Moral rights of the author and alteration of utilitarian articles

Insights|March 7, 2025

In copyright cases, economic rights often take precedence, but moral rights, particularly the right to integrity, remain significant. This text examines the limited waiver of moral rights and the legal framework for altering utilitarian articles, highlighting key interpretations and Copyright Council opinions.

The roles of the author and the company in an infringement case

In copyright infringement cases involving commercial art, the emphasis is often on the economic rights of the copyright holder. The company to which the author has transferred or exclusively licensed these economic rights usually invokes copyright claims and defends against infringements. While the author may contribute, the company primarily enforces the copyrights and bears the costs. Consequently, in cases of infringement, companies prioritize economic rights over moral rights.

Limited waiver of moral rights

According to Section 3(2) of the Copyright Act, a work may not be altered in a manner that is prejudicial to the author’s literary or artistic reputation or individuality, and it may not be made available to the public in such a form or context as to prejudice the author in the manner stated (so-called “respect right”).

The moral rights conferred to the author may be waived by the author with binding effect only regarding use limited in character and extent (Section 3(3) of the Copyright Act). A limited waiver of moral rights could, for example, allow the use of a composition in a product advertisement without crediting the author.

Altering of buildings and utilitarian articles

According to Section 11(1) of the Copyright Act, the provisions of Chapter 2 of the Copyright Act concerning limitations on copyright do not limit the moral rights of the author to a greater extent than is provided for in Section 25e. Section 25e of the Copyright Act is an interesting provision. According to this provision, buildings and utilitarian articles may be altered by the owner without the consent of the author if required by technical or practical reasons. The provision applies only to the physical copy of the work owned, not the copyright itself.

In legislative materials, it was argued that this provision limits the author’s moral right under Section 3(2) and should thus be interpreted narrowly. The reason for the alteration must be objectively necessary, even if not absolutely essential, to enable the building or utilitarian article to fulfill its utilitarian function. If necessary, an alteration can be made without the author’s consent and even if it affects the work’s artistic value and originality, which the author may find prejudicial.

Opinion TN 2003:8 – Copyright issues related to textile works

There is limited case law concerning the application of Section 25e of the Copyright Act to utilitarian articles. However, the Copyright Council has issued several opinions on buildings, including TN 1995:18, TN 1996:4, TN 1996:10, TN 1999:3, TN 2002:5, TN 2006:20, and TN 2018:7. The only opinion of the Copyright Council specifically addressing utilitarian articles appears to be TN 2003:8, which pertains to copyright issues relating to textile works and is summarized below.

The applicant who requested an opinion from the Copyright Council had participated in a design competition with a set of works made of linen fabric, in which the pattern designed by the applicant was applied to a tablecloth, a napkin, a table runner, and a tablet. The applicant won the competition. The pattern on the fabric designed by the applicant was a very simple flower with an outline of the central part of the flower and parts of the petals. The design was so large that one flower could not fit in its entirety on, for example, one tablet. The colors of the design were red and white. The applicant had subsequently entered into a contract with the company “J Oy” to use the design in a range of table-setting textiles. The Copyright Council determined that the applicant’s fabric design was sufficiently original and independent to qualify for copyright protection as an artistic work.

In the spring of 2002, the applicant received two linen sheets sold by J Oy under the name “hand and kitchen towels” as a gift. The design of the hand and kitchen towels was changed without notifying or obtaining permission from the applicant. The floral pattern was cut differently than the applicant’s original design, altering it to resemble a linear pattern rather than a flower.

J Oy produced hand and kitchen towels from fabric designed by the applicant. The floral pattern was cut differently than intended, using “scraps” and “test pieces.” The towels’ fabric also differed in coloring due to J Oy’s dyeing and density experiments. These limited-quantity products were sold in J Oy’s factory shop.

The Copyright Council ruled that J Oy’s production of hand and kitchen towels falls under Section 25e of the Copyright Act. The Council found that the manufacturing was for technical or functional reasons, making it permissible without the applicant’s authorization and not infringing on copyright.

The Copyright Council stated that its opinion was based on J Oy’s production of only a few textiles, such as hand and kitchen towels. They clarified that under Section 25e of the Copyright Act, making large quantities from copyrighted work without permission is not allowed.

Final words

The Copyright Council’s opinions regarding modifications to buildings have emphasized the importance of evaluating each situation individually. In Opinion TN 1995:18, the Council indicated that it could not determine the technical or practical reasons justifying the owner or lessee’s desire to alter the interior. The permissibility and extent of such modifications must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. This was also highlighted in the opinion of TN 2002:5, which indicated that no general rules could be established regarding the permissibility of alterations to a building. Rather, decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis.

In light of the case law regarding building modifications, it is reasonable to apply the same considerations to the alteration of utilitarian articles. The owner may alter a utilitarian article without the author’s consent only if technical or practical reasons necessitate it, and this provision must be interpreted narrowly. In addition, modifications for aesthetic reasons are not justified.

Authors’ attitudes toward altering utility articles vary. Authors of luxury products may closely monitor alterations, especially for large-scale commercial sales, which are more likely to prompt enforcement actions. Rights holders typically focus on significant commercial activities rather than small-scale sales with minimal economic impact. The display context also matters; if marketing degrades the author’s value, actions are more likely. As upcycling expands, disputes over utilitarian articles may rise, creating new legal precedents beneficial to everyone.

For further reading, please find the whole article in Finnish here.