Авторлық құқықтар: Автордың абыройы мен туындының сақталуы

Copyrights related to attribution, anonymity, and integrity of the work
inalienable rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity

Moral rights are rights of creators of copyrighted works generally recognized in civil law jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, in some common law jurisdictions. The preserving of the integrity of the work allows the author to object to alteration, distortion, or mutilation of the work that is "prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation". Anything else that may detract from the artist's relationship with the work even after it leaves the artist's possession or ownership may bring these moral rights into play. Moral rights are distinct from any economic rights tied to copyrights. Even if an artist has assigned his or her copyright rights to a work to a third party, he or she still maintains the moral rights to the work. Moral rights were first recognized in France and Germany, before they were included in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in 1928. Canada recognizes moral rights (droits moraux) in its Copyright Act (Loi sur le droit d'auteur). The United States became a signatory to the convention in 1989, and incorporated a version of moral rights under its copyright law, codifed in Title 17 of the U. S. Code. The Berne convention is not a self executing treaty, and the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 excludes the US from the moral rights section. Some jurisdictions allow for the waiver of moral rights. "For the purposes of VARA, visual art includes paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs, existing in a single copy or a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered copies or fewer". In the United States, moral rights are not transferable, and end only with the life of the author. Authors may, however, waive their moral rights if this is done in writing.

Through the Rome Revision of the Berne Convention in 1928, the Berne Convention accepted two forms of moral rights; paternity and integrity. These rights are included in Article 6bis of the Berne Convention as follows:
Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation.

In most of Europe, it is not possible for authors to assign or even broadly waive away their moral rights. This follows a tradition in European copyright itself, which is regarded as an item of property which cannot be sold, but only licensed. The author can agree to waive them to a limited extent (and such terms are very common in contracts in Europe). There may also be a requirement for the author to 'assert' these moral rights before they can be enforced. In many books, for example, this is done on a page near the beginning, in and amongst the British Library/Library of Congress data.

Section 14.1 of Canada's Copyright Act protects the moral rights of authors. The moral rights cannot be assigned, but can be waived contractually. Many publishing contracts in Canada now contain a standard moral right waiver. Moral rights in Canada were famously exercised in the case of Snow v. The Eaton Centre Ltd. In this case Toronto Eaton Centre, a large shopping mall, had commissioned the artist Michael Snow for a sculpture of Canada Geese. Snow successfully stopped Eaton's from decorating the geese with bows at Christmas.

Article 20 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (1990) provides unlimited term of protection of the rights of authorship, alteration, and integrity of an author. As Article 55 of the same Law provides retroactive protection of unexpired term on the date of entry into force of this Law, the Chinese perpetual moral rights are retroactive as well. The 2001 version retains this provision and the original Article 55 becomes Article 59.

Art. 18, Copyright Act, 2005 provides perpetual moral rights. The moral rights in Art. 6 are for proper attribution and against any distortion, mutilation or other modification of the work where that act would be or is prejudicial to the reputation of the author or where the work is discredited by the act.

Moral Rights is specified under Copyright Ordinance (Chapter 528) Division IV, starting from section 89. Author of computer program does not have Moral Rights (section 91). Moral Rights cannot be transferred unless on the death of moral rights holder (section 105 and 106).

Article 41 of the Decree Law n. o 43/99/M Some elements of moral rights do exist in the United States, but are usually protected through specific contract provisions between parties, or else through individual states' laws or the derivative work rights in U. S. copyright law. In Gilliam v. American Broadcasting, the Monty Python comedy troupe made a claim of "mutilation" (akin to a moral rights claim) in 1975 in legal proceedings against American TV network ABC for airing re edited versions of Monty Python's Flying Circus. However, the case was primarily decided on the basis of whether the BBC was licensed in such a way as to allow ABC to edit the videos (paragraph 20).

Copyright holders have the right to control adaptations, or the preparation of "derivative works". This right is given under copyright law. See 17 U. S. C. § 106.

Section 43 of the Lanham Act governs false and misleading advertising, and can apply in some instances to attribution of protected works. However, it cannot be used to create moral rights for works outside of the Act. See Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox. By the start of the twentieth century, U. S. decisions on unfair competition found that representing as the author's work a version of the work that substantially departed from the original was a cause of action. Section §43(a) of the Lanham Act, which protects brands and trademarks, also provides similar protection to laws based on moral rights. For any goods or services, it bans false designation of origin or a false description or representation. In Gilliam v. American Broadcasting the British comedy group called Monty Python took action against the ABC network for broadcasting versions of their programs which had been correctly attributed to them but had been extensively edited, in part to remove content that their audience might consider offensive or obscene. The judgement of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was in favor of Monty Python, finding the cuts might be an "actionable mutilation" that violated the Lanham Act.

Authors occasionally wish to distance themselves from work they've been involved with, some to the point of not wishing to be recognized as the work's author. One way they may do this is by signing the work under a pseudonym. Alan Smithee was a traditional, collective pseudonym used between 1968 and 1999 by discontented Hollywood film directors who no longer wanted to be credited. This courtesy was not always extended, however. The director of Highlander II, Russell Mulcahy, wanted his name removed after the completion bond company took over film production, but he was contractually obliged not to impugn the film and he was told that using a pseudonym would impugn it. If the work was unfinished, sometimes the original author will choose a pseudonym as permission for the copyright holder to do whatever they wish to finish and market the unwanted work, cutting ties from the product.