Property Law Assignment: Moral Rights and Copyright in MGMT1601

This assignment solution addresses key concepts in property law, specifically focusing on moral rights and copyright. It examines the rights of creators, including the right to attribution, and how these rights function even after copyright transfer. The assignment explores a case study involving an artist named Abigail, who sells her copyright but retains moral rights. It analyzes Abigail's rights to use her pseudonym, her ability to prevent the new copyright owner from using her work in support of opposing views, and what constitutes infringement of moral rights. The solution concludes with a discussion of the probable outcome if Abigail were to pursue her rights against the new copyright owner, considering the conflict between her environmental views and the use of her work. References are provided to support the analysis.

Running head: MGMT1601 PROPERTY LAW ASSIGNMENT
MGMT1601 Property Law Assignment
Name:
Academic Institution:
Date:

MGMT1601 PROPERTY LAW ASSIGNMENT 2
1. Moral rights and Copyright
Moral rights are economic rights of the author or the creator and are attributed to the work
done. The creator of the copyrighted work also holds moral rights. The main purpose for moral
rights is to safeguard the individual connection between creators of the work, even at the time
when the ownership or copyright of the work has been forfeited. Moral rights cannot be sold or
bought and cannot be transferred (Mathiesen, 2014). These are personal rights under the custody
of the creator and cannot be affected when the copyright is sold or transferred to another person;
this indicates that moral rights do not exist in copyright. In Abigail’s case, after selling her
copyright to Tom, she still has the moral rights in the print as explained.
1. Abigail’s rights to use her pseudonym on the prints?
Once selling the copyrights, she has no right to use any content of the print unless she seeks
permission from Tom. As explained earlier, she only has the right to attribution which is
included in the moral right. As the author, she has all the rights to demand right of attribution
where she is identified as the creator but not the owner. The pseudonym is part of the content
sold and cannot be used in any work again unless she asks permission from the current copyright
owner.
2. Do Abigail’s rights prevent Tom from using her prints in support of opposing a toxin-free
environment? Explain
As explained in the second paragraph, once the copyright is lost, the previous owner of the
prints has no right to prevent the new owner in using the content that was already sold. The
current owner, for instance, is at liberty to use the material without being prevented by Abigail
provided that he is within the law and guiding principles. Abigail might be having different

MGMT1601 PROPERTY LAW ASSIGNMENT 3
views in regards toxin-free environment; however, she no longer has rights to prevent the use of
her prints since the copyright was already transferred. On the other hand, she has all the right to
prevent him if that will hurt her reputation as an author.
3. What constitutes an infringement of moral rights?
Moral rights infringement happens when an author has not been appropriately credited in a
situation his or her work has been used. Similarly, it also happened if the work of the author,
artist or creator is treated in a manner that hurts reputation (Fulda, 2012). That action is known as
derogatory treatment and the author has the right to defend him/herself against moral rights
infringements.
4. What would the probable outcome be in this case if Abigail were to pursue her rights
against Tom?
First and foremost, Abigail is an environmentalist while Tom on the hand opposes Abigail’s
opinion on the environment. In this case, Abigail would win the case since her moral rights have
been infringed. Tom changed the paint on the prints and instead applied chemical paint to
advertise their family business ("Case Study What’s in a Name?", 2018). In this case, Abigail
would sue him for interfering with her rights which is against toxins in the environment as
opposed to she stands for, thus making it an infringement (CRAIG, 2017).

MGMT1601 PROPERTY LAW ASSIGNMENT 4
References
CRAIG, C. J. (2017). Globalizing User Rights-Talk: On Copyright Limits and Rhetorical Risks.
American University International Law Review, 33(1), 1–73.
Fulda, J. S. (2012). Authors’ Moral Rights--And How Editors and Publishers Routinely Abridge
Them. Journal of Information Ethics, 21(2), 7–9.
Mathiesen, K. (2014). Human Rights for the Digital Age. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 29(1),
2–18.
Case Study What’s in a Name?. (2018). Presentation.