77
II. RIGHTS
The geese were be-ribboned by the defendants without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff, an artist of international reputation, takes the position that the work as presently
displayed is prejudicial to his honour and reputation. ...
In my view, the use of the word “independently” in s. 12(7) merely indicates the rights conferred
by that section are in addition to the author’s right of copyright. ... [I]n my view, the section gives
rights greater than those based on libel or slander. ...
I believe the words “prejudicial to his honour or reputation” in s. 12(7) involve a certain
subjective element or judgment on the part of the author, so long as it is reasonably arrived at.
The plaintiff is adamant in his belief that his naturalistic composition has been made to look
ridiculous by the addition of ribbons and suggests it is not unlike dangling earrings from the
Venus de Milo. While the matter is not undisputed, the plaintiff ’s opinion is shared by a number
of other well-respected artists and people knowledgeable in his field. ...
I am satisfied the ribbons do distort or modify the plaintiff ’s work and the plaintiff ’s concern
[that] this will be prejudicial to his honour or reputation is reasonable under the circumstances.
EXAMPLE 2:
The plaintiff author complained that the defendant publisher had included in a
school anthology, without his authority, an abridged version of the plaintiff’s well-
known novel. The abridgment was incompetently done: subplots were omitted
and the order of the story was changed. Apart from claiming an injunction and
damages for copyright infringement, the plaintiff also claimed for breach of his
moral rights.
Prise de Parole Inc. v. Guérin, Editeur Ltée, (1995) 66 C.P.R.(3d) 257
(Canada: Federal Court, Trial Division), affirmed (1996) 73 C.P.R.(3d) 557
(Canada: Federal Court of Appeal)
JUSTICE DENAULT in the first instance Court:
[I]t must be proved that the work was distorted, mutilated or otherwise modified “d’une manière
préjudiciable à l’honneur ou à la réputation de l’auteur.” In my view, this nuance justifies the use
of a subjective criterion – the author’s opinion – in assessing whether an infringement is
prejudicial. ... [T]his concept has a highly subjective aspect that in practice only the author can
prove. ...
However, in my view, the assessment of whether a distortion, mutilation or other modification is
prejudicial to an author’s honour or reputation also requires an objective evaluation of the
prejudice based on public or expert opinion. In Snow v. Eaton Centre[above], the applicant ...
clearly demonstrated that his work was distorted, mutilated or otherwise modified.
It must still be determined whether the work was distorted to the prejudice of the author’s honour
and reputation. [The plaintiff] expressed his great disappointment at seeing his work so distorted
that he would have preferred his name not to be associated with the defendant’s collection. He
also stated that he is well known in his circle, has a good reputation as an author and has already
written four novels. He received a grant from the Ontario Arts Council, was invited by the
Province of Ontario to the Salon international du livre in Le Mans, France in 1989 and had his
