Vol 7 No 1 - Roger Williams University School of Law

authorship of an altered work and a duty not to falsely attribute theauthorship of a reproduction of an artistic work. The CopyrightAmendment (Moral Rights) Act, 2000, which entered into force onDecember 21, 2000, introduces the moral rights of integrity andattribution of authorship and strengthens the earlier prohibitionon false attribution of authorship. Under the new Australian law,moral rights are not infringed by acts to which the creator hasconsented, providing the consent is in writing and meets certainother conditions.Interestingly, Canada introduced moral rights in theCopyright Act of 1931; however, scope for waiver has meant that aculture of moral rights has not been prominent in Canadiancopyright law.27 The United States has legislated for some verylimited applications of moral rights,28 however many Americanacademics are wary of the potential of moral rights to lock upinformation and inhibit free speech, especially in the context ofthe Internet.29Culturally Enriching RightsIn a world where digitized information (and itscontrol/ownership) is of continuing and increasing significance tothe economy, society and culture, we have seen renewed relevancefor and interest in Fisher’s fourth category of IP theory: socialplanning or cultural enhancement theory. Every significant claimover digital value at issue at the moment can be described as oneinvolving a battle between utilitarian or Lockean/natural rightsclaims to ownership versus the creation of intellectual propertyrights for reasons of cultural enhancement. In the digitalenvironment of an information society, where “information islifeblood,” the cultural aspects of intellectual property are broughtinto focus. The decentering of the author as creator is part of thisphenomenon, but more so the realisation that an expressive workis a collection of culturally imbued facts. As we shall see below, in27. See Vaver, supra note 19, at 87-96.28. See generally Visual Artists Rights Act, 17 U.S.C. § 106A (1994 & Supp. IV1998) (granting rights of attribution and integrity to certain authors of visual art);Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 71 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1995) (summarizing the scope ofmoral rights in the law of the United States).29. See generally William W. Fisher III, Property and Contract on the Internet, 73Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 1203 (1998) (suggesting moral rights should have more limitedapplication in the eclectic transnational and digitized world of the Internet).