Practice question
An author gives written permission to a film adaptation. No contrary stipulation exists. The adapter makes necessary edits meeting reasonable customary requirements of the medium. The author argues every change automatically violates moral rights. Which is best under section 197?
- Every edit is necessarily unlawful
- No moral right can ever exist in adaptations
- The statute recognizes the stated necessary, reasonable editing absent contrary stipulation; not every alteration automatically violates moral rights
- Written permission abolishes every legal limit
- The adapter may falsely attribute any unrelated work
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1997/ra_8293_1997.html — RA 8293, sections 177 and 193–197
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2013/ra_10372_2013.html — RA 10372, section 17 amending section 198
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.