John Gisogod
Hergé_droits-d'auteur
HERGÉ'S COPYRIGHT COULD BE TAKEN AWAY
''exclusive rights for all countries'', what arrogance in such an expression, no doubt that the inheritors of such rights suddenly believe that they can do anything they want and get away with it! Hidden behind their judiciary machine, these people believe themselves to be invincible. It is not true however, then rights and the law have limits. They depend on the society and the reality from which they were born. If people decide not to respect a law, if they vote to change it, it will cease to exist. If the tribunal takes away your rights, you will lose them. Therefore, intelligent people put their faith and their trust in something more permanent and solid than mere laws and rights, especially the copyright laws.
Laws and rights are not as universal as we think, for example: SOMEONE COULD SEE HIS COPYRIGHTS TAKEN AWAY FROM HIM. In Hergé's case, it would be posthumably, but there is nothing impossible in this. Let us remind that to be protected by the law, a work of art must be ''original''. The text is very clear in most countries, copyright applies to an ''original work''. Of course an original work can hardly be so at 100%. There are influences, quotations, something borrowed from someone else, but all in all the bulk of the work must be original. However in cases when the author copies entires parts and chapters, borrows too heavily without saying it or ever admitting it when caught, when he is stealing and plundering, this is called plagiarism and is enough to have any tribunal revoke his copy rights.
It is clear that Hergé has borrowed a lot without saying it, that he copied repititively, especially from the film ''Destination Moon'' from Irving Pichel and George Pal, so much so in fact that it very well nears plagiarism. And this raises the question: his work, is it original at 80 or 90%? And what if it is rather 60% or less? What if it is less than 50%, what then?
Let's note that to take away someone's copy rights almost never happens, that in clear cases situations, the publisher intervenes and refuses to publish. The guilty party is then put on a black list, and will probably never be published again. The tribunal rarely steps in and takes away someone's copy rights formally, but it could happen. In Hergé's case, considering his popularity, if it is proven to the judges' satisfaction, this is exactly what would happen!
The text is clear: ''copy rights applies to an original work only''. A plagiarized work is by definition not original and therefore warrants no protection, its author has no rights. Once the plagiarism is proved, Hergé will have no rights anymore.
Moulinsart SA could discover the hard way that tribunals as a weapon can hurt anyone. If the other side learns to use them with more skill and employs younger and more aggressive lawyers, they could ultimately win the war and finish off the Rodwells in a few years. Hergé's rights, or what's left of them, could well be for sale very soon.
Hergé_droits-d'auteur
HERGÉ'S COPYRIGHT COULD BE TAKEN AWAY
''exclusive rights for all countries'', what arrogance in such an expression, no doubt that the inheritors of such rights suddenly believe that they can do anything they want and get away with it! Hidden behind their judiciary machine, these people believe themselves to be invincible. It is not true however, then rights and the law have limits. They depend on the society and the reality from which they were born. If people decide not to respect a law, if they vote to change it, it will cease to exist. If the tribunal takes away your rights, you will lose them. Therefore, intelligent people put their faith and their trust in something more permanent and solid than mere laws and rights, especially the copyright laws.
Laws and rights are not as universal as we think, for example: SOMEONE COULD SEE HIS COPYRIGHTS TAKEN AWAY FROM HIM. In Hergé's case, it would be posthumably, but there is nothing impossible in this. Let us remind that to be protected by the law, a work of art must be ''original''. The text is very clear in most countries, copyright applies to an ''original work''. Of course an original work can hardly be so at 100%. There are influences, quotations, something borrowed from someone else, but all in all the bulk of the work must be original. However in cases when the author copies entires parts and chapters, borrows too heavily without saying it or ever admitting it when caught, when he is stealing and plundering, this is called plagiarism and is enough to have any tribunal revoke his copy rights.
It is clear that Hergé has borrowed a lot without saying it, that he copied repititively, especially from the film ''Destination Moon'' from Irving Pichel and George Pal, so much so in fact that it very well nears plagiarism. And this raises the question: his work, is it original at 80 or 90%? And what if it is rather 60% or less? What if it is less than 50%, what then?
Let's note that to take away someone's copy rights almost never happens, that in clear cases situations, the publisher intervenes and refuses to publish. The guilty party is then put on a black list, and will probably never be published again. The tribunal rarely steps in and takes away someone's copy rights formally, but it could happen. In Hergé's case, considering his popularity, if it is proven to the judges' satisfaction, this is exactly what would happen!
The text is clear: ''copy rights applies to an original work only''. A plagiarized work is by definition not original and therefore warrants no protection, its author has no rights. Once the plagiarism is proved, Hergé will have no rights anymore.
Moulinsart SA could discover the hard way that tribunals as a weapon can hurt anyone. If the other side learns to use them with more skill and employs younger and more aggressive lawyers, they could ultimately win the war and finish off the Rodwells in a few years. Hergé's rights, or what's left of them, could well be for sale very soon.