The other moral rights is more limited by law

Unnoticed in the review of the draft law on copyright and neighbouring rights in the information society (DAVSI) passed on 30 June (1), the reform on the copyright of officials is a revolution for public communities.

The designs are ubiquitous in the exercise of administrative action likely to affect the whole of public officials. Thus, local journals, websites of communities, brochures, platelets, administrative information guides are the works of the likely spirit of protection. So far, the practice in this area was favourable to public authorities. Based on an opinion of the Council of State, Ofrateme of November 21, 1972, they benefited from title of the prerogatives attached to the creations of their agents due to the specificities of administrative action.

All public authorities will now have to take into account the rights of the creator, since official article l. 111 - 3 of the ICC amended by article 16 of the Act provides that it is not overridden "enjoyment of the same right (copyright) when the author of a work of the spirit is an agent of the State, a territorial community, a public institution", and therefore recognizes the ownership of the copyright to the public officer.

To reconcile the conflicting requirements of the law of copyright and the action administrative, surrounds guarantees the exercise of the moral rights of an employee and Act raises an exception to the benefit of the public body to the enjoyment of economic rights, on the use of the work.

On the moral rights of an employee, the community should state the name of the author on the work of the spirit in question, except where that duty infringes the functioning of the service. Condition rarely met in practice.

The other moral rights is more limited by law. Thus, the right of deciding officer or non-communication of the work and to choose the conditions and methods of such dissemination is necessarily limited by the requirements related to the functioning of the service. Similarly, the interest of the service premium on the right of modification of the work. As the right to repent of the employee, he is denied by the reform. This is the plan of the economic rights that the regulation appears to be most favourable to the public officer. The Act distinguishes two non-exclusive hypotheses of the other. First hypothesis, the work was carried out for the accomplishment of a mission of public service duties of public official and the instructions received. The operating right is transferred to the State. However, if the community receives a pecuniary benefit of the operation, an incentive for the official mechanism is planned. Second hypothesis, there is commercial exploitation of the work: the Act provides for a preferential right for the community of connecting. If the community does not wish to exploit the work, it is deemed he renounced his rights to marketing. The official may thus benefit from a full room for manoeuvre and operate by the private sector. In the contrary case, the community wishes to exploit the work and the public officer will be able to claim a fee for copyright. However, the Act makes a number of questions: the concept of public service mission shall be specified, because it determines the economic rights of the public official. In addition, issues of royalty for rights of authors and engagement will raise a number of difficulties, even if an application order is planned. Finally, the Act does not understand the assumptions of creation.

More importantly, it is essential that communities integrate from now "copyright" issues in their internal "process". Poorly understood, it may be a source of litigation, or of disruption of services. Well mastered, it can be a reward for the deserving official strategy, or even a source of enrichment for the community.