Honor and Destruction: The Conflicted Object in Moral Rights Law
Vol: 87, Issue: 1
2014
- 515Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage515
- Downloads430
- Abstract Views85
Article Description
(Excerpt)Part I offers an overview of traditional moral rights theory, particularly the right of integrity, and outlines relevant strains of law and culture that preceded the enactment of VARA. Part II discusses how VARA functions as a statute that mediates artists’ rights through the physical object, and how the deliberate synthesis of preservation theory with orthodox moral rights philosophy hamstrings both ends. Part III identifies cultural assumptions embedded in three prominent attributes of the art object conceptualized as protected under VARA—material, cultural, and transcendent—and discusses their conflicting impulses in the law. Finally, Part IV concludes that the “object model,” infused with deterministic theories of modernism and cultural evolution, must be dismantled for moral rights to assume a viable and meaningful role in copyright law. Through this discussion, this Article offers a discursive platform for redirecting the predicate theory of the moral rights doctrine toward a contemporary construct of authorial dignity.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know