright? Yes. The author retains them whoever owns the copyright, and can enforce them against the owner.
Can an author’s heirs enforce moral rights? Yes. Since the 2012 amendment both the right of attribution and the right of integrity are exercisable by the author’s legal representatives after death.
Can moral rights be waived in India? The Act does not say, and the courts have not decided. A consent to specified modifications and a credit convention is safer than a purported waiver.
Does every change to a work breach the right of integrity? No. Only a distortion, mutilation or modification that would be prejudicial to the author’s honour or reputation. Ordinary editing is not; destroying a work of art or altering it in a way that damages the author’s standing is.
Does an author have a right to have the work displayed? No. Failure to display a work, or displaying it in a way the author objects to, is expressly not a breach of moral rights.
Useful official resources
- Copyright Office, India — the Act
See our related notes on who owns copyright, copyright assignment and what copyright protects.
Commissioning creative work that will be edited, adapted or installed, or an author whose work has been altered? Talk to us.