photograph published on the cover of Liaison, the main arts journal in Ontario. He was invited
to tour Manitoba schools and at that time gave radio and television interviews. He is often asked
to give lectures in schools... [The plaintiff] also acknowledged that he had not been ridiculed or
mocked by his colleagues or the newspapers and that he had not personally heard any complaints
after the [defendant’s anthology] was published.In short, although the author has shown that his novel was substantially modified without his
knowledge and that he was shocked and distressed by this, the evidence has not shown that,
objectively ... his work was modified to the prejudice of his honour or reputation. Since this has
not been proven, the plaintiff is not entitled to moral damages.EXAMPLE 3:The plaintiff, a cartoonist, drew some large dinosaur cartoons in black and white
for the defendant museum to exhibit. The museum, without the plaintiff’s
authority, published a book on dinosaurs, including reproductions of the
plaintiff’s cartoons, a seventh the size of the originals and with a pink and yellow
background. The plaintiff’s authorship was acknowledged but the plaintiff sued
for both breach of his copyright and his moral right of integrity.^2 The defendants
admitted the breach of copyright, but disputed the moral rights breach. The
Court refused the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on that claim,
remitting the case for a full trial:Tidy v. Trustees of the Natural History Museum, (1995) 39 I.P.R. 501
(U.K.: High Court)MR JUSTICE RATTEE:I personally find it difficult to see how I could possibly reach the conclusion that the
reproduction complained of is prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the plaintiff, without
having the benefit of evidence relating to the effect of the reproduction of his reputation in the
minds of other people and the benefit of cross-examination of any witnesses giving evidence on
that point. ...[B]efore accepting the plaintiff ’s view that the reproduction in the book complained of is
prejudicial to his honour or reputation, I have to be satisfied that that view is one which is
reasonably held, which inevitably involves the application of an objective test of reasonableness.It seems to me that there is a possible defence ... that, in fact, the reputation of the plaintiff would
not be harmed one whit in the mind of any reasonable person looking at the reproduction of
which he complains.NOTE:It is not clear whether complete destruction of the work amounts to a
“distortion or mutilation.” In the United States, the point is dealt with specifically
in respect of visual art:The author of a work of visual art ... shall have the right to prevent any
destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or
grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.
(Visual Artists’ Rights Act 1990, 17 U.S.C. § 106A(a)(3)(B).)
78
II. RIGHTS
2 The relevant provision in the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988 (U.K.)] gives the author of a
copyright artistic works ... the right
not to have his work subjected to
“derogatory treatment”. Treatment is
derogatory “if it amounts to distortion
or mutilation of the work or is
otherwise prejudicial to the honour
or reputation of the author”.